![]() ![]() The Hardware Hacking Handbook | No Starch Press.LPRng: RESOURCES – PostScript, Epson, HP, Xerox, PPD, etc.Git (even recent versions) hanging after “Resolving deltas: 100%”.Note (typography) – Wikipedia Footnote – PrintWiki.Jelmer Visser on Twitter: “Doelwit van een flamewar op Twitter? Dat is vervelend. ![]() Jpluimers on Delphi 10.2 Tokyo Godzilla ISO…īigBother on How do I pretty-print JSON in… Jpluimers on How do I pretty-print JSON in… NET About Apple C# Conferences Conference Topics Delphi Delphi XE2 Delphi XE3 Development Event Google History Internet LifeHacker Linux Mac Mac OS X / OS X / MacOS Personal Power User Scripting Security Software Development Source Code Management VMware Windows Windows 7 Windows 8ĭavid Blue on MacOS: converting a man page t… ![]() My method of doing an each time random method works very well, I have yet to get any spam on my account.*nix *nix-tools. There are some harvesters that do try to process JS, but like I said it is very costly when you are running millions of emails in a matter of minutes, you don't want to go down to 10s or 100s if you can do 1000s. Making those methods more costly for harvesters. Most harvesters are not Javascript aware, that is they do not process JS. This does not really apply to small mom & pop websites who might use a myriad of obfuscation methods, or sites where users post different format emails in a variety of email obfuscation ways (omitting the. You would be surprised how well this method works, sure some methods are compromised and easily broken, but more elaborate methods of email obfuscation usually make the harvesting pointless as the sheer amount of pattern detection would require a lot of invested resources.īrute force of CAPTCHAS is different, where the hackers/spammers/harvesters TARGET a specific site. So an email never really looks like an email, and the pattern ALWAYS changes. The thing that is usually done is non JS encoded, plain text emails are harvested (check any 1-2 year old website that is unchanged, and I bet you $20 bucks its plain text email and they get tons of spam).Īt my company all the external facing emails are obfuscated using a series of server side & JS client side methods. Of course nothing stops manual harvesting, but that is very low. Yes it is true in most cases because you need a pattern for email harvesting, the more complex the pattern the more expensive (time/money) it is for spammers to work at getting emails. So, to answer the question: Yes, (in a way) email obfuscation works. ![]() Plain Text 21 MB is the original statistical graph made by Silvan Mühlemann, all credit goes towards him: Replacing and '.' with Entities 1.6 MB E-Mail with comments 7.1 MB 7.9 MB xyz% M += '' // and then add it to the DOM (eg, via M += // creating the string containing the email Nine ways to obfuscate e-mail addresses comparedĬSS Codedirection 0 MB spam display:none 0 MB Encryption 0 MB ATs and DOTs 0.084 MB xyz AT example DOT comīuilding with Javascript 0.144 MB var m = 'xyz' // you can use any clever method of Some time ago I stumbled upon the post of someone who created a honeypot and waited for differently obsfucated email-addresses coming back: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |