Matthew GarrettTwitter just doing a "redirect links in tweets that go to x.com to twitter.com instead but accidentally do so for all domains that end x.com like eg spacex.com going to spacetwitter.com" is not absolutely the funniest thing I could imagine but it's high up there
Jorge
-> @haileys.quest
Michael Stanclift
π‘πππΊππππΊπ π°ππππ±@vmstan @herko @blake @mjg59
Cos they never bothered doing the job properly first time around either
Cos they never bothered doing the job properly first time around either
Reeter@SmartmanApps @vmstan @herko @blake @mjg59
Hey, if you plan to work in a quick and dirty mode, it has to be dirty at the end, as dirty as possible to show the world that you are disrupting everything π
Hey, if you plan to work in a quick and dirty mode, it has to be dirty at the end, as dirty as possible to show the world that you are disrupting everything π
screambiogenesisI could be wrong, but I believe it's the other way around. My understanding:
For vanity, tweets with links to 'twitter.com/blahblahblah' are visually edited to show 'x.com/blahblahblah', but the backend still sends the user to the original twitter URL.
So someone could potentially link to a malicious site hosted on 'netflitwitter.com' or something, and the filter would make the link look like 'netflix.com' while still directing the user to the malicious site.
Eric Stein οΏ½@screambiogenesis @vmstan @herko @blake @mjg59 you're right. But spacetwitter.com would have been a valid way to phish people who thought they were going to spacex.com
#/usr/sbin/rtheren@screambiogenesis @vmstan @herko @blake @mjg59 I think that's how it works. Anyway, check out my new page twitterhamster.com :P
fdr
maya @ home
TerraGloba 
@vmstan @herko @blake @mjg59
Wasn't it cosmetic? At least, that's how I understood it.
The UI basically did `sed 's/twitter\.com$/x.com/g'` showing e.g. fedex[.]com as link preview while the link actually went to fedetwitter[.]com.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/04/twitters-clumsy-pivot-to-x-com-is-a-gift-to-phishers/