> XML wasn't intended as a data exchange format but as simplified SGML subset for use as delivery format on the web
You cannot deliver web content without... exchanging data.
And you cannot trust servers not to attack browsers.
> And you cannot trust servers not to attack browsers.
Interesting. I normally see it expressed the other way (trusting the server and not the client). Obviously, both are important.
There was a time when every browser hack made headlines, now it has to involve something big like specter to get even noticed. Browsers and browser based applications still feature heavily at Pwn2Own style competitions, but YOLO lets add more pointless features with bug ridden APIs with every browser update.
This is true and I remember when they were big headlines. I guess since I'm not in browser development, I'm used to the idea of contacting a known good server from my code, but my known good server being accessible from anyone on the internet.
Both are important, it's just interesting to see it written only from the other point of view.
Re:Parsing JSON Is a Minefield (2016)
by tannhaeuser on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @12:47PM
(#28841909)
Not wanting to disturb your browser sec discussion, but tbh I don't know what that has to with my GP post. If anything, SGML/XML allows hard validation of document data like basically no other mainstream tech.
I guess trust needs to be a two-way street. Even between computers.
I'm guessing the security deficits you mention are XML entity attacks. Well, SGML has CAPACITY ENTLVL in the SGML declaration to limit expansion depth. And a markup authoring or delivery format without entities/text macros is quite useless, even though HTML, when seen as a stand-alone markup language rather than SGML vocabulary, lacks it.