Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#1

Post by digitalclubb » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 10:04 AM UTC

Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com
thinkbroadband.com

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#2

Post by Robin_Message » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:01 AM UTC

That is really not very reassuring in terms of the level of technical understanding/oversight in managing their block list.

Mind you, I'm not surprised that someone updating the list is on a Sunday night is not qualified.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#3

Post by belorn » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:23 AM UTC

ISP interference makes for a interesting question regarding liability. Their interference are now potentially causing massive amount of economic damages to companies which relies on jquery library. Webshops, economic infrastructure, hospitals, transportation systems are just a few that relies on having fully functional websites up and running.

But for liability, a few questions pops up. Who is the offended party, and how much negligence is required for software bugs. Does it need to be a civil suit with each customer, or can the website owners sue? If a truck crash right outside a store and disrupt business, the store owner can sue even if they have no formal relation with the truck company.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#4

Post by markdown » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:28 AM UTC

Sucks for the people affected by this, but if the result is that more people use google for this, I'd be a happy bunny.

Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? They obviously don't mind a third party hosting their js, so why not use the most popular service (google) to increase the chances that users arrive at their website with jquery already cached?

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#5

Post by octo_t » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:31 AM UTC

markdown wrote: post #4

Sucks for the people affected by this, but if the result is that more people use google for this, I'd be a happy bunny. Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? They obviously don't mind a third party hosting their js, so why not use the most popular service (google) to increase the chances that users arrive at their website with jquery already cached?

What makes you think that Google wouldn't be blocked by the same mechanism?

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#6

Post by taspeotis » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:41 AM UTC

Reminds me of some article I read about having some fallback mechanism for when whatever CDN is serving up your JS fails. "Who controls downtime? You do."

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#7

Post by nly » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:41 AM UTC

markdown wrote: post #4

Sucks for the people affected by this, but if the result is that more people use google for this, I'd be a happy bunny. Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? They obviously don't mind a third party hosting their js, so why not use the most popular service (google) to increase the chances that users arrive at their website with jquery already cached?

> Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really?

Because webmasters would rather compromise the security and integrity of their site, and the privacy of their users, than pay for the initial burst of bandwidth and latency for first time visitors. jQuery 2.1.0 production, minified and gzipped is still over 30KiB, compared to this thinkbroadband page which is only 6 KiB (and yes this page uses about half a dozen external js resources, including jQuery)

Perhaps it's about time we had a way to specify the hash of source inline so browsers can serve files from cache even if they are from different origins

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#8

Post by taspeotis » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:46 AM UTC

octo_t wrote: post #5

markdown wrote: post #4

Sucks for the people affected by this, but if the result is that more people use google for this, I'd be a happy bunny. Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? They obviously don't mind a third party hosting their js, so why not use the most popular service (google) to increase the chances that users arrive at their website with jquery already cached?

What makes you think that Google wouldn't be blocked by the same mechanism?

Well let's assume that each URL or domain that is blocked is reviewed by a human who's paid to look at content, not necessarily to have technical knowledge.

They'd be much more likely to know that blocking anything from Google is probably a bad idea/false positive but they've probably never heard of jQuery and when they look at the jquery*.js files all they see is The Matrix.

So if you allow the above assumption, it's less likely that using Google's CDN would present this problem.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#9

Post by rmrfrmrf » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:51 AM UTC

    
    window.jQuery || document.write('')

Source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1014203/best-way-to-use-g...

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#10

Post by DanBC » Mon, Jan 27, 2014, 11:52 AM UTC

Robin_Message wrote: post #2

That is really not very reassuring in terms of the level of technical understanding/oversight in managing their block list. Mind you, I'm not surprised that someone updating the list is on a Sunday night is not qualified.

I'd be interested to see if the initial blocking was part of an automatic system - block everything in this malicious page - and was fixed when the competent people got in to work to see all the complaints and reports?

That can't be true because it would make reputation attacks really easy.