Timeline for Use of Mediafire or Anonymous Hosting links in Answers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://askubuntu.com/ with https://askubuntu.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.askubuntu.com/ with https://meta.askubuntu.com/
|
|
| Jun 15, 2012 at 1:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/AskUbuntu/status/213444333402206208 | ||
| Jun 5, 2012 at 21:39 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | That would be insane storage requirements, I doubt that'll happen. Might pose that at Meta SO though | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 20:46 | comment | added | nanofarad | Maybe StackExchange in general needs a small file-hosting system for users with enough(like 100) rep. | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 17:34 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | While I understand both of your points of view, it seems this is turning into a sort of an argument. Please note that for each comment you make I get a notification. Also, arguing is counter-intuitive here :P | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 17:32 | comment | added | Mateo | ... and mediafire doesn't just "automatcally" put up random adds? I will still avoid clicking on the link. | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 13:08 | comment | added | Mateo | I think there is little difference in this case because the link was for example something like (www.mediafire.com/random8numbers13andletters) If we use a set of common download tools, where users know what the primary link is going to do (aka take them to a link without alot of adds and Click Yes and Download Here) To a certain extent I know what type of content will come from pastebin ( yes I will still be careful and check the content), for custom programs we have ppa's, we can see if the user is active as a developer. The sites should not be used, there are better places for the content. | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 0:36 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | To illustrate the difference, in case it's not clear: Yes, any link could be to a web page that tries to exploit a security vulnerability in your browser. But with a link obfuscated by shortening, you don't even have the URL of the page, to use to judge whether or not it's safe to go there. You don't even have a domain name to look up. Furthermore, while every once in a very long while there is a security vulnerability discovered making it possible for non-executable files (e.g., archives, graphical images) to run code, bugs letting websites run code with elevated abilities are very common. | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 0:32 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | Unlike "anonymously" hosted sites, where you know what website you are going to, with a shortened link (to bit.ly, tinyurl.com, or a similar site), you don't know what website you're going to. Files offered for download can be downloaded and examined. Examining them is low-risk. In contrast, a bit.ly link can redirect to a web page that itself exploits a security vulnerability in the user's web browser. Even if we allow links to "anonymous" download sites (and you all know I think we should ;-)), I still don't think that means we should allow URL's obfuscated by shortening. | |
| Jun 2, 2012 at 10:50 | answer | added | RobotHumans | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 30, 2012 at 15:40 | comment | added | rlemon | If the source is bad, flag the answer for moderator attention... a few bad apples might sneak through but that will happen anyway. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 15:39 | comment | added | rlemon | Well, I think it is only fair to assume people should be taking caution when opening / downloading / or installing anything provided from an unknown or untrusted source. We cannot babysit these users any more than posting something in the FAQ. I don't think we should block these any more than we should block bitly (obfuscated) links. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 12:39 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | @Bruno indeed, but even moreso is the anonymity factor of certain sites. Launchpad, github, sourceforge, etc. all require an identifier for you to use to host any data. Mediafire and rapidshare (free accounts on rapidshare used for spam uploads and stuff), though, don't necessarily need those identifiers. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 0:01 | answer | added | Eliah Kagan | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 29, 2012 at 20:35 | comment | added | Bruno Pereira Mod | Sounds the same except here (correct me if wrong please) we are mostly talking about anonymous file sharing sites, not (for ie:) github and similar. | |
| May 29, 2012 at 20:28 | comment | added | Jorge Castro | Discussion on Superuser about the same thing: meta.superuser.com/questions/4716/… | |
| May 29, 2012 at 20:27 | answer | added | Bruno PereiraMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 29, 2012 at 20:01 | history | edited | Thomas WardMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 127 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2012 at 19:54 | history | asked | Thomas WardMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |