Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just get a page with the URL shown.
your first clue
Explain yourself! How did you do this?!
Impressive!
31–40 of 111 posts
https://itty.bitty.site/#/?XQAAAALfAAAAAAAAAAA0HSzgdXPvDK5AE...
This seems like an exceptionally bad idea. Even if if just used it for my blog, an attacker can craft a URL which renders obscene content ("Hitler did nothing wrong"), then scatter that link everywhere on the web and get it crawled. Eventually it shows up in searches, but it's definitely "on my domain." Furthermore, it's like running a public anonymous FTP, it'll just get used as a malware hosting tool as soon as it'…
https://itty.bitty.site/#/?XQAAAALfAAAAAAAAAAA0HSzgdXPvDK5AE...
https://itty.bitty.site/#/?XQAAAALfAAAAAAAAAAA0HSzgdXPvDK5AE...
I wonder how large a website using this scheme can practically be to work on most browsers. I know of at least one browser that limited URLs to 100 characters, but it's almost 30 years old…
While most sites/apps support about 2000 bytes (2KB), some can handle more... Twitter and Slack, for example, allow 4000 bytes in a link. 4000 bytes is enough to apparently encode the full text of Poe's The Raven . https://twitter.com/edgar_the_poe/status/1003524516440563712
https://itty.bitty.site/#/?XQAAAALfAAAAAAAAAAA0HSzgdXPvDK5AE...
It seems that due to the extra text from https://itty.bitty.site each iteration increases the size of the next link. I wonder how the urls are generated and if this is a linear or exponential increase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that due to the extra text from https://itty.bitty.site each iteration increases the size of the next link. I wonder how the urls are generated and if this is a linear or exponential increase.
My guess is 1st-degree polynomial. There’s a constant addition with each iteration, plus the contents appear to be base64(ish)-encoded into the next URL, which multiplies the length by a constant.
I would say it's exponential in iterations. Growth factor is probably <2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using this in your site as it stands, you are opening up XSS attacks as it does not appear to sanitise user input.
Only if you do something silly like serve cookies on that domain
"it's only opens up an attack if you allow the attack vector"
https://boutell.com/newfaq/misc/urllength.html
JS-Fat-site shaming by link.