reqrbHVPetKGE57

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   They can't understand that product.zip is a terrible link, but they can understand that perfectlysafewebsite.com/product.zip is a terrible link???
2. 2.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   Yes, auto-vivification of links is bad.
3. 3.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   You also wouldn't be able to access it on grounds of the private IP address is not in the same private as your LAN.
4. 4.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   Or the attacker could've just sent you ... a link to familyphotos.zip. I'm not sure why you're bringing client-side auto-vivification (which yes, is a bad idea) into the picture when the attacker could equally send a link. I&
5. 5.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   Please name a platform where `open` will treat a non-link as a link? I just tested the ones I have access to and none did.
6. 6.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   That's assuming apps and libraries even start doing that for .zip (which is unlikely), and is not in any way unique to .zip.
7. 7.▲
   by reqrbHVPetKGE57 3y ago

   And <a href="http: //perfectlynormalwebsite.com/familyphotos.zip">familyphotos.zip</a> isn't? Am I missing something? What does the TLD add that wasn't possible before? Auto-vivified links