7 ms·

I'm not sure what we're looking at there, but it's something I probably shouldn't have clicked on.

by JeremyMorgan 13y ago

potatolicious 13y ago
Yeah, I really would have appreciated some warning for that.
- TaylorAlexander 13y ago
  ...why? Because it's arabic? Ooohhh, scary arabic. Or they're talking about spies and bombs? Don't we talk about those things on hacker news too? I can't read it, I'm working my way through the google translation and just starting, so maybe it's all "bad" stuff, but to be honest, I hope iranians can shed some light on what our government is doing - the US government itself certainly isn't going to help with that.
  - 3327 13y ago
    Hey easy on the hot keywords we are all gonna get flagged by the thought police.
    - marshray 13y ago
      The thought police flag anyone who thinks about the thought police.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Maybe we should do what they do in china when speaking on such topics… idea sentries has a nice ring.
  - intopieces 13y ago
    It's Persian :) Very similar script, completely different language family. Persian is closer to English than Arabic.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - jnbiche 13y ago
        I guess it would really blow your mind if we told you that this language is also in the same language family as English, German, and French (Indo-European).
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Actually the challenge is drive-by injection not the site per-se. Chrome didn't flag it as such but if you spend time crawling the web you will notice that it is a not-unusual weapon in the arsenal to put up a <attractive to people we're looking for> web site, and have it inject visitors with a tracking cookie/script/trojan. Sort of a variation on honeypots. Thus it helps to be alert when popping into such sites.
    - dfc 13y ago
      Do not run JS or Flash on untrusted websites.
      - ChuckMcM 13y ago
        Or display any compressed image, or even download compressed javascript that you aren't going to run. A number of exploits that malwaredomains.com finds are objects that are either normally or optionally compressed, and constructed in such a way to exploit an issue with the decompression software used. If I'm both curious and suspicious (so in my most tin-hatish of moods) I fire up a virtualbox instance with a clean image, look at the site, and then delete that virtual machine image. That seems to also have an unintended prophylactic effect since virus investigators like to run viruses in VMs so malicious payloads don't fire if they detect they are running in a VM (at least according to the F-secure blog). But either way, my point was that just visiting a site that wants to get you is a risk, whether or not you think you are protected.
        dfc 13y ago
        I googled "site:malwaredomains.com compression" and nothing turned up. Can you recall any instances? Do you know where they get the data from? I must be missing something obvious but I don't see where the describe the how the list is created. NB: I am not disagreeing with you I am just curious to look at some of the recent compression vulnerabilities.
        ChuckMcM 13y ago
  - JeremyMorgan 13y ago
    You know, I feel the same way. They may be our enemies and want to destroy us, but being able to see their side of things is refreshing. We can't continue to act like we're the perfect country and everyone else is 100% evil. It's not that simple.
    - soheil 13y ago
      The Iranian government has no point of view worth its salt. It's a repressive regime and the more we buy into their crap the more we're actually harming the people of that country.
      - marshray 13y ago
        You may be right that they have no worthwhile point of view and I don't think I know anyone who actually "buys into their crap". But the idea of somehow avoiding ever encountering a certain point of view on the global internet is even more stupid.
      - jeena 13y ago
        I wonder if right now we could replace the word "Iranian" with "US" and it would still be true?
- bredren 13y ago
  I also, don't want my traffic to be tied to forums like this.
kybernetyk 13y ago
Last time I checked reverse engineering forums weren't forbidden by the thought police.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  He actually has a point, sadly. Visiting a "Jihadist" website, based on some arbitrary definition and interpretation from some cyber freedom fighter in DC, VA, or MD, is enough to get your "metadata" added to their graphs. You think Iranian sites with posts about hacking the US aren't on that list? I don't. It's not enough to get you a visit from the feds or anything, but it's almost certain that any competent intelligence agency is storing anything that touches that website. Whoever posted it likely has links in their social graph to very high value targets.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    It's not enough to get you a visit from the feds or anything, but it's almost certain that any competent intelligence agency is storing anything that touches that website. Whoever posted it likely has links in their social graph to very high value targets. It makes me wonder, if one were to inject an 0x0 iframe with this site on a decently trafficked page (a couple hundred visitors per day) that tends to attract a niche, one could potentially create more noise?
    - natrius 13y ago
      Referer headers would make that sort of thing easy to filter out, so chances are that they're already doing so.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - summerdown2 13y ago
    Is this really the point we've reached? Where people with no intention of being a terrorist are bothered about visiting a site because they know everything they do is being observed? If we've reached the point of self censoring behaviour, then we're definitely in the Panopticon. The harder it becomes to break out of our filter bubbles, the more foreigners will look alien, strange and scary :(
jluxenberg 13y ago
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
marshray 13y ago
In case anyone doubted the self-censoring chilling effects of pervasive surveillance were real. What are the consequences for our society of us fearing to click on links that they may turn out to be foreign propaganda?
kunai 13y ago
Yeah, I really regret going there now... Which is really, really sad. It's come to this, where we have to be afraid of drivebys on websites just because they may be honeypots for the US government, or because they might get all of us on some surveillance list. When is it going to stop?
- antocv 13y ago
  Its going to stop when you get a spine. People like Snowden didnt ruin their lifes so you can avoid clicking links. For fucks sake, the least you can do is grow a pair of balls and exercise your god damn given freedom to do as you wish, stand up.

I'm not sure what we're looking at there, but it's something I probably shouldn't have clicked on.

potatolicious 13y ago

Yeah, I really would have appreciated some warning for that.

TaylorAlexander 13y ago
...why? Because it's arabic? Ooohhh, scary arabic. Or they're talking about spies and bombs? Don't we talk about those things on hacker news too? I can't read it, I'm working my way through the google translation and just starting, so maybe it's all "bad" stuff, but to be honest, I hope iranians can shed some light on what our government is doing - the US government itself certainly isn't going to help with that.
- 3327 13y ago
  Hey easy on the hot keywords we are all gonna get flagged by the thought police.
  - marshray 13y ago
    The thought police flag anyone who thinks about the thought police.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Maybe we should do what they do in china when speaking on such topics… idea sentries has a nice ring.
- intopieces 13y ago
  It's Persian :) Very similar script, completely different language family. Persian is closer to English than Arabic.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - jnbiche 13y ago
      I guess it would really blow your mind if we told you that this language is also in the same language family as English, German, and French (Indo-European).
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Actually the challenge is drive-by injection not the site per-se. Chrome didn't flag it as such but if you spend time crawling the web you will notice that it is a not-unusual weapon in the arsenal to put up a <attractive to people we're looking for> web site, and have it inject visitors with a tracking cookie/script/trojan. Sort of a variation on honeypots. Thus it helps to be alert when popping into such sites.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Do not run JS or Flash on untrusted websites.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      Or display any compressed image, or even download compressed javascript that you aren't going to run. A number of exploits that malwaredomains.com finds are objects that are either normally or optionally compressed, and constructed in such a way to exploit an issue with the decompression software used. If I'm both curious and suspicious (so in my most tin-hatish of moods) I fire up a virtualbox instance with a clean image, look at the site, and then delete that virtual machine image. That seems to also have an unintended prophylactic effect since virus investigators like to run viruses in VMs so malicious payloads don't fire if they detect they are running in a VM (at least according to the F-secure blog). But either way, my point was that just visiting a site that wants to get you is a risk, whether or not you think you are protected.
      - dfc 13y ago
        I googled "site:malwaredomains.com compression" and nothing turned up. Can you recall any instances? Do you know where they get the data from? I must be missing something obvious but I don't see where the describe the how the list is created. NB: I am not disagreeing with you I am just curious to look at some of the recent compression vulnerabilities.
        ChuckMcM 13y ago
- JeremyMorgan 13y ago
  You know, I feel the same way. They may be our enemies and want to destroy us, but being able to see their side of things is refreshing. We can't continue to act like we're the perfect country and everyone else is 100% evil. It's not that simple.
  - soheil 13y ago
    The Iranian government has no point of view worth its salt. It's a repressive regime and the more we buy into their crap the more we're actually harming the people of that country.
    - marshray 13y ago
      You may be right that they have no worthwhile point of view and I don't think I know anyone who actually "buys into their crap". But the idea of somehow avoiding ever encountering a certain point of view on the global internet is even more stupid.
    - jeena 13y ago
      I wonder if right now we could replace the word "Iranian" with "US" and it would still be true?
bredren 13y ago
I also, don't want my traffic to be tied to forums like this.

kybernetyk 13y ago

Last time I checked reverse engineering forums weren't forbidden by the thought police.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
He actually has a point, sadly. Visiting a "Jihadist" website, based on some arbitrary definition and interpretation from some cyber freedom fighter in DC, VA, or MD, is enough to get your "metadata" added to their graphs. You think Iranian sites with posts about hacking the US aren't on that list? I don't. It's not enough to get you a visit from the feds or anything, but it's almost certain that any competent intelligence agency is storing anything that touches that website. Whoever posted it likely has links in their social graph to very high value targets.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  It's not enough to get you a visit from the feds or anything, but it's almost certain that any competent intelligence agency is storing anything that touches that website. Whoever posted it likely has links in their social graph to very high value targets. It makes me wonder, if one were to inject an 0x0 iframe with this site on a decently trafficked page (a couple hundred visitors per day) that tends to attract a niche, one could potentially create more noise?
  - natrius 13y ago
    Referer headers would make that sort of thing easy to filter out, so chances are that they're already doing so.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- summerdown2 13y ago
  Is this really the point we've reached? Where people with no intention of being a terrorist are bothered about visiting a site because they know everything they do is being observed? If we've reached the point of self censoring behaviour, then we're definitely in the Panopticon. The harder it becomes to break out of our filter bubbles, the more foreigners will look alien, strange and scary :(

jluxenberg 13y ago

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

marshray 13y ago

In case anyone doubted the self-censoring chilling effects of pervasive surveillance were real. What are the consequences for our society of us fearing to click on links that they may turn out to be foreign propaganda?

kunai 13y ago

Yeah, I really regret going there now... Which is really, really sad. It's come to this, where we have to be afraid of drivebys on websites just because they may be honeypots for the US government, or because they might get all of us on some surveillance list. When is it going to stop?

antocv 13y ago
Its going to stop when you get a spine. People like Snowden didnt ruin their lifes so you can avoid clicking links. For fucks sake, the least you can do is grow a pair of balls and exercise your god damn given freedom to do as you wish, stand up.