I 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.
@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/
He doesn't need to code โ He groks.
Play dramatic jingle: https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=rxHmI9F3voo
๐ค๐คช
Everybody wants to be like that dramatic prarie dog on YouTube. The Viacom V of Doom is no exception. Video NO. 21910A
@mjg59 It seems a little odd they're still using twitter.com as their primary domain.
You have to imagine multiple teams at the company have spent the past half year trying to figure out how to ensure all their infrastructure won't explode if they started redirecting twitter.com to x.com rather than the reverse.
Apparently, regex is hard. /s
regetwitter
@mjg59 I just posted a link to https://www.twentyessex.com/ and it was fine
and then deleted the post because i don't post there anymore
Wait, they did what the what now?
Substring match on the end?
Bwahahaha... Oh, you are serious.