New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
@titanicsaled not in stable either
Edit: wait no I lied its coming up. Everything looks good in Stable. Sorry about that apparently my browser told me it was done loading but it actually wasn't "done" loading. Also, is it slow for everyone else? Its acting kinda slow for me (when going to WHT on Stable).
@HalfEatenPie
Have you tried clearing your cache and refreshing the page a few times, its working fine for me on chrome.
assuming you're mentioning the bar I'm on a different machine and haven't used your scripts at all until I posted that.
Also sorry forgot to remind you that I edited the previous post (didn't want to double post)
Ah right, thanks for confirming
Yeah, WHT is quite slow through the proxy in comparison with other websites.
Wait... why is there a browser requirement for something as simple as a proxy script? Additionally, it's bad practice to entirely block access based on useragent - it's much better to just display a warning.
Also, you should probably increase the padding in the input box, makes it look a lot better.
Google wasn't working for me. It's prob. because they use gzip compression (I guess?)
Edit: +1 with what @joepie91 said
@joepie91
The reason for the browser requirement is that I would like to get everything working and displaying correctly on the current browsers before I start to patch features for backwards compatibility etc.
I will be adding support for older browsers soon
What input box do you mean? The one on the homepage or on the bar?
It doesn't seem to handle redirects correctly.
@NickW
Could you give me an example of a website that doesn't redirect properly please?
http://www.cmyip.com o_O
@titanicsaled your scripts looks veeeeeery good. I would like a copy when youtube works
I don't see why that means you'd have to actually block browsers...
Both. There's no padding on the left side at all.
@netomx
Thanks! No problem, I will be setting up a blog and git repository soon so that development becomes a little more public.
@yomero
Thanks, I'll take a look at redirects to see if there's anything I can do
@joepie91
You mean the padding between the text and the left side of the boxes?
Ok, I'll add the ability to use older browsers before I release the script publicly
Your link-hiding is simply based on ROT-13 "encryption". This can be easily seen and converted back to the original strings. It would be good to use another method of hiding the accessable urls on a page.
@nabo
The URL encryption is simply to change the URL so it is unrecognisable to web filters that block keywords, do you think that it would need to be changed for some other reason?
Yes because as you're not using SSL this can be easily recognized by any party that is in-between.
@nabo
I'll add that to my todo list
EDIT - What encryption would you suggest? (it needs to be 2 way because they script needs to decrypt the url as well)
Just do a "random" mapping. a->g / g->a / b->j / j->b / etc. Share the mapping between JS (client-side) and PHP (server-side), etc. It doesn't have to be undetectable, it just has to be hard enough that no automated content-filter is gonna bother.
That way a content filter can't just use a standard detection to figure it out. A lot of filters that block based on path/querystring will also try rot13, decode %-escapes, etc.
SSL isn't even a solution for something like this really. For example my old high school now intercepts HTTPS (their certificate is added to their computers of course) and will block it as well. Sucks because they also started blocking other ports (like 22).
Have a look at how Picidae does it.
@titanicsaled My mistake. Most seem to work fine, but some sites such as youtube.com don't redirect to www.youtube.com when they should.
@nabo
Wow, that looks pretty cool
I haven't a clue what type of encryption their using though
@NickW
I'll take a look at those redirects after I finish the new encryption scheme
@nabo
Take a look at http://dev.titanicbrowsing.eu . I have implemented ROT47 encryption on the url but the way I have implemented it allows me to change the string that the function replaced the url with so I can change the encryption to make it a lot stronger.
Of course it isn't very strong because its still only a substitution cipher but at least I can change it for individual copies of the script to make it more secure.
try this one http://www.w3.org/Amaya/
i use it on my friend's netbook (Acer bla2 forgot the series) and running well.
Thanks man.
I am trying it, but it seems to be incompatible with most modern sites.
Indeed uses very low RAM, but is destroying the layout of my favorite sites u_u (And too much CPU. Seems to be blocking at times).
I have set up a blog at http://titanicbrowsing.eu for the development of the script for the time being using blite by @sleddog
An opportunity to download the script will soon be available at the blog!
I will be keeping the blog updated with the latest new features and bugfixes. If you find any further problems while testing the script, or would like to get in touch, either PM me here or comment on a blog post.