for various reasons I don't want to be tracked by facebook's iframes so I edited my hosts file, now whenever I run into a site that's embedding facebook's iframes I get this nasty and intruding layer.
I'm on Chrome is there a way to run a custom JS on each page load or some other mean to fix this annoyance?
have a look at grease monkey:
It has limited support for chrome, but it might be enough for what you want
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/
Ok, I found a decent way to deal with this, instead of pointing to 0.0.0.0 I'm overriding to an internal IP where a web-server is running, instead of a connection error I receive a 404
which is fine :)
Related
I want to develop a google chrome extension which replaces url to another if page is not available.I mean it responses
*The server DNS address of the example.com host machine could not be found.
*ERR_CONNECTON_RES
or same as these stuations.
I have searched how extensions work and found these extentions run after DOM is completed.But i believe that there is no impossible thing.
Is there a any code i can add to run the extension before DOM is completed to content.js.
You won't be able to work with just content scripts; those cannot be used on Chrome error pages.
So, you'll need a background page and some API event to listen to for the specific case of network errors.
webNavigation API seems to be a good fit, e.g. webNavigation.onErrorOccurred.
Apologies if this is a roundabout way of asking this question, but I am a little confused about how the web and javascript work.
What I want to do: execute javascript on all pages of a list of urls I have found. (Specifically use jquery to pull info from them)
Problem I can't execute Javascript on these pages because they aren't mine and don't have the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header. So I can't load them (with AJAX) in order to use JQuery on them.
BUT Google Chrome can both load pages and execute javascript on them (with their developer's console). So if I wanted too, I could go to each page, open the developers console, and pull the information from there. If there's nothing stopping Chrome from accessing these, then why am I stopped? And, is there a way around this?
Thank you, and I hope my description makes sense. I've been researching this for a while but have found nothing that explains how seemingly inconsistent CORS is.
I could go to each page, open the developers console, and pull the information from there. If there's nothing stopping Chrome from accessing these, then why am I stopped?
You're not stopped. You, the human at the keyboard, can do exactly as you say, by visiting each page as a top-level page.
What is stopped -- happily -- is any and all scripts on the Web you happen to run having the same level of visibility that you do. Based on your cookies and your network topology, you have a unique view into the Web. You can see your home router's control interface (on 192.168.1.1 or similar). You can see any local web server you're running on 127.0.0.1. No one else can see these. If the same-origin policy were not in place, then any script that you loaded on the Web could inspect these.
And, is there a way around this?
If you have some scripts that you trust absolutely (hopefully a significant subset of "all scripts that exist on the Web") that you want to be able to bypass the same-origin policy and see your full, cross-domain view of the Web, you could load them as an extension, which can act with elevated permissions beyond the abilities of normal web pages. (See How does Same Origin Policy apply to browser extensions?)
I'm going to assume that you are looking to grab data from these pages that aren't yours and store it somewhere. I have done this before with curl using php. If you are looking to display these sites for users to interact in a different way, but starting from a page that is yours, you may be able to render these pages by grabbing the source html using curl and rendering it as a sort of proxy.
I've used this tutorial for something similar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kQN-3aNCeI . Hopefully this gives you a start. I think you should be a little more detailed in your question though to get more help.
It looks like AJAX is indeed unable (at least for all practical purposes) to write foreign HTML to the current page. But what if your CDN website had, say, a JS that would simply document.write() everything? Then your HTML document would have nothing but a remote script.
<html>
<script src="https://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=0wm5v7i6">
</script>
</html>
I tried this. Funny thing is, sometimes it works and other times it does a kind of security error:
Why doesn't this work? What if, on your own website, you simply put everything on an easy host like Google Drive?
What if, on your own website, you simply put everything on an easy host like Google Drive?
That is possible, unless
You want control over your website and don't want to depend on the security and availibility of another site, or that somebody reports your pastebin as abuse and it gets deleted.
You want to make proper use of security features like content security policy and don't want to allow everything from pastebin.com.
You want search engines to find you. Although at least google does limited interpretation of JavaScript I doubt that they will handle this content the way you like.
From the looks of it, PasteBin doesn't supply content over SSL (https). You've put https in the URL to your script, but PasteBin just redirects this request to http, and the net effect is that you are trying to access a script over http when the page is accessed over https, and Chrome prevents that.
Just try going to https://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=0wm5v7i6: your browser will be redirected to http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=0wm5v7i6.
I found the some strange <script/> tags on a site:
<script src="chrome-extension://lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl/document_iterator.js"></script>
<script src="chrome-extension://lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl/find_proxy.js"></script>
...
I haven't been able to find much information on this, but I highly doubt this is actually related to Google Chrome since this site in particular is still using <table>s for layout, and the source in question was retrieved with curl not a graphical web browser.
So,
What on earth is this?
What is chrome-extension://
Why is it using lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl as a directory name
Why is it pretending to be valid URL to a javascript file?
Why would I need find_proxy or document_iterator
Solved. As far as I know...
chrixian was right, It seems that only on this and a few select other pages, someone had re-saved them from Chrome's source-view with the Skype extension installed.
Thanks everyone for all your help, +1's for all! enjoy!
That is actually Skype Click to Call chrome extension.
Manage and view it using this link
chrome://extensions/?id=lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl
If you are using cURL to get the page, you're getting the HTML as it exists on the server--so I think a safe assumption would be: the author of the page initially saved the page from Chrome, he had an extension installed that inserted these script tages and lastly he didn't remove the script tags for one reason or another before putting the page on the server.
This is added by chrome as the page loads, to inject the extension's Javascript code into the page, so it can access the HTML document.
The Skype extension causes it by inserting all kinds of junk in webpages that you visit.
Do you have the Skype browser extension installed for Chrome?
Just disable the extension.
Chrome, like Firefox, provides developers with an easy API to extend the functionality of the web browser without needing to actually download and build the browser to do so.
They also provide a robust delivery system. In Google's case, it's the Google Chrome Web Store.
Extensions are installed locally on your computer, and use long strings as directory names to reduce the risk of collisions with another extension. In other words, if you and I both named our extensions "mycoolextension", then there would be a problem if a person tried to install your extension and my extension. The long string helps prevent collisions such as this.
The chrome-extension:// protocol is used by the browser to make requests to these local resources. Chrome extensions are developed using HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS, along with an API exposed to allow the local JavaScript to perform actions it would not normally be able to do on the Internet.
When you see these in the Chrome developer tools, it's just the extension doing it's thing, whatever that may be.
If you're seeing these, then you likely installed some extensions from the Chrome Web Store. To view them, go to the Tools menu and select "Extensions". This will show you a list of all installed Chrome extensions and apps.
To learn more about extension development, see the Getting Started Tutorial.
Also, as someone else mentioned, you're using the Skype Call Extension. However, an app using that directory name doesn't appear in the first page of the search results. It might be worth doing some more research to make sure you got that extension from a legitimate source, whether that be Skype or the Chrome Web Store.
If you're seeing it in Chrome developer tools for every request you make, it means it has access to all your websites, which could be benign, like if they're just making phone numbers clickable, or it could be malicious, if it's scraping your bank account info and shipping it off to some third party server. :)
It's a Chrome extension, and chrome-extension:// is a URL for extensions to address their contents via Javascript.
lifbcibllhkdhoafpjfnlhfpfgnpldfl is the unique identifier for the extension. I can't find it with a search, but apparently it might be Skype.
It's not pretending... it is a valid URL. The Javascript file is located in the extension. If you were to look on your harddrive you'd probably find that very file in the extensions folder.
The functions its calling probably are some sort of detection used by the extension to see if it needs to enable itself.
See this for some additional information:
Checking if user has a certain extension installed
I apologize if this has been asked before. I searched but did not find anything. It is a well-known limitation of AJAX requests (such as jQuery $.get) that they have to be within the same domain for security reasons. And it is a well-known workaround for this problem to use iframes to pull down some arbitrary HTML from another website and then you can inspect the contents of this HTML using javascript which communicates between the iframe and the parent page.
However, this doesn't work on the iPhone. In some tests I have found that iframes in the Safari iPhone browser only show content if it is content from the same site. Otherwise, they show a blank content area.
Is there any way around this? Are there other alternatives to using iframes that would allow me to pull the HTML from a different domain's page into javascript on my page?
Edit:
One answer mentioned JSONP. This doesn't help me because from what I understand JSONP requires support on the server I'm requesting data from, which isn't the case.
That same answer mentioned creating a proxy script on my server and loading data through there. Unfortunately this also doesn't work in my case. The site I'm trying to request data from requires user login. And I don't want my server to have to know the user's credentials. I was hoping to use something client-side so that my app wouldn't have to know the user's credentials at the other site.
I'm prepared to accept that there is no way to accomplish what I want to do on the iPhone. I just wanted to confirm it.
You generally can NOT inspect the contents of an iframe from another domain via JavaScript. The most common answers are to use JSONP or have your original server host a proxy script to retrieve the inner contents for you.
Given your revisions, without modification or support from the secondary site, you are definitely not going to be able to do what you want via the iPhone's browser.
"In some tests I have found that iframes in the Safari iPhone browser only show content if it is content from the same site"
I found the same thing. Is this documented somewhere? Is there a workaround? This sounds like broken web standards to me, and I am wondering if there is a solution.