3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThen 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 agoAbsolutely!... If your company is doing web filtering, it will report an attempted hit from your browser to the YP site.
- oldmanjay 10y agoYet another inequality to throw in the hopper