Below my post about Chrome's sandbox I engaged in a discussion with AlienRancher regarding the function hooking (or 'interception' as Google calls it) really being a security mechanism. I must confess that I really thought it was, and I even liked the idea. But in fact it came out that function hooking is for compatibility purposes only. If a plugin has trouble running in a restricted environment due to problems with limited access to some keys/files, the hooking mechanism can transfer the calls to the browser, and they will be done with browser privileges (of course if a certain rule allows it).
It means that my hook taking off PoC was still OK, but not really needed for anything ;>
Sorry for misinterpreting the whole hooking mechanism then ;>
Sections
- lang:
| 
- RSS: |
- About me
- Tools
- → YT YouTube (EN)
- → D Discord
- → M Mastodon
- → T Twitter
- → GH GitHub
Links / Blogs
- → dragonsector.pl
- → vexillium.org
- Security/Hacking:
- Reverse Eng./Low-Level:
- Programming/Code:
Posts
- My howto script,
- Talk: PCI Express to Hell,
- Live: On Leaving Google and What's Next,
- Thoughts on overlarge fields in formats and protocols,
- On self-healing code and the obvious issue,
- LLM + Clean Room: Will LLMs be the death of code copyrights?,
- Solving a VM-based CTF challenge without solving it properly,
- Asking MEMORY.DMP and Volatility to make up,
- KnightCTF 2023 write-ups (RE category),
- Dev Log: Moving contacts from Android to MaxCom MM721,
- → see all posts on main page
Add a comment: