Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33562

Re: JavaScript code security

From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups comp.lang.javascript
Subject Re: JavaScript code security
Date 2017-06-23 10:53 +0200
Organization PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID <11797668.dW097sEU6C@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <87poezuiyc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ac0124ee-ead4-4bc9-91a8-c0d8cb16d673@googlegroups.com> <XnsA77F5D895B25Aeejj99@194.109.6.166> <5d5b9191-f328-48c2-906b-2cc714dbb2d9@googlegroups.com> <q9roic5gnv0duoub6t91an6cjrccktns7g@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Wally W.  wrote:
^^^^^^^^
Your real name belongs there.

> On Wed, 24 May 2017 05:56:37 -0700 (PDT), justaguy wrote:
>>On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 3:11:53 AM UTC-4, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> I can imagine some clever ways clientside code can provide a low level
>>> of such security, but only with the help of serverside code, like
>>> one-time values of hidden <input>s.
>>
>>All right.  I'm going with the best practice of server side data
>>validation now.  Thanks.

JFTR: These approaches are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, the best 
server-side validation framework will also generate adequate client-side 
validation code.
 
> […]
> That is where scripting belongs -- not in my browser, especially for
> navigation.

You are mistaken; at best, you are out of touch.
 
> Does it cost more server machine cycles to:
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 1) Run a server-side script, or
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2) Spew all the javascript (including multiple browser detection
> tests, only one of which is applicable per visitor) to each client
> machine?

1).  That was easy :)

Besides, there is no “javascript”.

And although “multiple browser detection tests”, and “browser detection 
tests” in general, do not have to be served by the same server, they are not 
only unnecessary; they are, with few exceptions, *unwise*.

We have discussed this here /ad nauseam/.  You should learn about a topic 
before you comment on it.
 
> How much internet bandwidth is wasted through the inefficient sending
> of scripts to client machines?

Difficult to say.  However, scripts do not *have* to be sent *inefficiently* 
to client machines, and there is also “internet bandwidth […]” and “server 
machine cycles” “wasted” by unnecessary roundtrips to servers.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:02 -0700
  Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:11 -0700
    Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:56 -0700
      Re: JavaScript code security Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-24 02:44 +0100
        Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:06 -0700
          Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 09:11 +0200
            Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 05:56 -0700
              Re: JavaScript code security Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-05-29 14:57 -0400
                Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-30 09:41 +0200
                Re: JavaScript code security Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 10:53 +0200
                Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-06-23 13:38 +0200
            Re: JavaScript code security Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-24 14:28 +0100
              Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 18:07 +0200
        Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 06:01 -0700
          Re: JavaScript code security John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-24 14:19 +0100
            Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 10:01 -0700
              Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 19:18 +0200
                Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:39 -0700
                Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-24 23:07 +0200
                Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 14:26 -0700
                Re: JavaScript code security "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-05-25 16:26 +0200
  Re: JavaScript code security Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-24 01:12 +0200
    Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:15 -0700
      Re: JavaScript code security Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 04:14 +0200
        Re: JavaScript code security justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:47 -0700
  Re: JavaScript code security Myers <xdaamanx@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 07:54 -0700
  Re: JavaScript code security Myers <xdaamanx@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 07:55 -0700

csiph-web