5 ms·

I think it helps in conveying the fact that it is a vulnerability not a feature. So any website (even your own company's internal one) can check stuff like thi

by ktta 10y ago

I think it helps in conveying the fact that it is a vulnerability not a feature. So any website (even your own company's internal one) can check stuff like this. And you can't do anything about it. Other than always using private browsing for anything you don't want your company/anyone else to know about.

throwanem 10y ago
I mean, if somebody is logged into YouPorn from work, that's not a problem I expect the developer of a tool like this to solve. What I expect the developer of a tool like this to do is not create problems by just arbitrarily making HTTP requests to porn sites without a prompt or a chance to opt out. That's a dick move.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  When I first read that it was making these requests here in the comments, my reaction was similar. But then upon reflection, I don't think there's a problem for the author here. Why? Because all I did was click the link. Meaning if I was behind a corporate firewall or the like, this sort of thing could be happening all the time and unless I was always tracing requests in my browser or via MITM or logging DNS, I'd have no way of knowing. Personally I view this as a browser and/or protocol issue (the kind that has trickled down from the origins of the web) and really can't fault the author for it. In fact I think it's appropriate the author left these requests in as it reflects an actual attack scenario better perhaps.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    The point I'm making is that it's not necessary to hit a porn site in order to get the point across, and there are HN users whose organizations observe and don't care for that kind of thing.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Then how can such organizations handle other people randomly putting references to porn sites on their websites? With today's Internet being what it is, you can't assume that a request to YouPorn means someone is browsing porn at work. For all you know, the request could have been sent by an ad. Then again, businesses in general aren't exactly paragons of intelligence either, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a fuss about it...
    - coverband 10y ago
      Absolutely!... If your company is doing web filtering, it will report an attempted hit from your browser to the YP site.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Yet another inequality to throw in the hopper
- ge96 10y ago
  In bird culture, this is considered a dick move.
sperglord 10y ago
I believe using private browsing wouldn't matter. The IP I'm browsing from is still going to try pinging all those porn servers, and that's what's getting logged in the filter, not my browser history.
- ktta 10y ago
  In my second paragraph, I was actually talking about your company sending such requests to know what you are logged into. Doesn't matter if you're using it right now. If you're logged in from days before, your cookies will be there. In incognito they won't be.
JoshMnem 10y ago
Privacy Badger will stop that tool if you edit the settings.

by ktta 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

I mean, if somebody is logged into YouPorn from work, that's not a problem I expect the developer of a tool like this to solve. What I expect the developer of a tool like this to do is not create problems by just arbitrarily making HTTP requests to porn sites without a prompt or a chance to opt out. That's a dick move.

drvdevd 10y ago
When I first read that it was making these requests here in the comments, my reaction was similar. But then upon reflection, I don't think there's a problem for the author here. Why? Because all I did was click the link. Meaning if I was behind a corporate firewall or the like, this sort of thing could be happening all the time and unless I was always tracing requests in my browser or via MITM or logging DNS, I'd have no way of knowing. Personally I view this as a browser and/or protocol issue (the kind that has trickled down from the origins of the web) and really can't fault the author for it. In fact I think it's appropriate the author left these requests in as it reflects an actual attack scenario better perhaps.
- throwanem 10y ago
  The point I'm making is that it's not necessary to hit a porn site in order to get the point across, and there are HN users whose organizations observe and don't care for that kind of thing.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Then how can such organizations handle other people randomly putting references to porn sites on their websites? With today's Internet being what it is, you can't assume that a request to YouPorn means someone is browsing porn at work. For all you know, the request could have been sent by an ad. Then again, businesses in general aren't exactly paragons of intelligence either, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a fuss about it...
  - coverband 10y ago
    Absolutely!... If your company is doing web filtering, it will report an attempted hit from your browser to the YP site.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Yet another inequality to throw in the hopper
ge96 10y ago
In bird culture, this is considered a dick move.

sperglord 10y ago

I believe using private browsing wouldn't matter. The IP I'm browsing from is still going to try pinging all those porn servers, and that's what's getting logged in the filter, not my browser history.

ktta 10y ago
In my second paragraph, I was actually talking about your company sending such requests to know what you are logged into. Doesn't matter if you're using it right now. If you're logged in from days before, your cookies will be there. In incognito they won't be.

JoshMnem 10y ago

Privacy Badger will stop that tool if you edit the settings.