Damn, a security researcher discovered what was known from late 1990's/early 2000's: a link on a webpage could take you in a place that it is not the one the link say it will be.
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
546 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
59069 readers
3638 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I get the knee-jerk jaded cynicism but this is a little more nuanced than that.
"All they have to do is set up two different URL destinations in their post. In the case outlined above, clicking the forbes.com link actually takes you to joinchannelnow.net. Once on this site, the server checks to see whether the request is coming from a typical browser (that's you). If so, it'll take you to the spam site, which for this situation is a crypto scam Telegram channel. However, if the server detects the request is coming from something else—like a X link-verifying bot—it'll assume the request is not being made by a human; in these cases it returns a legitimate URL. So, even though the first link is to joinchannelnow, X checks it and is taken to forbes.com, and so it places that URL preview on the post. You're experience will be different."
I mean, clicking links in any kind of comment/forum type place on the internet can be dicey, even if it is exactly what it says it is.
If you disagree, and the political standstill created by career politicians puts a sour taste in your mouth, visit www.lemonparty.org to find out more about how you can make a difference.
I also appreciate the link. This will be my new favorite website now that the one about goat husbandry no longer exists.
Thanks for the link, friend 🍋💦
Sounds like an issue with pretty much all URL shortening/redirection services on any service.
Even if the link was legit when they posted it and always went to forbes (not that forbes is much more than blogspam these days), it might not be legit when you go to click on it.
It's all just 3rd party tracking bullshit anyway. The modern internet is horseshit.
It's Not Safe to Click on X
Fixed
Even if X is just a placeholder for anything.
I once clicked on X and the whole window disappeared!
It's Not Safe on X
Fixed
It's Not Safe
Fixed
⠀
Fixed
Twitter is such a shithole
I refuse to call Twitter X. It sounds like what an edgy teen would call a website and I also refuse to go along with anything an ass clown like elon wants.
Honestly, ANY platform that obscures links through redirection should be considered unsafe. If you can't verify the target URL before you click the link, then you are asking trouble. Twitter and similar platforms do this so they can track you more effectively. (In the past it also served the purpose of shortening links to SMS-friendly lengths, but that ship sailed like 10 years ago.)
Not that visibility automatically would make it safe, but it is the bare minimum required as a starting point.
Closer to 15 years ago. Skype and WhatsApp (before the FB nonsense) were viable options to SMS as long as your friends were also using the same app.
Although, the viability also depended on the price you had to pay for the data. If it’s like 1.5 €/MB, sending snail mail suddenly seems like a very appealing alternative. Some time around 2003-2005 there was still one company that actually charged that much while all the competitors were switching to monthly packages or even unlimited plans. The price range was absolutely wild back then.
That's true. I was referring specifically to Twitter's SMS integration. I forget exactly when they increased the tweet size limit beyond what could be sent via SMS, but it was a long time ago. At first, SMS was a big part of Twitter's success. People used Twitter on flip phones with no browser or apps. It was basically an SMS broadcast service.
I don't even let my browser display embedded tweets anymore (via Privacy Badger). There are an odd amount of "news stories" that are just strings of embedded tweets.
But the way, is it possible to hide the PrivacyBadger placeholder too?
There are a couple options for the Widget Replacement feature, but the easiest way to hide it is probably with a uBlock Origin filter.
view more: next ›