Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:51:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
369 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...]
> How about the GOB? that's a low traffic site, and we can ask the person who
> runs it about the plumbing to the internet, it's his box...
> www.bricksmiths.com?
> bricksmiths.com [63.217.235.34]
> Maybe it's me (and others) who have dodgy connections somewhere? My ISP
> isn't the greatest, that's for sure.
OK, I put in links to that nine different ways -- each of
http://www.bricksmiths.com/
http://63.217.235.34/
http://1071246114/
and each of those with %3A substituted for : in the jump.cgi parameter, and
without jump.cgi.
Note: On the numeric raw-IP versions of the URLs, the webserver reports
"No web site is configured at this address." nslookup confirms that
www.bricksmiths.com is 63.217.235.34. This probably isn't the best test,
but since it's the webserver reporting the error message, you're still
getting a response from it.
To test, reload this page and click the links:
http://www.lugnet.com/test/jump/colontest.html
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) Sounds good in theory, but I confess I don't know one offhand that would be a good test. Large ones are likely to use caching weirdness and small ones may have thin pipes that might throw us off. Or so I surmise. Hmm... how about my firm? as (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
