/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

Dangers of remote Javascript

As we move to a widget web, where the goodies on your site may not necessarily come from your site, it's worth sparing a thought for security.  We at O'Reilly just got bit on perl.com, which redirected to a porn site courtesy a piece of remotely-included Javascript.

O'Reilly Radar Nat Torkington

Context & Ripple Effects

O'Reilly's own network became the object lesson for the widget web its Radar desk chronicles: perl.com, a page that executes JavaScript fetched from remote hosts at render time, was silently handing visitors off to a porn site courtesy of one of those includes. The confirmed mechanics matter more than the embarrassment — any publisher that runs remotely included scripts inherits whatever the third-party host decides to serve, trusted code and malicious payloads alike.

First-order effects

  • O'Reilly had to hunt down and strip the compromised include from perl.com while its readership was being diverted, taking reputational damage from code its own servers never served.
  • Every operator embedding remotely hosted JavaScript learns the same lesson at once: a page's integrity is only as strong as the third-party host it trusts, a component it does not control.

Second-order effects

  • Widget and ad-network providers supplying these scripts come under pressure to demonstrate their delivery infrastructure is uncompromised, because one bad host now implicates every customer page simultaneously.
  • Publishers weighing widget functionality against page control may pull third-party includes or demand stronger guarantees from script vendors, shifting bargaining power in the widget-supplier relationship.

Third-order effects

  • If the widget web scales on remotely included code, the industry's effective trust perimeter moves from each site's own servers to a shared pool of script hosts, where a single compromise propagates across many unrelated domains.
  • Repeated incidents of this shape point toward demand for mechanisms that verify or constrain remote scripts before execution, rather than the current default of running whatever arrives.

The trend: As the web reorganizes around widgets and remotely included code, security responsibility migrates from the site owner to whichever third party serves the script.