Journal dpt's Journal: History of a web lightweight 38
Well, woogieoogieboogie seems to have crawled back under his rock.
So much for "showing everyone what a fucktart (sic) [I] really am". He trailed off on his journal when I cornered him on his misunderstanding of the intent of the web, which he got completely wrong. Now it's all deleted, strangly.
If you want a good laugh, take a look at some of William Platt's delusional, uneducated rantings on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html. It will illustrate why a good education is important.
Starting with the absolutely astounding lameness:
Pratt:
> I am so sick and tired of this you cannot hide source code shit.
> Anything is possible.
Can anyone possibly be *this* stupid? If the browser can get it, anyone can get it, just by opening a socket and reading the file. But this is a common mistake of web developers - who think HTTP is some kind of arcane magic that no one could possible reproduce in a simplified form outside a browser. Or even write a browser more flexible than IE.
The link idiot-boy used as an example:
http://home.earthlink.net/~woogieoogieboogie/hideme.html
So, I did a "wget" on this and received:
if (document.all){
document.write("")
}
else{
document.write('Your browser sucks')
}
Then a wget on "http://home.earthlink.net/~woogieoogieboogie/spacer.gif" gives:
if (document.all){
document.write("");
document.write("If you look under view source in IE, you will be unable to see the source code");
document.write("
");
document.write("Of course you can link directly to the javascript file and view
the source of the javascript file, but that is not viewing the source of hideme.html");
document.write("
");
document.write("Of course some idiots will link to the javascript file and claim they have viewed the source code, but the fact that they had to link to another reesource to view the source code demonstrates that they were unable to view the source code of the file they were directed to");
document.write("
");
document.write("It would not be difficult to write a server side script which would redirect any links to the javascript file which did not come from the proper host. this is done all the time to stop people from linking to certain pages of a website.");
document.write("
");
document.write("Alternatively, the name of the external javascript file could be hidden in a cookie which would make it even more difficult to find the name of
the javascript file to even try and link to it.");
document.write("
");
document.write("Hope this breaks the myth that source code cannot be hidden");
document.write("hello");
}
else{
null
}
Here we are, the source. Of course, after this was trivially defeated by someone a bit smarter than he, a disclaimer was added as you can see. But the fact remains that he failed miserably. Even the disclaimer is incorrect. It *is* able to be viewed. We are viewing it now.
And if he understood the first thing about computing, he won't have said something as idiotic in the first place. "Nothing is impossible"
More recently, we have:
Pratt:
> 20 years earlier and there woudl have been a lot less
> barriers and I probably woudl be the president of some fortune 500 company
> if I applied the same work, determination and persistence.
It's gone beyond comedy and into tragic self-mockery now.
"Barriers". Like expecting people to be able to think or be well educated, perhaps? I wonder what this company would produce, exactly? Idiotic, ignorant and uninformed ramblings on the internet aren't exactly valuable.
Like most losers, he mentions "Fortune 500" rather a lot. It's quite a common pattern I've noticed amongst clueless people. It's often an attempt to borrow credibility when you have none.
Pratt:
> As for disabled people, I think the greatest gift they can give to society
> is to overcome their disability on their own and serve as a role model to
> all that hard work does pay off.
I agree. Pratt himself is proof that now matter how lazy or ignorant you are, or whether your sister is also your mother, you too could become a "web developer" circa 1998 and make everyone else cover for you continually. Luckily, their ranks are rapidly thinning.
Perhaps he will see this, and show it to his real estate buddies where he claims to work. Now *there's* a field that has a low entry threshold
You get dumber by the second. (Score:2)
So much for "showing everyone what a fucktart (sic) [I] really am". He trailed off on his journal when I cornered him on his misunderstanding of the intent of the web, which he got completely wrong. Now it's all deleted, strangly.
Funny, you seem to have disappeared when I invited you onto usenet to discuss the topic. Guess you were afraid. It's either that or you pussed out because I asked you to show where your work is. Bottom line, you are a wuss.
Also, if you were not such an amateur, you would have found this http://www.allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Bill_Plat t. The demonstration sat there for a few days and out of hundreds of extremely experienced developers, not 1 of them could produce the HTML source. If you have any clue about web development, then you will be able to understand why it can be done and has been done.
"Barriers". Like expecting people to be able to think or be well educated, perhaps?
No, like being the wrong color you dolt. You are like a little bitch, eavesdrop on a conversation and then gossip.
I wonder what this company would produce, exactly? Idiotic, ignorant and uninformed ramblings on the internet aren't exactly valuable.Looks like you been lurking on usenet, stop being a total cunt and participate. I have my flame thrower ready and I estimate you will last about two days before you are laughed out of there.
Like most losers, he mentions "Fortune 500" rather a lot. It's quite a common pattern I've noticed amongst clueless people. It's often an attempt to borrow credibility when you have none.
Gee, with all the stalking you have been doing, it is amazing that you did not find out that I was a Series 7 licensed stockbroker. Well, there goes your theory. I agree. Pratt himself is proof that now matter how lazy or ignorant you are, or whether your sister is also your mother, you too could become a "web developer" circa 1998 and make everyone else cover for you continually. Luckily, their ranks are rapidly thinning.
There goes your 1998 fetish again. You talk shit, but where is your work? Why are you so ashamed to show it
Perhaps he will see this, and show it to his real estate buddies where he claims to work. Now *there's* a field that has a low entry threshold ... almost as low as for a stock broker.
Go take the NASD Series 7 exam and when you pass it, then talk shit.
Keep trying kook. One day you will i-up me. I do suggest gettng a job first.
Re:You get dumber by the second. (Score:1)
Why? I'm right, and you're wrong. Nothing will get through your thick head.
The demonstration sat there for a few days and out of hundreds of extremely experienced developers, not 1 of them could produce the HTML source. If you have any clue about web development, then you will be able to understand why it can be done and has been done
So, you're saying hundreds of web lightweights couldn't manage it? Not surprising. That's pretty easily defeated. Get your head out of your ass, and go get some sort of clue.
If the browser can render it, it must get it in the clear. If it can get it in
the clear, then *I* can. But getting it out of the browser might involve techniques not covered in "HTML in 21 days".
No, like being the wrong color you dolt. You are like a little bitch, eavesdrop on a conversation and then gossip
And what colour would that be. Bright yellow? There are successful people of all races. You can't blame your failure in life on that.
Perhaps we should have "affirmitive action" for CEOs. Thank God evolutionary pressures still exists in some areas.
Gee, with all the stalking you have been doing, it is amazing that you did not find out that I was a Series 7 licensed stockbroker. Well, there goes your theory.
I did. However, that has little credibility to me, I'm afraid. Why is this supposed to be impressive? The course doesn't even involve any hard maths from what I can see. It might be tough if you never finished high school, though.
Go take the NASD Series 7 exam and when you pass it, then talk shit
Why would I want to waste my time?
Keep trying kook. One day you will i-up me. I do suggest gettng a job first
As a web developer for the local McDonalds like you? No, it was real estate, wasn't it? Same difference.
Re:You get dumber by the second. (Score:2)
You do have a history of proclaiming yourself right with no basis in reality. Must be part of your mental illness.
So, you're saying hundreds of web lightweights couldn't manage it? Not surprising. That's pretty easily defeated. Get your head out of your ass, and go get some sort of clue.
The only lighweight is you. There is a reason why you constantly ignore the challenge to prove your work. It is because you are simply the most pathetic thing to ever live which claimed to be human.
If the browser can render it, it must get it in the clear. If it can get it in the clear, then *I* can. But getting it out of the browser might involve techniques not covered in "HTML in 21 days".
Perhaps you need to learn how IE renders dynamic content. Your knowledge is so basic it is laughable. Your "if the browser can render it you can see the source code" explanation ssimply proves how clueless you are.
I did. However, that has little credibility to me, I'm afraid. Why is this supposed to be impressive? The course doesn't even involve any hard maths from what I can see. It might be tough if you never finished high school, though.
"Hard maths." ROTFLMFAO. Only a complete fool would gauge something by the amount of math involved. it is not a course, it is a test you take to become professionally licensed and has a 70% failure rate including MBA's and economists who take it. Take it, pass it and then come back talking shit. Methinks you are just too plain dumb to pass it.
As a web developer for the local McDonalds like you? No, it was real estate, wasn't it? Same difference.
500,000 monthly users and going strong. And what do you do besides pretend to be someone important?
Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
Here's yet another way
You might have learned about how TCP/IP works. I can easily capture any packets going between my browser and your server at the network interface.
I can dump them to a file, then I can extract anything you have sent me. That defeats any attempted obfuscation you can come up with. You lose.
"I never fail" - William Platt.
Except when you clearly have, like now. So, are you going to admit it just can't be done yet, or are you going to slink away now? Or just redefine words so that your "solution" fits?
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:2)
So you use tcpdump or snort to capture packets to read a 204 or a 403 message. Any more shit you would like to talk out of your ass.
Except when you clearly have, like now. So, are you going to admit it just can't be done yet, or are you going to slink away now? Or just redefine words so that your "solution" fits?
I am sitting here laughing at you. Youu have no understanding of anything. but here, you can start with. RFC1180 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1180.html and then move on to RFC 2616 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
After you cover that, take a trip to http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/STAND/ECMA-262.HTM and then finally a trip to http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Perhaps after you digest this all, you will understand how utterly insane your comment about using a packet sniffer is.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
It's clear at this point you don't know what you are talking about. I can see *any* HTTP messages you send. All of them. No exceptions. They *must* pass throught the network interface to reach my browser. Get it?
Perhaps after you digest this all, you will understand how utterly insane your comment about using a packet sniffer is
Sure. Whatever. I can see all packets containing HTTP data that you send me. This defeats your obfuscation.
Please read the links you post *before* giving them to me. If you don't want to show how what I've said is wrong, please don't just vomit up specs and run.
And I *don't* just have to use tcpdump, of course. I could just modify the TCP/IP stack to do whatever I like
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
I'm seeing all the HTTP requests, the HTTP responses, and *all* the HTML source. I guess it works just fine. Enjoy eating your crow.
No doubt I'll get "I am laughing at you", or "ROTFL", or other script kiddie responses, but no actual reason why this can't work.
But the fact remains I can see everything that comes into my host, and therefore my browser, so anything Pratt comes up with at this point will merely be the screeching of an uneducated chimp.
I wonder if asspelunker will respond to this fact by posting specs that he doesn't understand again?
Looks like I win. Again.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
I run MSIE to look at Pratt's site, or whatever particular browser he insists on. He then uses Javascript to fetch the XML and XSL for the page.
However, I am also running tcpdump, set to give me the contents of all packets going to and from from the site in question. As the Javascript performs various operations to download the source, I get to log it as it is transferred across the network interface. And there it is, I have the source.
As for the sad attempts at checking for particular browsers, that doesn't help as I am actually using the correct browser. tcpdump is non-intrusive. There's no way he can detect that I'm logging the messages.
"I don't fail" - William Platt. Oh, well, best change that to, "I often and publically fail, and it's all logged on Google or here on
I think we're getting close to the *real* reason Pratt is not a "CEO of a Fortune 500 company". Large, successful companies tend not to put retarded monkeys in charge.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:2)
Enjoy looking at websites with tcpdump you dolt.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
Since I cashed in my stock options two years ago, a few thousand isn't enough it motivate me to do anything. But I think you're just weaseling out of admitting you are wrong, and making whiny excuses, because you are a total coward.
Enjoy looking at websites with tcpdump you dolt
I take this as an admission of failure on your part. It wouldn't take a minute to demonstrate if I am wrong, but you can't do it, because you don't know what you are talking about.
This exchanged will be logged on
Now, instead of having links to RFCs you keep around to pretend to be clueful, pick up a copy of TCP/IP Illustrated Vol 1 and 2 and *read* them. I know it's a large up front investment for the average web developer who needs to scramble for a few extra thousand, but you'd wouldn't make such a fool of yourself so often if you did that.
Given the volume of your bullshit, the investment in time and money would pay for itself in a week!
"I don't fail" - William Pratt. It is to laugh.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:2)
2 years ago http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^IXIC&d=c&t=5y&l=on&z =b&q=l would make you a retard for waiting so long. 2 years ago, the tech slaughter was pretty much over and it was the blue chips that got hammered from there. so tell the truth, were you afraid to find your dot.bomb options were worth nothing and cashed out only to find you worked for free for a few years, or did you cause an uneeded taxable event with the blue chips because you failed to understand simple portfolio hedging strategies. You claim to be great at math, why couldn't you execute the options, hedge the positions and tripled your money with the markets volatility. Are you that stupid where you cannot perform a technical analysis of stocks. A Fib analysis is pretty basic and involves a bit of math so you should find it enjoyable.
Only poor people and fools do not get excited over money regardless of the amount. You act nigger-rich, just like the dot.commers.
RFCs must be too complex for you. Looks like you must keep those college text books around since you haven't mastered the topic. That's why it took you 2 replies before you even knew what snort or tcpdump was.
You are simply too stupid to be entertaining.
Now, please go dump and reconstruct the html source code from Yahoo's front page and place a detailed explanation of how you did it with with all the commands and tcpdump files you used on a website. If you do not do this, then all of slashdot will forever know how full of crap you are. You have been called out pussy-boy. Do it, or suffer in your pathetic pool of spew. The proof is in the results. Yeah, go pull out your MCSE cheat notes and try and do it.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
You don't even know what company I was working for. You can't make any assumptions without that information.
Only poor people and fools do not get excited over money regardless of the amount
No, I have to invest my time more wisely for greater payoff.
You are simply too stupid to be entertaining
I have shown you to be incorrect. You cannot hide the HTML source. End of story. You are now a *proven* idiot.
Now, please go dump and reconstruct the html source code from Yahoo's front page and place a detailed explanation of how you did it with with all the commands and tcpdump files you used on a website. If you do not do this, then all of slashdot will forever know how full of crap you are. You have been called out pussy-boy. Do it, or suffer in your pathetic pool of spew. The proof is in the results. Yeah, go pull out your MCSE cheat notes and try and do it
But you *do* admit that it does work, don't you? Let's get that absolutely clear. You were wrong. I am right. I can see whatever you send me. Please explain how it can be prevented by your idiotic "hiding" schemes, or are you a complete chickenshit coward? You seemed pretty adamant that it would fail - have you changed your mind?
Also, read the books I mentioned, and stop making a public fool of yourself.
Of course, now you'll say if I don't write some code for you and walk you through it, that it somehow doesn't work. Sigh. Some people just can't think for themselves. Or maybe it's just that lack of a basic education coming through *again*?
It would be reasonably fiddly to put the HTTP messages back together, but not exactly rocket science. And if all I wanted to do is *read* your HTML, just the output from tcpdump will do fine, for me.
Of course, now you're going to claim that since I don't completely implement it, it's impossible, or some other weasel words that indicate you need to learn something about TCP/IP, and logic, fast.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
Looks like you must keep those college text books around since you haven't mastered the topic. That's why it took you 2 replies before you even knew what snort or tcpdump was
College text books? That's very funny. It's necessary to point out that anyone who doesn't know who Stevens (the author) is, and how influential these books are for programmers (real ones, not you, Javascript-boy), and TCP/IP implementors, clearly knows nothing about TCP/IP and the internet in general.
You could at least make the effort to *appear* not to be totally clueless, ignorant and lame.
But, I forgot. You've run away because you have been shown up. "Hiding the HTML", indeed. How could anyone think like this? Perhaps he was dropped on his head at birth, or is a failed abortion. Who knows with these people? At least there's less of them now with the "slump", and the rate of wannabes losing their "tech" jobs is increasing to my satisfaction.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
So, to conclude. HTML *cannot* be hidden, as it is transmitted over the network in the clear. It doesn't matter what Javascript you write to try to fetch the source in interesting ways, it still has to be received over the network.
Therefore, anyone can capture the packets, and see the source. End of story.
Now this entire thread is captured on
"I can code rings around you" - William Platt. Maybe, if he had any idea of what the fuck he was talking about.
Looks like that pretty much wraps it up for asspelunker's posing as a technically skilled individual. All that boasting and bragging and attempts at belittlement, and it all has turned to shit for him. That's what tends to happen to fakers and wannabes.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:2)
Your was indicates it is now a defunct company, or you got shitcanned.
No, I have to invest my time more wisely for greater payoff.
You made a claim you can do something and now you are backing out. Use TCPdump to capture all the packets sent by http://www.yahoo.com and recontruct the html source. Failure to do so simply demonstrates you are full of shit about everything you say.
You are becomming boring, please try and say something intelligent so I can have more enjoyment laughing at you. Like spending hours postign messages on slashdot.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
Wrong.
You made a claim you can do something and now you are backing out
I said I could read the HTML. I'm reading it right now, it's just got TCP/IP
packet headers interspersed throughout it. Big deal.
Just because it's too hard for you to strip out the header info, doesn't mean it can't be done.
Failure to do so simply demonstrates you are full of shit about everything you say
No, it doesn't, shit for brains.
You said the idea of capturing packets to read the HTML source was "utterly stupid", and now you're not only saying it's perfectly valid, but that you would like me to write the code for you. Fat chance. Read the fucking tcpdump manual for yourself. Learn a programming language and implement it for yourself.
So, I'm not prepared to go any further until you admit you were utterly wrong, and that my scheme clearly works, and that you cannot hide the HTML source. You've practically admitted as much, by insisting that I write message re-assembling code for you, which isn't necessary, but would indeed be convenient.
Where is the reason that this won't work? Why are you such a fucking coward that you can't produce it? The answer is that you realize that you were wrong.
Now, be a man and admit it, instead of a whiny faggot.
You are becomming boring, please try and say something intelligent so I can have more enjoyment laughing at you
More "laughing at me"? When you were wrong, and I have demonstrated that you know exactly nothing about TCP/IP? Ignorance is bliss.
Like spending hours postign messages on slashdot
Given your background and remedial education, it may well take *you* hours.
"I don't fail" - William Platt. What a joke.
Re:Throwing a dog a bone ... (Score:1)
So, having cut yet another web-lamer down to size, it's probably time to troll again and see what other uppity dunderheads I can reel in.
Use TCPdump to capture all the packets sent by http://www.yahoo.com and recontruct the html source
You *still* need to explain why capturing the packets is "utterly stupid". Come on, coward. And you must also show how the specs you posted to me demonstrate this, otherwise you simply verify that you haven't read them, and were just trying to act intelligent. The fact is *they don't*.
I'm starting to see why you didn't last long the USAF
Besides, I don't think I would *reconstruct* the source from the tcpdump output, I'd just use that for reading the source and put up with the occasional packet header "noise". That would be good enough to see understand how someone's highly advanced "full blown text editor in Javascript" worked, for example. Not that you would need to, given how ubiquitous this particular application seems to be.
To reconstruct the source in an more automated way, which might be required if *lots* of people were hiding source that I wanted to read, I'd just alter the TCP/IP stack implementation to write out the stream from a given host to a file. Was that explanation too technical for you? I don't think I can dumb it down for stock broker types much further
Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:2)
Errr, no Mr. Short Term Memory, I told you I had some extra work to do. Seems like you cannot remember much. So, having cut yet another web-lamer down to size, it's probably time to troll again and see what other uppity dunderheads I can reel in.
If that is what your delusional mind calls it, then be happy thinkign that way. Seems like you talk so much shit, but still have not produced anything.
You *still* need to explain why capturing the packets is "utterly stupid". Come on, coward. And you must also show how the specs you posted to me demonstrate this, otherwise you simply verify that you haven't read them, and were just trying to act intelligent. The fact is *they don't*.
AKA, you cannot do it. I'm starting to see why you didn't last long the USAF ... they tend not to appreciate blustering cowardice there.
Err, 4 years was my enlistment obligation. Quite simple really.
As far as coward. I live in Pompano Beach FL, if you want to see if I am a coward, come pay a visit. RoTFLMFAO. i'll bet 2 dollars against a blow job from your mother that you wouldn't have the guts to mouth off to me.
Besides, I don't think I would *reconstruct* the source from the tcpdump output, I'd just use that for reading the source and put up with the occasional packet header "noise". That would be good enough to see understand how someone's highly advanced "full blown text editor in Javascript" worked, for example. Not that you would need to, given how ubiquitous this particular application seems to be. To reconstruct the source in an more automated way, which might be required if *lots* of people were hiding source that I wanted to read, I'd just alter the TCP/IP stack implementation to write out the stream from a given host to a file. Was that explanation too technical for you? I don't think I can dumb it down for stock broker types much further ... perhaps if I made it into a pie chart somehow?
Stop making fucking pathetic excuses. You claimed you can do somethign and now you are backpedaling. Excuses are for losers.
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:1)
But it wouldn't take a minute to explain why capturing the packets won't work! Come on, you stupid monkey.
If that is what your delusional mind calls it, then be happy thinkign that way. Seems like you talk so much shit, but still have not produced anything
Here we go with the "you have not produced anything talk". I've explained this to you plenty of times, it's all there for you to read. Even the *stupidest* person would see that they are wrong by now. Jesus Christ, you must be a dullard. I feel deeply sorry for your teachers over the years (for what little education you had, that is).
AKA, you cannot do it
Whatever. You admit, by asking me to do this, that HTML can't be "hidden", so you lose. End of story.
Err, 4 years was my enlistment obligation. Quite simple really
So, you weren't exactly promotion material, I take it.
As far as coward. I live in Pompano Beach FL, if you want to see if I am a coward, come pay a visit. RoTFLMFAO. i'll bet 2 dollars against a blow job from your mother that you wouldn't have the guts to mouth off to me
Mouth off to a fat, dumb 35 year old? Why wouldn't I?
So, when you're proven wrong you talk about physical violence on the internet? That makes you a coward, I'm afraid. That's as lame as picking on spelling errors. What a kook.
You claimed you can do somethign and now you are backpedaling. Excuses are for losers
No, I'm just not fulfilling the requirement that *you* constructed when you realised you were wrong. You are backpedalling, as you will not defend your claim. Your are a coward.
The important point is that you now quite obviously understand that HTML *cannot* be hidden. You current tactic proves it.
Now, I know it's difficult with your special-ed background, but please read the specs you posted. Then you can stop trying to hide by making up requirements (which you've done before on usenet when proven wrong), and tell me why it can't be done. You were so *sure* just a few posts ago. Here is your chance to prove to the world how smart you are. Let's here it. Now or never.
But, since you don't know what your are talking about, you can't, and you'll just keep saying "you must implement X, Y and Z before I accept the truth" like the cringing little fag that you are.
HTML can't be hidden, and I have *told* you why. Are you going to refute that? Let's hear it, chimp-boy!
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:2)
It isn't whether or not it can be done, it is that YOU CANNOT DO IT. Whatever. You admit, by asking me to do this, that HTML can't be "hidden", so you lose. End of story.
The amazing "whatever" which translates to "dpt cannot do what he says so he tries to blow it off." The HTML can be hidden. You are not going to do a tcpdump to retrieve a javascript to find the locations of an XML file and xslt file and then tcpdump those files and then perform a translation. Sorry loser, but even if YOU could do that, it falls way outside of "viewing html source code." Not to mention that your great plans could be severely fscked by writing an activex contol which decrypts encrypted xml and xslt files before doing the translation. Bottom line, if you cannot understand how and why HTML source CAN be hidden, you are not learned enough in web development.
So, you weren't exactly promotion material, I take it.
Errr, no more like got money for college and went to college. Very simple really.
Mouth off to a fat, dumb 35 year old? Why wouldn't I?
Then come and try. You call me a coward, but you are afraid. ROTFLMFAO.
So, when you're proven wrong you talk about physical violence on the internet? That makes you a coward, I'm afraid. That's as lame as picking on spelling errors. What a kook.
Where precisely did I say anything about physical violence? I said you wouldn't have the balls to mouth off to me in front of me.
No, I'm just not fulfilling the requirement that *you* constructed when you realised you were wrong. You are backpedalling, as you will not defend your claim. Your are a coward.
You said you could tcpdump the html pages and reconstruct them, yet you produce nothing. That can only mean you do not have a clue what you are spewing about.
The important point is that you now quite obviously understand that HTML *cannot* be hidden. You current tactic proves it.
Prove you can do what you say you can.
But, since you don't know what your are talking about, you can't, and you'll just keep saying "you must implement X, Y and Z before I accept the truth" like the cringing little fag that you are.
HTML can't be hidden, and I have *told* you why. Are you going to refute that? Let's hear it, chimp-boy!
You said, but seem unable to do. Ergo, you cannot do it which means your claim is dubious. You have no credibility.
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:1)
How can you possibly be so stupid? It is sent in the clear. Jesus Christ, get a clue.
You are not going to do a tcpdump to retrieve a javascript to find the locations of an XML file and xslt file and then tcpdump those files and then perform a translation. Sorry loser, but even if YOU could do that, it falls way outside of "viewing html source code."
Of course I can do that. I don't have to automate it - that wasn't an original requirement. I strip out the headers, then apply the XSLT to the XML. And I'm done. Game over, loser monkey.
Not to mention that your great plans could be severely fscked by writing an activex contol which decrypts encrypted xml and xslt files before doing the translation. Bottom line, if you cannot understand how and why HTML source CAN be hidden, you are not learned enough in web development
Ah, now you're *finally* adding encryption. How long did *that* take? No wonder your ancestors didn't get past "sharpened stick" technology.
The trouble with that is, of course, that I have all the keying material needed to decrypt the stream.
Errr, no more like got money for college and went to college. Very simple really
Yet some people manage to make a significant career out of it. Not you, though.
Then come and try. You call me a coward, but you are afraid. ROTFLMFAO
There's that "ROTFLMFAO" again. Sure sign of a script kiddie. Now, why would I want to go disturb you and your boyfriend, exactly?
You said you could tcpdump the html pages and reconstruct them, yet you produce nothing. That can only mean you do not have a clue what you are spewing about
So, you understand that it works, therefore I have gotten through your thicker than average skull, by the sounds of it.
Prove you can do what you say you can
*You* said you could "hide the HTML"!!
You have no credibility
Really? Like I said, here's your big chance to explain why it won't work, using the specs you posted, but that you clearly have not read.
Here, I'll start it for you:
"It cannot be read off the network interface because
I won't be replying to the screeching chimp until I get an answer.
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:1)
I neglected to highlight this point. This is where you reveal your ignorance of networking. I don't *have* to find "the location"
The only reason that won't work is if you host the XML and XSLT on a different site, but I'd realize that when I didn't get them, and look at the Javascript to determine where that is.
Of course, anyone who understands basic information theory would understand why it is not logically possible to hide HTML source from someone who has to be able to read it in order to render it in a browser, only obfuscate it under layers of easily cracked nonsense.
But, as you're just a "web developer" (which is about the intellectual equivalent of connecting a Playstation to a television), and sysadmin, I guess I can't expect much. Your "resume" wouldn't even pass the laugh test with me I'm afraid, and as for passing one of my interview exams
Anyway, that's the end as far as I can tell, until chimp-boy can tell me why this is all "utterly stupid", as we're just going in circles.
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:2)
I have known for years how tcpdump and snort work. Kinda funny that it took you several replies before you even mentioned either of those programs
So you admit the html source can be hidden from you if encrypted and decrypted with an activex control.
I think this thread has amply demonstrated that you are a looney.
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:2)
Too bad, I guess I will just have to be content with maintaining my dozen servers, 40 system users and company website while being very well compensated and appreciated.
Now prove you can do what you claimed or admit you are a retard.
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:1)
*You* are still talking shit, but not doing anything
I have known for years how tcpdump and snort work. Kinda funny that it took you several replies before you even mentioned either of those programs
Sigh. Stop backpedalling. Where is the evidence, preferably from the specs you posted, that it fails? When will you produce what you said you could? You made a claim, now back it up. Or are you backing down on that one?
How many chances do you need?
So you admit the html source can be hidden from you if encrypted and decrypted with an activex control
Kinda funny how you took several *days* to think of encrypting it. And no, I do not admit it works. I clearly said, if you could read Standard English, that since I have the keying material (read up on secure sockets, please), I can decrypt it off the wire. You've failed a *second* time, with a whole *new* scheme. How humiliating for you.
I think this thread has amply demonstrated that you are a looney
I think this thread, and all the other on usenet with your name on it, prove that you don't know the first thing about computers, networking, programming or how to think clearly, and are a kook. How many times do you have to be told by everyone you encounter that you are an idiot before it sinks in?
It's going to *suck* to be you when your next potential employer sees all that ridiculous shit
Logic for psych majors (Score:1)
A whole dozen servers! 40 users! I'm not sure TCP/IP scales to those *huge* numbers
And what company would that be? You've done a lot of bragging, but you've produced exactly nothing to demonstrate your vast and widely underrated ability, despite jumping up and down and insisting that *I* do. I think you're just making these claims up as you go along. I don't think you have a job at all, or at least to get it you weren't evaluated by a technical person.
Now prove you can do what you claimed or admit you are a retard
False dichotomy. I'm not doing what you asked, which is absolutely not what I claimed. You've played this game before when proven wrong, on usenet, I notice.
I said I could *read* it. I can. I just ignore the packet header info, which is infrequent enough not to be too annoying. That would be enough to get your precious "intellectual property". For people who wanted it "cleaned", I could strip the packet headers out with an editor if I liked. If I was in the business of reading lots of "hidden" HTML, *then* I might create an processor, as you want, but I don't *need* to do it to make my case. I can *read* it right now. Case closed.
If I actually took the time to implement the processor, you'd just want something else, then something else, then something else. Just admit you were wrong. It's *easy* to deduce that it *can't* be hidden - tcpdump is just *one* way of demonstrating it. Like I've already said, I probably *wouldn't* use tcpdump to do it, but would instead alter the TCP/IP implementation to dump out data received from different hosts into different files, as the packet re-assembling code is already there in the TCP/IP implementation. I'll do it for you, but you can't afford my consulting rates.
But I've said all this before. Did your remedial English teacher have this same problem - needing to explain things multiple times? I'm just going to cut+paste from now on, I think.
I've done what I claimed - shown that you cannot hide HTML as it must be sent in the clear. Transforming it from XML with XSLT is merely obfuscation, as I can perform the same transformation with the XML and XSLT. Encrypting it doesn't work, as I have all the keying material by definition, and can therefore decrypt it. Therefore *that's* just another layer of obfuscation, and one that, laughably, you've only just thought of now.
So, it can't be done. The browser *must* get it in the clear. Therefore, *I* can get it in the clear, because I've got all the information the browser has. It's *very* simple logic.
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:1)
Re:Excuses are for losers and dpt (Score:1)
"I don't fail" - William Platt.
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:2)
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:1)
More "laughing". Do you always laugh when proved wrong? Last time you said you were "laughing" at my "utterly stupid" plan to get your source? Why is it that you can't say why, Pratt, or have you read those specs and realized it's not.
That would explain why you started rambling about "encryption", but your idiotic suggestion confirms the general opinion about "stock brokers" and Javascript "programmers" - they're as dumb as a box of hammers.
You made a claim and failed to produce
Fuck, no wonder you can't get a real IT job. I've told you how this works - I can get around your lame "hiding" by reading the data off the wire. I might use tcpdump. For the options to do this see "man tcpdump". What other claims did I make exactly? Are you confused again about who said what?
So, I win. You cannot "hide" HTML. It's logically impossible, as I have proven repeatedly. Even a chimp could understand this by now.
Now, why can't you support your previous "claim" of "hiding the HTML"? We've seen SFA so far, just some idiotic ramblings about "encryption". And why bring encryption into it, since your other scheme was so perfect? *More* backpedalling
"I should be CEO of a Fortune 500 company" - William Platt. I wonder what this company would produce? Ignorance is already plentiful, but I admit you've got an unusual amount of it, even for a "web developer".
you promised your boss you could develop a website
I hate to break it to you, but "developing a website" is not exactly rocket science.
I haven't seen *you* produce anything, yet, by the way.
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:2)
IE does NOT cough up the html source with dynamically generated content. Do you understand that. I will repeat it, IE does not cough up the html source with dynamically generated content whether it is from javascript, java, or an activex control. Are you getting it, IE does not show the html source with dynamically generated content. Get it, dynamically generated html means no html source in IE. If you weren't such a retard you would understand that concept and then finally be illuminated as to why it is possible to hide the HTML source.
No where did I say encryption was required, but it is another approach or layer one can add to lock the html source from view.
Now you said you were going too use tcpdump to reconstruct a webpage, why haven't you done that.
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:1)
You are still confused about who said what. Those remedial English classes aren't going too well, I take it?
IE does NOT cough up the html source with dynamically generated content. Do you understand that. I will repeat it, IE does not cough up the html source with dynamically generated content whether it is from javascript, java, or an activex control. Are you getting it, IE does not show the html source with dynamically generated content. Get it, dynamically generated html means no html source in IE. If you weren't such a retard you would understand that concept and then finally be illuminated as to why it is possible to hide the HTML source
You really are a stupid monkey, aren't you? I don't need to use IE to view the source, as I have captured it as it flowed across the network interface.
Typical web developer who doesn't understand that HTML (or XML) isn't some sort of "black magic" (or, rather "voodoo"), that is delivered magically to the browser. It has to go across the network first. Therefore it can be seen and/or captured.
No where did I say encryption was required, but it is another approach or layer one can add to lock the html source from view
So, you admit the first one isn't good enough? I'm relieved we've gotten that far. Now, go back to my earlier post and see why encryption cannot actually help in this situation.
Now you said you were going too use tcpdump to reconstruct a webpage, why haven't you done that
No, I didn't. I said that is one way (to show an idiot how it could be done) to read it, which was all we where talking about at the time. As I've said before, repeatedly, that would be fine for reading it, but to reconstruct it the sensible approach would be to modify the TCP/IP stack. And I'm not prepared to do that for free, but you *must* be able to see, by now, that it's feasible. Surely to fucking Christ
Have I gotten through to you, or do I have to run it through an "ebonics" translator first?
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:1)
Re:Logic for psych majors (Score:1)
Sure, I grab the tcpdump output, then strip out the tcpdump headers by hand. Done! A program that does this is not hard, but it is fiddly, as I said before.
Anyway, you're too dumb to see that you are wrong, so I just can't help you. Enjoy being the subject of a running joke.
Bye, Pratt, consider your insane, incorrect, uneducated ramblings filtered out.