3 ms·

Can someone explain what is going on here?

• leeoniya 14y ago
  W3C squirrelpocalypse?
• younata 14y ago
  view source shows that he has an html document embedded in the jpeg. Apparently, the jpeg format allows this.
  • pgeorgi 14y ago
    JPEG allows for additional data chunks (that's how thumbnails, EXIF data, ... are added). The HTML uses CSS to hide the "body" (since that would include the JPEG header), putting the real content in a container element that poses as new root. Neat hack.
  • agwa 14y ago
    The HTML document is in the "comment" field of the JPEG, which is perfectly reasonable. What is surprising is that web browsers just ignore the 24 bytes of binary data between the start of the file and the start of the HTML.
    • ejdyksen 14y ago
      That extra binary data starts with an HTML comment tag (<!--) which is never closed, so it makes sense that it is ignored. Edit: Misread your comment...the bytes at the beginning of the file are hidden by CSS (as pointed out by others).
      • shuzchen 14y ago
        Commenter is referring to the binary data at the beginning of the file, which makes up the file header for the jpeg. It is before the <html> tag and is neither commented out or actually ignored. The browser actually picks that "text" up and shows it on page. It's just the html content itself contains some css rule to make that text not visible.
    • dunham 14y ago
      It's interpreting that data as "text" and sticking it at the beginning of the <body> of the document. The css makes the body invisible so you don't see it on the screen (unless you disable that rule) - take a look in the DOM inspector.
    • jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      As pointed out by someone else, the browser has been instructed via CSS to hide the body. If you inspect the page and manipulate the CSS to show the body, those odd bytes (ÿØÿàJFIF
      
      
      
      ,
      ,ÿþr) do get rendered.
• justinschuh 14y ago
  Web browsers need to be very loose in how they interpret data for historical reasons. A lot of this is even codified in the current HTML standard, like always content-sniffing images and identifying data that can be ignored during parsing. You also have HTML comments, which is where most of the JPEG data is packed in this example. Combine that with the fact that image formats generally allow you to pack comments or other arbitrary metadata into fields, and you end up with a file that can be read as either a JPEG or HTML. Also, Michal has a weird thing for squirrels.
• aidanns 14y ago
  The file has been created in such a way that the web browser is ignoring the non-html parts of the document, while the image renderer is ignoring the parts that make up the html page. The first part probably isn't too hard, since most web browsers go to great lengths to render non-standard html in a sensible way, I'm not too sure about the second part. I'm guessing the jpeg spec has some variable length space in some kind of file header that the html for the page can be put in to. I read something similar a while back (I think it was called a Jafar attack) where a clever person worked out how to create a file that was both a valid .gif image and .jar java executable.
  • tedunangst 14y ago
    jar files are just zip files, which put the header info at the end of the file, making it very easy to construct a jar/zip that's also got a different file header at the front. bad news for web apps which allow such files to be uploaded without inspecting them. it's not a terrible idea to always transcode all uploaded images/videos to prevent that.
  • duskwuff 14y ago
    > I think it was called a Jafar attack GIFAR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIFAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIFAR