3 ms·
Yeah they're argument is based on saying that sniffing a user agent string is illegal reverse engineering. If they get the right 100 year old judge they might e
by tootie 5mo ago
Yeah they're argument is based on saying that sniffing a user agent string is illegal reverse engineering. If they get the right 100 year old judge they might even succeed but it feels like a thoroughly lame argument to me.
- observationist 5mo agoNot even sniffing - no special action need be taken, simply looking at the code which they are legally obligated to provide is sufficient. It's like putting up a sign that says "No trespassing, unless you know the secret code word, which is 'Stegosaurus'".
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ixwt 5mo agoAccording to the video about this by Louis Rossman, there wasn't even string sniffing. No changes were made in the code, the client ID was hard coded in, and was untouched by the author.