https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/archive/refs/tags/@... I get a: "404: Not Found" from the site "codeload.github.com"
Now replace all inner slashes with U+2215 (copy-paste from here https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+2215 )
Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
31–40 of 44 posts
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be a twitter problem, but it is not a web problem.
Email (people have been told to look at the little popup that shows where a hyperlink goes for like a decade now) Pretty much any chat application Pretty much any website that allows comments, like HN
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#33Cool trick - they're using HTTP auth URLs[1] so that the @ sign is doing a lot of the heavy lifting (plus some clever unicode slashes). It's an old school phishing trick, with the additional layer of looking like a genuine zip file. Not sure if this trick would be too effective in real life, Firefox and likely others will give you warnings when logging into a site like this, as this form of HTTP auth is way deprecate…
A less tech-savy or distracted user would also fall for a .exe file that downloads and just click on it since he just expects a zip file from github.
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#34Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#35Here's the original source by the author: https://scribe.rip/@bobbyrsec/the-dangers-of-googles-zip-tld... While I think that we really don't need a .zip domain, this trick falls apart when not shown as an image. Hovering over either URL should tip you off. Firefox shows the actual link in the bottom left.
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#36Here's the original source by the author: https://scribe.rip/@bobbyrsec/the-dangers-of-googles-zip-tld... While I think that we really don't need a .zip domain, this trick falls apart when not shown as an image. Hovering over either URL should tip you off. Firefox shows the actual link in the bottom left.
How exactly does this trick work? Thing is, a URL can't have any non-ASCII characters in it. So this would only happen if the webpage or some app takes the URL and undoes the percent-encoding to try to make it more readable.
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Email (people have been told to look at the little popup that shows where a hyperlink goes for like a decade now) Pretty much any chat application Pretty much any website that allows comments, like HN
...the same email where you can modify links to appear as whatever you'd like anyway? Same goes for HN etc. This is overblown.
> Same goes for HN etc
No. Show me if you think you can.
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#38Here's the original source by the author: https://scribe.rip/@bobbyrsec/the-dangers-of-googles-zip-tld... While I think that we really don't need a .zip domain, this trick falls apart when not shown as an image. Hovering over either URL should tip you off. Firefox shows the actual link in the bottom left.
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#39Cool trick - they're using HTTP auth URLs[1] so that the @ sign is doing a lot of the heavy lifting (plus some clever unicode slashes). It's an old school phishing trick, with the additional layer of looking like a genuine zip file. Not sure if this trick would be too effective in real life, Firefox and likely others will give you warnings when logging into a site like this, as this form of HTTP auth is way deprecate…
Side note: someone's using http://yourmom.zip for hilariously nerdy purpose
Re: Deceptive example for malicious usage of .zip domain
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you have in your comment is an email address, where anti-phishing training has hopefully helped users to identify non-authentic or at least suspicious domains. We (should) know to look at the part after the "@" in an email. This trick is a URL, not an email address. It looks like a valid URL, because we are accustomed to checking the hostname for authenticity. But the URL in the post is crafted to look like the…
Doesn't every browser "grey out" everything other than the hostname & TLD these days?