161–170 of 236 posts
I added FartScroll.js from the Onion to my text records: http://dig.whois.com.au/dig.php?dom=philipithomas.com&type=A...
Wow, I think they fixed that escaping problem a few minutes ago.
I am half serious, but how about making HTML served in TXT records a standard trick for serving small web pages very quickly? There are way fewer network round trips: 1. DNS query for TXT record for example.com 2. DNS reply with HTML content Compared with the traditional 7 steps: 1. DNS query for A record for example.com 2. DNS reply with x.x.x.x 3. TCP SYN to port 80 4. TCP SYN/ACK 5. TCP ACK 6. HTTP GET 7. HTTP rep…
> I am half serious Good. Still, it needs to be pointed out. This idea is an awesome hack to show how can you piggyback on existing infrastructure to make it work as something it was not intended to. But it absolutely, terribly sucks at anything practical. Actually, it's a non-solution . Here's why. > There are way fewer network round trips: > 1. DNS query for TXT record for example.com > 2. DNS reply with HTML conte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the rise of no-fixed-IP load balancers like Amazon ELB has dramatically reduced that.
Aren't the IPs of the load balancers more or less fixed, though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some of the sites escape semicolons only. Pure script loading isn't broken, but trying to code in the txt may break.
But I tried your link recently and it no longer works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hasn't injected anything. It's just his public DNS record that this page has chosen to display without sanitizing.
I imagine the UK Computer Misuse Act (eg at Section 3, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18 ) probably covers it if the person who altered the TXT field does so to cause websites to load code on purpose, that purpose being for example to impair (Section 3(2)(a)) the running of the computer [causing Rick Astley to play, defo counts!] - but it can be read to cover pretty much anything. Similarly I imagine someth…
CA 502c just says: "(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services" amongst other very broad subsections
http://support.piercecollege.edu/1521a/References/California...
I am half serious, but how about making HTML served in TXT records a standard trick for serving small web pages very quickly? There are way fewer network round trips: 1. DNS query for TXT record for example.com 2. DNS reply with HTML content Compared with the traditional 7 steps: 1. DNS query for A record for example.com 2. DNS reply with x.x.x.x 3. TCP SYN to port 80 4. TCP SYN/ACK 5. TCP ACK 6. HTTP GET 7. HTTP rep…
> I am half serious Good. Still, it needs to be pointed out. This idea is an awesome hack to show how can you piggyback on existing infrastructure to make it work as something it was not intended to. But it absolutely, terribly sucks at anything practical. Actually, it's a non-solution . Here's why. > There are way fewer network round trips: > 1. DNS query for TXT record for example.com > 2. DNS reply with HTML conte…
The steps are not exactly the same. Any sensible ISP give you at least two redundant DNS servers with your DHCP response and most public DNS providers also give you multiple redundant servers. When you do a DNS lookup, your OS or browser handles failover between the DNS servers automatically, client side. When accessed by IP address, as you've demonstrated, HTTP offers no client-side failover mechanism built into web browsers to fall back to a different IP.
It's additionally important to note that architecturally, DNS servers are far more scaleable than most HTTP servers. They don't run anywhere near as much code per request and don't require the overhead of TCP or HTTP.
Note that I'm also not encouraging using DNS instead of HTTP for serving websites, I'm just pointing out that DNS is a more reliable technology and has client-side failover mechanisms so the pros which mrb listed are very real.