On 2011/11/29 06:37, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
On 29/11/11 15:21, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 11/28/2011 11:21 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 11/28/2011 7:41 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
does not work in chrome
I tried in C
On 11/29/2011 9:17 AM, Walter Hurry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:37:57 +0100, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
http://0xAD.0xC2.0x21.0x34/
Firefox treats it as :
Unable to determine IP address from host name for
/0xad.0xc2.0x21.0x34/
Name Error: The domain name does not exist.
Works f
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:37:57 +0100, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>>> http://0xAD.0xC2.0x21.0x34/
> Firefox treats it as :
>
> Unable to determine IP address from host name for
> /0xad.0xc2.0x21.0x34/
> Name Error: The domain name does not exist.
Works for me in Firefox 8.
On 29/11/11 15:21, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 11:21 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 7:41 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
>>>
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
>>> does not work in chrome
>> I tried in Chrome 16.0.912.41 beta-m and
On 11/28/2011 11:21 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 7:41 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
>>
>>> http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
>> does not work in chrome
> I tried in Chrome 16.0.912.41 beta-m and 17.0.953.0 canary, both
> instantly changed th
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:17 -0800, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 7:37 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > I tried feeding "000192.000168.0007.0002" to Lynx and Opera as the sole
> > command line argument:
>
> Wouldn't that be 000300.000250.0007.0002 ? Or did I miss a step here?
>
I was assuming t
On 2011/11/28 20:28, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
an excellent way of
On 2011/11/28 19:21, Jason Haar wrote:
Don't have an answer for you, but I can say that the following URL works
under FF-8.0
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
(resolves to 18.18.18.18)
However, if you force browsers through a squid proxy, squid-2.6 at least
treats that as borked and won't play with
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:21:23 -0800, Dave Warren wrote:
I tried in Chrome 16.0.912.41 beta-m and 17.0.953.0 canary, both
instantly changed the displayed URL to "18.18.18.18" then timed out
trying to browse.
yep, if i add this ip it gives error in 15.x.x.x chrome
dont know how to make chrome as
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, John Hardin wrote:
firefox 8.0:
Error: Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at
0012.0012.0012.0012.
That appears to have been an artifact of randomly choosing 12, which maps
to the 10-net and falls afoul of my local network setup.
http://00200.00200.00200
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
an excellent way of leading people to strange addresses with
On 11/28/2011 7:41 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
does not work in chrome
I tried in Chrome 16.0.912.41 beta-m and 17.0.953.0 canary, both
instantly changed the displayed URL to "18.18.18.18" then timed out
tryin
On 11/28/2011 7:37 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
an excellent way of leading people to strange addresses with
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
does not work in chrome
they're http://0x12.0x12.com/ or the like!
is working as clickbar, maybe 0x12 is not a valid tld ?
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
> It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
> get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
> an excellent way of leading people to strange addresses with strings
> that include ?ASFDikmedsfok3l1ma
Don't have an answer for you, but I can say that the following URL works
under FF-8.0
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
(resolves to 18.18.18.18)
However, if you force browsers through a squid proxy, squid-2.6 at least
treats that as borked and won't play with it.
So even proxies are out of step with
On 2011/11/28 17:49, C. Bensend wrote:
I guess I'm confused why you think this is a vulnerability... It's
simply another way to represent an IP address that browsers grok.
Is it obfuscation? Sure. But hell, for the average internet user,
a NON-obfuscated IP address is cryptic enough. ;) Th
>> I guess I'm confused why you think this is a vulnerability... It's
>> simply another way to represent an IP address that browsers grok.
>> Is it obfuscation? Sure. But hell, for the average internet user,
>> a NON-obfuscated IP address is cryptic enough. ;) This is just
>> another way to d
On 2011/11/28 17:05, C. Bensend wrote:
Why bug such people unless their product IS vulnerable? Note that this
seems
to be an email trying to get people who have a "vulnerable" browser to
click
a specific link. I'd expect that link to be loaded with a zero day or the
likes that the browser exhib
> Why bug such people unless their product IS vulnerable? Note that this
> seems
> to be an email trying to get people who have a "vulnerable" browser to
> click
> a specific link. I'd expect that link to be loaded with a zero day or the
> likes that the browser exhibits.
>
> I figured people here
On 2011/11/28 14:36, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 11/28, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
If you have multiple emails with this pattern that spamassassin is not
catching, please provide them via someth
On 11/28, jdow wrote:
> >>>Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
> >>>178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
If you have multiple emails with this pattern that spamassassin is not
catching, please provide them via something like pastebin. We can create
rules to ma
On 2011/11/28 05:43, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0100
Thierry Besancon wrote:
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
serious fault in the browsers.
According to C standards,
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0100
Thierry Besancon wrote:
> On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
> > Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
> > 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
> > serious fault in the browsers.
>
> According to C standards, a number beginnin
On 2011/11/27 15:05, Mahmoud Khonji wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:26 AM, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
serious fault in the browsers.
{^_^}
adding to that: dott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:26 AM, jdow wrote:
> Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
> 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
> serious fault in the browsers.
>
> {^_^}
adding to that: dotted hex IPv4 0x12.0xab.0xcd.0xef. sing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:43 AM, Thierry Besancon wrote:
> On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
>> Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
>> 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
>> serious fault in the browsers.
>
> According t
On 2011/11/27 13:52, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:26 -0800, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
What piece of junk software presented an IP in that format? It
On 2011/11/27 13:43, Thierry Besancon wrote:
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
According to C standards, a number beginning with a 0 is an base 8 numbe
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:26 -0800, jdow wrote:
> Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
> actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
>
What piece of junk software presented an IP in that format? Itds
obviously something I should avoid in f
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
> Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
> actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
According to C standards, a number beginning with a 0 is an base 8 number.
So 000235 is legal. It means 157 in decim
31 matches
Mail list logo
