[Cialug] TinyURL

Fri Jul 16 18:23:13 CDT 2010

It does not.  The point of noscript being that, if you follow a tinyurl and
you're not sure where it's going, the noscript will catch it if it's a
clickjack or something that would otherwise lead to a headache of an
afternoon.

-Scott

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:57 AM, <j.bengtson at mchsi.com> wrote:

> Yeah, got it, use it...does it have a URL shortening feature that I'm not
> aware of?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Prader
> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
> Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:09:15 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: Re: [Cialug] TinyURL
>
> One word: noscript.
>
> http://noscript.net
>
> -Scott
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM,  <j.bengtson at mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> You would want it to be reversible...the intent isn't to secure the URL,
>> it's to shorten the URL.  You would want anyone to be able to "de-shorten"
>> the URL to compare it against blacklists, etc.  And of course you want the
>> browser to be able to de-shorten it.
>>
>> The problem with the URL shortener is that it has to be something that
>> anyone can use to decode any URL, anywhere.  Requiring access to a database
>> prevents that.
>>
>> How about something like Base64, but which converts the string into a
>> 12-character encoded string?  For example, take the URL
>> http://www.ameslug.org/node/1
>>
>> Using Base64 you get "aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hbWVzbHVnLm9yZy9ub2RlLzE=", which is
>> not an improvement.  But if you got instead "aHR0cDovL3d3", that would be
>> much more manageable (if only it would decode back to the original URL
>> string).
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Josh More
>> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>> Sent: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:42:43 -0500 (CDT)
>> Subject: Re: [Cialug] TinyURL
>>
>> Making proper hashing algorithms is actually really hard to do.  You have
>> to worry about collisions and reversing (in most cases).
>>
>>
>> For URL shorteners,  it's often more efficient to implement an incrementer
>> and just keep a database around.
>>
>> -Josh More, CISSP, GIAC-GSLC, GIAC-GCIH, RHCE, NCLP
>> morej at alliancetechnologies.net
>>
>> 515-245-7701
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:*cialug-bounces at cialug.org [cialug-bounces at cialug.org] on behalf of
>> j.bengtson at mchsi.com [j.bengtson at mchsi.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 15, 2010 14:41
>> *To:* Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [Cialug] TinyURL
>>
>> I wonder why no one has made a way to take any URL and automatically
>> shorten it.  Consider an MD5 hash...you can take virtually any text, no
>> matter how long, and the MD5 algorithm will return a 32-digit hex number.
>> How hard is it to make something similar,
>>
>>
>> that can take a URL of any length and return an 8-character string that
>> can then be decoded back to the original URL?  Make that algorithm public
>> open-source, and you've got a tinyURL mechanism that isn't dependent upon
>> any vendor, can be checked against a
>>
>>
>> blacklist, and yet is short enough for mere humans to handle.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Adam Shannon
>>
>> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>>
>> Sent: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:54:01 -0500 (CDT)
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Cialug] TinyURL
>>
>>
>> Having a service (or services) to shorten a url that breaks in use
>>
>> (email, webpages...) is perfectly fine, but that service should only
>>
>> be giving the user the actual link, not directing them to the link
>>
>> they wanted.
>>
>>
>> What happens when that short link provider goes out of business or is
>>
>> hacked, then I lose the ability to control where I will end up
>>
>> (negating anything on the link I'm trying to reach does) because I
>>
>> can't see where I'm going.  If the service is hacked and spreads
>>
>> malware than anyone with javascript or cookies allowed on that domain
>>
>> will be infected or tracked.
>>
>>
>> In my view, short url providers should only be presenting a page for
>>
>> the user as to what the short link represents, the short link is not
>>
>> the same link and therefore shouldn't act the same.  It's a
>>
>> representation for another url.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:26, Scott Prader wrote:
>>
>> > Sometimes a URL that takes up multiple lines can get cut off with a
>> carriage
>>
>> > return inserted by some program, at some point.  When I see a link, I
>> like
>>
>> > to think that I can click on it and not get a 404.  TinyURL fixed this.
>>
>> > What they don't do is auto-forward a 404 to archive.org, which tends to
>>
>> > cover what a downed URL can't, whether it's complete or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -Scott
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Barry Von Ahsen wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> 7 ff addons tagged 'unshort url', probably more under other tags
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/unshort%20url
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> -barry
>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Nathan C. Smith wrote:
>>
>> >> > Seems to me there could be a whole industry for a technology for
>>
>> >> > converting the various short-URLs back to long ones, particularly if
>> the
>>
>> >> > tools and technology provide a means to mitigate potential risks.
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> > Don't bit.ly and others use a hash that stays the same for each
>>
>> >> > shortening of a reference?  So that if you shorten cialug.org and
>> send it to
>>
>> >> > me I will get the same shortened url if I do it?
>>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> > -Nate
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> >> >> From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org
>>
>>
>> >> >> [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On Behalf Of Ed Meacham (@work)
>>
>> >> >> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 3:12 PM
>>
>> >> >> To: 'Central Iowa Linux Users Group'
>>
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Cialug] TinyURL
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> I love the idea of URL shortening services. Though, they
>>
>> >> >> definitely have instances where the use of one is more
>>
>> >> >> appropriate than others... I don't see the need to shorten a
>>
>> >> >> URL in an email, unless you're spreading "infectious-love."
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> Rather than write off TinyURL/Bit.ly, I would blame improper
>>
>> >> >> organization and/or the sender not qualifying the details of
>>
>> >> >> the URL in the message.
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> I see there is a plug-in for Thunderbird for converting a URL
>>
>> >> >> into a TinyURL... wonder if it has a reversal option? (I
>>
>> >> >> don't have Thunderbird installed on this machine to check) If
>>
>> >> >> not, a lookup plug-in might be a good project for someone. :P
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> -emeacham (@work)
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> >> >> From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org
>>
>> >> >> [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On Behalf Of Todd Walton
>>
>> >> >> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 6:27 AM
>>
>> >> >> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
>>
>> >> >> Subject: [Cialug] TinyURL
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> And another reason I hate this tinyurl thing... I know
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>>
>> >> Cialug mailing list
>>
>> >> Cialug at cialug.org
>>
>> >> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> > Cialug mailing list
>>
>> > Cialug at cialug.org
>>
>> > http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Adam Shannon
>>
>> Web Developer
>>
>> http://ashannon.us
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Cialug mailing list
>>
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>>
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20100716/8807abfd/attachment.htm 