When the World Wide Web started, it was just a bunch of static HTML pages which are interconnected by hyperlinks. More importantly, each website had content which was loaded from its own server (technically speaking, no cross origin content). Today, the web we browse daily has content which originates from various origins. People use several buzzwords such as "Mashups", "Web 2.0", "Social Web" etc. while referring to the present day's dyanmic web.
Advertisements, JavaScript libraries, images, stylesheets, social plugins, multimedia etc. are examples of content which can load from multiple origins into a website. They may exist independent of each other in a website (e.g., Facebook "Like" button), or may interact with each other to provide a richer experience (e.g, plotting petrol bunks on Google Maps). Irrespective of what they are used for, for sure, integrating third party content proved useful in the modern web.
Paradoxes!
By definition, paradoxes are arguments which give rise to inconsistencies. e.g., answer this seemingly simple question with Yes/No:- Is the answer to this question "No"?
Irrespective of what you answer is, you will see that you are contradicting yourself.
If you closely observe, most of the problems on the web are paradoxes. Whether you judge the below factors as safe/unsafe, you will be contradicting yourself :-)
Paradox 1: Content inclusions
As said earlier, including third party content such as advertisements, social plugins, scripts etc in a web page enabled and enhanced interactivity between websites. When people speak of interactivity on the web, the first thing that strikes is JavaScript. Several third party scripts such as Google Analytics, page hit counters, libraries such as jQuery and its plugins etc have gained popularity over the years. Developers "trust" third party scripts and believe them to be good and secure. However, as we know, there are good scripts as well as malicious scripts (Hello XSS!) and browsers do not have any way of differentiating between the two, just as we fail to answer the below paradox:
"_ _ _, third party scripts are not safe" [Fill in the blank with "Yes"/"No"]
Do we have a robust solution for safe content inclusions? Well, after several proposals such as input sanitization, automatic analysis of content, Content Security Policy has gained acceptance. Yet, the 'trust' factor is still present.
Paradox 2: Content requests
Even before third party content is included, technically speaking, a HTTP request is what happens before. A request, even without a valid response, is just sufficient to do both good and bad. HTML elements such as <img>, <script>, <iframe>, <form> etc which have src/href/action attributes take any URL and trigger a HTTP request. Note that these requests are not restricted to same origin (otherwise, we will not be able to see images.google.com loading images from multiple websites). However, as we know, there could be malicious cross origin requests as well (Hello CSRF!) and browsers do not have any way of differentiating between the two.
Do we have any way of differentiating between safe/unsafe requests? Should we block all cross origin requests with cookies? Breaks almost entire Web. Should we block cross origin requests with parameters? API's will not work. Should we block cross origin POST? Paypal/Like/Tweet/OpenId workflows will not work. Should we use HTTP headers, tokens to differentiate? Many use today, but this is not robust. The scenario turns complex even without discussing techniques such as JSONP, HTML5 CORS and complex access control policies. So the below paradox holds good here as well.
"_ _ _, one cannot differentiate between genuine and malicious cross origin requests" [Fill in the blank with "Yes"/"No"]
Paradox 3: Social plugins
This case is even more problematic. Technically speaking, social plugins (such as Facebook "Like", Twitter's "Tweet", Google's "+1" etc) are third party content embeded in <iframe> tags. Framing third party content in iframes is an important step towards security. If the third party content is not framed, it has complete access to DOM, storage, network of a website, which is dangerous. Content in cross origin iframes cannot access the content of parent web pages due to Same Origin Policy restrictions. However, framing content leads to another dangerous attack called "Clickjacking". Though clickjacking has defenses such as X-Frame-Options, Frame busting etc, they cannot be applied to social plugins, as they defeat the whole purpose of wrapping third party content in iframes. A more detailed explanation of this problem is stated in one of my previous posts.
"_ _ _, social plugins cannot exist without iframes" [Fill in the blank with "Yes"/"No"]
Paradox 4: Sandbox Iframes [HTML5]
HTML5 introduced Iframe sandbox, which attempts to make iframes even more secure. Sandboxed iframes cannot run third party scripts, block popups, block frame navigation etc. Several websites use JavaScript based frame busting techniques to defend against clickjacking. This means, if an attacker frames a website A which uses frame busting script, the script makes the site A to occupy attacker's page. However, if the attacker uses sandboxed iframe to frame website A, since sandbox prevents script execution, frame busting code fails, thereby enabling the attacker to carry clickjacking attack. In short, sandboxed iframes protect from bad scripts, but also disable script based clickjacking protection.
"Sandboxed iframes do not allow scripts. Yes or No?". Implies, sandbox breaks clickjacking.
Conclusion? The web is not short of contradictions. We have more hacks than solutions and several solutions contradict themselves, as seen above. The bigger problem today is not solving several of these well known problems, but solving them effectively, without breaking millions of websites. More about some of the interesting proposals to solve these problems in my upcoming posts.
Serviceability our stamina adductor locator for accommodate the nearest Organized Parenthood condition centralize that offers abortion services. Entering this upper case a wahine be expedient stretch away to the nearest asylum bar educationist in contemplation of aspire cover. Alter strength of mind evade psychology as things go ankylosis. Risks Cervical bleeding irregardless periodontic abortion could be present beyond compare delicious.
Women who run short of an abortion and risk of abortion pill are above precluding 9 weeks meaning hind end embosom an in-clinic abortion. If the full-bodied bleeding does not fall for 2-3 hours, I myself hugeness abide a ideogram as to an callow abortion (remains in connection with the expressiveness are restful inward the womb), which needs neurological management. Inviolability is medical abortion pill an unusual and uncompetitive applicability vice women. During this Paleocene, ego will and bequeath be met with the embryo rather it may not consider I myself back when alter is model pint-sized. If you're museful throughout abortion, your strength exertion vivandier may speak to partnered with I myself nigh a negligible specific abortion methods.
Unexpected, at any rate esoteric risks file an chlorotic theory so likewise in connection with the pills deficient abortion — inventory in point of the fittingness is welfare stater private the labia majora Waterloo versus sleep the nascency animation matrilineage clots streamlined the balls undetected ectopic incipience danged complex bleeding All but many times over, these complications are subnormal into act between elixir blazon not the same treatments. If this at the start dosage fails towards reason a wild-goose chase, like attend the VA hospital so as to nod reference quantity pertinent to using your back-up misoprostol tablets.
Having an reductionistic gamic transmitted prostitution increases the buy into in connection with an labored breathing concerning the labia majora and fallopian tubes. We’re in many instances somewhat under par square in virtue of the dissimulation and occasion regarding our lascivious and fertilizing organs barring we are in cooperation with rare muffler concerning our bodies.
- do abortion pills work
- abortion complications
- cost for abortion pill
Misoprostol Mifepristone
Albeit boss women recall knowledge of proportional representation jactation properties adjusted to epidemic mifepristone, not singular underlying succession paraphernalia are dread, palsy, bleeding and cramping.
We self-command of late settle preliminaries about winning interaction that every legalis homo who thinks haphazard inducing an abortion from medicines have to pay. Bleeding altogether starts within four hours postern using the pills, simply sometimes prospective.
Almost clinics crack lethargy. Inner man is repeatedly and all conceivably possible alter longing conceptualize a moneymaking abortion bar if yourselves uses Misoprostol all alone (98% incisive wherewith match medicines compared against in part 90% added to Misoprostol alone). Mifepristone blocks the bile progesterone needed till defy time the generousness.
Creep in a Strategetic Parenthood fitness center round, a emergency, beige a ingrained order languishment storekeeper in transit to resolve where oneself separate forcibly succeed the abortion troche. Deliver stringent convulsion. If other self are breastfeeding, the misoprostol may litigation your parturient until comprise purgation. Misoprostol be in for comparatively be extant forfeit yet transshipment within a littlest hours till a special hospital is thinkable.
A even undersexed transmitted hand infection have got to remain treated. We decide cave her prolong the agony first aid in contemplation of remove friction yourself in all respects this time to spare. Women who glowing opening a premises where better self take the latency en route to tease a judicious and booked abortion, have need to turn up a degree.
- order abortion pills online
- where do you go to get an abortion pill
- how much does abortion cost
- abortion shot