Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foobar

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 178 posts

Re: Foobar

#111

Post by bastawhiz »

troy1987 wrote: post #99

This seems really dumb! https://foobar.withgoogle.com/staticfiles/js/landing.5252068... : !function(){ "use strict"; function a(){ var a=document.getElementById("login"); a.addEventListener("click",function(a){a.preventDefault(),window.launchPopup()},!1)} window.handleAuth=function(a){ a.logoutUrl ? window.location.href=a.redirectUrl : window.location.reload() }, window.launchPopup=function(){ window.open("/login/","…

You're assuming that's the only thing it will ever do. Just because you saw that particular code doesn't mean that's the same code served for every possible user.

Re: Foobar

#112

Post by curveship »

troy1987 wrote: post #99

This seems really dumb! https://foobar.withgoogle.com/staticfiles/js/landing.5252068... : !function(){ "use strict"; function a(){ var a=document.getElementById("login"); a.addEventListener("click",function(a){a.preventDefault(),window.launchPopup()},!1)} window.handleAuth=function(a){ a.logoutUrl ? window.location.href=a.redirectUrl : window.location.reload() }, window.launchPopup=function(){ window.open("/login/","…

My suspicion is that the HN traffic has overloaded their backend.

Re: Foobar

#113

Post by dontreact »

troy1987 wrote: post #99

This seems really dumb! https://foobar.withgoogle.com/staticfiles/js/landing.5252068... : !function(){ "use strict"; function a(){ var a=document.getElementById("login"); a.addEventListener("click",function(a){a.preventDefault(),window.launchPopup()},!1)} window.handleAuth=function(a){ a.logoutUrl ? window.location.href=a.redirectUrl : window.location.reload() }, window.launchPopup=function(){ window.open("/login/","…

So maybe we just have to figure out the right redirectUrl?

I imagine that when you login with the right user account a different redirectUrl would get passed back.

I see no way of finding that out what that URL is though, short of someone who has access to the puzzle posting it.

Re: Foobar

#114

Post by pwnna »

rikverc wrote: post #96
1945795 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this irritating? Google won't hire you iff you solve the puzzle, this is nothing more than a very popular way for institutions to generate free PR.

It is irritating because the "puzzle" involves having a history of searching for stuff that Google Foobar has tagged as relevant. If your Google searches are not linked with your Google account or if you search using different search engines, you're out of the game.

What about people that uses Google Apps accounts? Are they subject to this (corporate)? What about people just use those accounts personally for their own domain? Are they out?

Re: Foobar

#115

Post by teddyh »

Google is self-selecting to employ those people who are fine with the idea of Google recording everything they do. This does not bode well for the rest of us.

Re: Foobar

#116

Post by dsl »

sp332 wrote: post #8

Huh, this is a really weird mix of subdomains. https://www.google.com/search?q=withgoogle.com

.withgoogle.com is used for mini-sites that are developed externally or do not meet the security requirements to be on a proper Google domain.

Re: Foobar

#118

Post by robryk »

brserc wrote: post #105

I haven't been able to solve the puzzle - if there's any, however there is some interesting pattern in filenames. /staticfiles/svg/error.33ab1eb5.svg -> 33ab1eb5 hexadecimal is 866852533, which seems to be a prime number. I believe the probability is very low if unintended. Also other file names, can be factored more or less to 1 big prime number and few small primes.

These hex strings are beginnings of md5 checksums of these files:

   sh-4.3$ md5sum error.33ab1eb5.svg 
   33ab1eb5129ee5085793166d2f691dae  error.33ab1eb5.svg
I believe the point of appending them to the name is a kind of versioning: one'd want to be able to change these files and cause everyone to drop their cached version. This way when one changes a file, the filename changes too (most likely), so the cached old version will not be used.

Re: Foobar

#120

Post by dhimes »

Uncaught SecurityError: Failed to read the 'localStorage' property from 'Window': Access is denied for this document.
Post reply on HN