I'm sorry, but this is a pretty ridiculous argument:
Company A releases a largely redundant service that does little more
than expose its users to a potential attack vector. In return, Company
A releases a second service to try improve the security of its first.
Why bother with either? My email
On Wednesday 04 June 2008 22:55, Andy Powell wrote:
tinyurl is useful instead of typing in twattishly long urls which many
sites insist on using. Generally you don;t want to click on a link provided
by someone you don't know/trust. Not only that but if I use this url as an
example - look what
On 4 Jun 2008, at 18:12, Joseph Reeves wrote:
...
TinyURL on the other hand... Why would anyone ever use that? I never
click on links unless I know where they link to. Here's a plan for
abuse:
1: Discover browser 0-day exploit
2: Put up a gallery of FreeRunner pictures on a website
3:
Am Do 5. Juni 2008 schrieb AVee:
On Wednesday 04 June 2008 22:55, Andy Powell wrote:
tinyurl is useful instead of typing in twattishly long urls which many
sites insist on using. Generally you don;t want to click on a link
provided
by someone you don't know/trust. Not only that but if I
Am Do 5. Juni 2008 schrieb Stroller:
On 4 Jun 2008, at 18:12, Joseph Reeves wrote:
...
TinyURL on the other hand... Why would anyone ever use that? I never
click on links unless I know where they link to. Here's a plan for
abuse:
1: Discover browser 0-day exploit
2: Put up a
DecentURL (http://decenturl.com) was created to circumvent problems like
these. It was created by a Reddit user to do something like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r8JexiISPNk which becomes
http://youtube.decenturl.com/stop-motion
No more goatse?
-Nick
Stroller wrote:
On 4 Jun 2008, at
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Joerg Reisenweber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Am Do 5. Juni 2008 schrieb AVee:
On Wednesday 04 June 2008 22:55, Andy Powell wrote:
tinyurl is useful instead of typing in twattishly long urls which many
sites insist on using. Generally you don;t want to
7 matches
Mail list logo
