You can't download this image(youcantdownloadthisimage.online) |
You can't download this image(youcantdownloadthisimage.online) |
$ wget https://youcantdownloadthisimage.online/lisa.jpg
Is there some reason why that's an uninteresting exception?
but the initial load is the image and opening up dev tools and finding it in the sources/cache and saving it from there, chrome knows it's 56.1kb or whatever and just saves it out of cache, done.
Interesting but what was the point they're trying to make?
1. Open Inspect (right click and hit "inspect")
2. Click the "Network" tab
3. Refresh the page (while clearing the cache Command+Shift+R)
4. Right click on "lisa.jpg" in the list view under the "Network" tab
5. Click "Open in new tab"
6. Right click the image on the new tab
7. Click "Save image as"
Man I can't believe these clowns (or myself for typing all this out--don't know who is worse)
What am I missing?
More of a play on words for how copy and download often times mean the same thing even though technically they’re different.
The trick is to have nginx never timeout and just indefinitely hang after the image is sent. The browser renders whatever image data it has received as soon as possible even though the request is never finished. However, when saving the image the browser never finalizes writing to the temp file so it thinks there is more data coming and never renames the temp file to the final file name.
1. Secondary click image → "Copy Image"
2. Open Preview
3. File → New from Clipboard
4. Save image
But I don't know how to get it to not appear in network sources.
Or wasm but I don't know how to write that.
Looks at prntscrn key.
This is basically a carefully targeted reverse slow lorris and involves right clicking an image why do I fear that use case and that level of madcap solution will all lead back to NFT bros...
Then just go to the folder where it is being downloaded, and copy/paste the file "lisa.jpeg.crdownload" to "lisa.jpeg.crdownload copy".
Rename to "lisa.jpeg" and cancel the download. You now have the image. What's interesting is that you ARE actually downloading this image. It's just that they don't terminate the connection.
For me, the easiest way to mitigate it turned out to be to use wget [with an appropriate user-agent... say, the same as my desktop browser]. wget Gets the bits, but doesn't in any way molest the "partial" download when the connection resets. Then it tries to download the rest using the "Range" HTTP header, and the server says "oh, dude, you already got the whole thing"; wget declares success, and all the bits are in my download folder.
I believe that we pay, like, a lot for this proxy, which is annoying on two counts: 1) If I can get past it trivially, then presumably competent attackers can, too, and 2) Sometimes it takes a dislike to legitimate stuff, which is how I was forced to learn how to get around it.
If Web 3 is just willfully misunderstanding how computers work, I don't see a very bright future for it.
While the bytes are there temporarily, just like with all the other methods discussed, chrome at least eventually give up on downloading the "whole" image and displays a broken image sign in place of the Mona Lisa (and presumably prevents it from being cached and deletes what was there)
Now I really can't download the image
I'm not a web designer, but that seems rather ass-backwards. I'm already looking at the image, therefore the image is already residing either in my cache or in my RAM. Why it is downloaded a second time instead of just being copied onto my drive?
The idea is to fake the image that's being displayed in the IMG element by forcing it to show a `background-image` using `height: 0;` and `padding-top`.
In theory, you could make an IMG element show a photo of puppies and if the person chose to Right-click > Save Image As then instead of the dog photo it could be something else.
For some reason I can't Oauth into Codepen so for now I can't recreate it publicly.
This is the same method used to prevent hot linking to images back in the day.
IMO, browsers should remove `background-image` support from IMG elements for that reason.
And this sounds particularly important in case it's about a web page which has been altered in runtime by JavaScript - I want the actual DOM dumped so I can then loaded it to display exactly what I see now.
and it works
> Cunningham himself denies ownership of the law, calling it a "misquote that disproves itself by propagating through the internet."
https://archive.md/0UQsd: Ctrl + F for "nerd fury" to find where the claim starts
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBu...
I think certain browsers have security limits on the file-extensions you download, which may include when image->"save as" is used.
That’s the joke, i guess.
Because github is currently down.
Does not work in this particular case, of course, because the whole image is not yet in the cache.
I now have a photo of the Mona Lisa in my camera roll.
I guess this is one of those things that wouldn’t be as edgy with the actual mechanism stated. :)
(edit: clarity)
1) used the “copy image” function Safari on iOS.
2) took a screenshot.
… back to the drawing board NFT bros.
For example,
curl
curl -y3 -4o 1.jpg https://youcantdownloadthisimage.online/lisa.jpg
ftp -q3 -4o 1.jpg https://youcantdownloadthisimage.online/lisa.jpg
xy(){ tmux send "$@" ;};
xy "links https://youcantdownloadthisimage.online/lisa.jpg";
xy Enter;
sleep 2;
xy s;
xy Enter;
tmux capture -t3 -p|grep -q Overwrite &&
xy o;
sleep 1;
xy a;
xy q;
xy y;
frontend bs
bind ipv4@127.0.0.1:80
use_backend bs if { base_reg youcantdownloadthisimage.online/lisa.jpg }
backend bs
timeout server 420ms
server bs ipv4@137.135.98.207:443 ssl force-tlsv13 ca-file /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt verify required cat << eof > 1.cfg
[ x ]
accept=127.0.0.255:80
client=yes
connect=137.135.98.207:443
options=NO_TICKET
options=NO_RENEGOTIATION
renegotiation=no
sni=
sslVersion=TLSv1.3
eof
stunnel 1.cfg
printf 'GET /lisa.jpg HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: youcantdownloadthisimage.online\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip\r\n\r\n' \
|nc -w1 -vv 127.255 80 |jpgx > 1.jpg
printf 'GET /lisa.jpg HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: youcantdownloadthisimage.online\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip\r\n\r\n' \
|timeout 3 openssl s_client -tls1_3 -connect 137.135.98.207:443 -ign_eof|jpgx > 1.jpg
sed '1,3s/^ */ /;4,18s/^ *//' << eof > jpgx.l
int fileno(FILE *);
#define jmp (yy_start) = 1 + 2 *
#define echo do {if(fwrite(yytext,(size_t)yyleng,1,yyout)){}}while(0)
xa "\xff\xd8"
xb "\xff\xd9"
%s xa
%option noyywrap noinput nounput
%%
{xa} putchar(255);putchar(216);jmp xa;
<xa>{xb} echo;yyterminate();
<xa>.|\n echo;
.|\n
%%
int main(){ yylex();exit(0);}
eof
flex -8iCrf jpgx.l;
cc -std=c89 -Wall -pedantic -I. -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o jpgx;Works for me :) (I pasted in Telegram FYI)
The format allows for showing images when they are partially downloaded, and also allows pushing data that doesn't actually change the image.
And it just worked, with no hassle.
However, this is easily defeated by the use of the console: Select the sources tab, locate the image and simply drag-and-drop the image from there, which will use the local cache instance for the source. Works also with this site, at least with Safari.
I don't understand why browsers aren't always doing this. They already have the image, why redownload it?
I can't vouch for chromium-*, but my Firefox does NOT do that. I've just tested it.
When the image is on my screen I can just screenshot it.
This is a common problem, using something in insecure environment, thats why companies are going into such extents to encrypt movies on whole train from source to the display and even those are regularly dumped.
If I can see it, I can make a copy of it.
More info (and link to a Windows viewer tool) here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6133490/how-can-i-read-c...
[1] For me on Linux, Chrome's is ~/.cache/google-chrome/Default/Cache/
I ran into a Chrome performance bug years ago with animations, because the animation had more frames than the decoded cache size. Everything ground to a halt on the machine when it happened. Meanwhile older unoptimized browsers ran it just fine.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why.
Combine that with something like Safari's insistence at automatically exploding zipfiles on download, and you got yourself a party.
https://www.masswerk.at/demospace/relayWeb_en/chartset.htm
(Or see https://www.masswerk.at/demospace/relayWeb_en/welcome.htm and select "charts". Total time for calculations and rendering was then in the about 1 sec range. The real problem for using this in production was that these charts could be printed on Windows with Postscript printers only. I think, this was eventually fixed in Windows 98 SE.)
It is however perfectly possible to decode blocks of JPG on a GPU by using shader code.
They don’t already have the image. They have part of the image. Because the connection hasn’t closed, as far as the browser is concerned, it’s still in the process of downloading it.
you could right click, and copy image, rather than save as. It achieves what you wanted - save a copy of the image.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170130-00/?p=95...
I remember being like you, believing no virus could come from an image or other data. I have been proven wrong enough times since then. We keep assuming things as programmers and sometimes we get it wrong and then there is a new wulnerability.
Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s (this was so long ago that I cannot quickly find a reference), there were proposals to require all non-professional audio and video recorders to detect a watermark and disable recording when one was found. Needless to say this was a terrible idea, for several reasons.
But the concept is the same, server side check the ip of the request, and take action based on that check.
We came from a world where bytes mattered they come from a world where Gigabytes matter.
In some ways caring about that stuff can be detrimental, at the back of my mind there is always that little niggle - you could do this in 1/10th the runtime/memory cost but it'll take twice as long to write and you'll be the only one who understands it.
These days we don't optimise for the machine but instead for the human time and honestly, that's an acceptable trade off in many (but not all) cases.
It can be frustrating when you remember how much of an upgrade getting a 286 was over what you had, that I now routinely throw thousands of those (in equivalence) at a problem inefficiently and still get it done in under a second.
$ which curl
curl: aliased to _tob curl
After installing curl with apt-get it works.