61–70 of 72 posts
Cool, but it's a chipmunk not a squirrel. Just saying!
Hey - I'm the author of that page. Your comment is a common misconception, but the animal pictured is actually a golden-mantled ground squirrel. You can tell because the stripe doesn't extend to the eye. Thank you for subscribing to squirrel facts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$ curl -s http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/squirrel/ | file - /dev/stdin: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, resolution (DPI), density 300x300, segment length 16, comment: " body { visibility: hidden; } .n { visibility: visible; position: absolute; ", baseline, precision 8, 1000x667, frames 3 file(1) version 5.32-2ubuntu0.1.
file knows...
so you get even more details...
https://www.alchemistowl.org/pocorgtfo/
https://www.alchemistowl.org/pocorgtfo/pocorgtfo07.pdf
6 Abusing file formats; or, Corkami, the Novella by Ange Albertini
And more example/pocs:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While definitely cool, I wonder how effective this is. Code/random binary data should have different characteristics than image data.
It's very effective, because it means you get a really good compression algorithm for free (because it's already there in the browser). You definitely won't save enough bytes with better input heuristics than the amount of code needed to decompress them if you're only working with 13Kb of data.
Cool, but it's a chipmunk not a squirrel. Just saying!
Hey - I'm the author of that page. Your comment is a common misconception, but the animal pictured is actually a golden-mantled ground squirrel. You can tell because the stripe doesn't extend to the eye. Thank you for subscribing to squirrel facts!
It causes a 500 Internal Service Error when passed to the W3C validator: https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flcamtuf.core...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very effective, because it means you get a really good compression algorithm for free (because it's already there in the browser). You definitely won't save enough bytes with better input heuristics than the amount of code needed to decompress them if you're only working with 13Kb of data.
You really save bytes even though you need to include it as a base64 url?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very effective, because it means you get a really good compression algorithm for free (because it's already there in the browser). You definitely won't save enough bytes with better input heuristics than the amount of code needed to decompress them if you're only working with 13Kb of data.
You really save bytes even though you need to include it as a base64 url?