> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
>
> Again,
>
> I will get on my soapbox and state that any producer of Site Blocking
> software should account for all types of URL literals etc, that WWW
> producers of bad sites may possibly use to get around the currently
> available software.
>
> What does this mean??
oops! my messages are unrelated!
this one is an answer for "how to get the 'real' url when you
get those frustrating %yz things?"
so it has nothing to do with the subject, but as the question was in the
thread,
I felt there's no reason to create a new one just for that.
Any way, the encoding is part of the standard and has to be supported.
so yes, filters can handle it (It think they already do), but the main
problem is that
humans do not hndle it easily! so on sites where there is no filtering or
where the filtering is "permissive", the URLs are given to the user with a
"look here for interesting stuff",
and you can't say it's porn until you go there.
regards,
mouss
>
>
>
> "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 03/15/00 05:14 PM
>
>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: Speaking of blocking porn...
>
>
> URLs and other web stuff may be encoded using '%' signs. so "%2e" is '.',
> "%77" is 'w', thus "%77%77%77" is "www". you can even mix things, so
> "%77w%77" is also "www".
> to decode the stuff, you can use perl functions generally found in
> CGI-scripting module/libs.
> search for URLdecode or something like that, then to decode a "cryptic"
> url,
> replace '@' by '\@'
> (cos' perl no more accepts unescaped '@' in strings) and print the result
> of
> URLdecode($string).
>
> you can certainly do that in other languages, but perl is just that
> handy...
> (what? no perl on the firewall? you're kidding? why not a
> firewall without
> a
> kernel. that would be
> really secure, no? ;-}).
>
> note that you can let your browser do part (or all) of the work for you:
> just click on the url and see which site it is contacting. however, this
> is
> not the safest method...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:14 PM
> > To: mouss; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Speaking of blocking porn...
> >
> >
> > What are you (or others on this list) using to reformat cryptic
> > IP addresses
> > such as these? Is there a program to automate this, or is there a
> > mathematical formula?
> >
> > | -----Original Message-----
> > | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of mouss
> > | Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:37 AM
> > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > | Subject: Re: Speaking of blocking porn...
> > |
> > | actually it matches the format http://user:password@ipaddress
> > | where ip address is 374393, which in quad-dots is 0.5.182.121
> (because
> > | 121+256*182+256*256*5 = 374393. however, 0.5.182.121 is a "reserved"
> > | address.
> > | so you should get nothing by trying to get the URL above.
> >
> >
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
