Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:36 pm
shapu wrote:Dusket wrote:Out of curiousity do I need to delete my cookies after I change the pass? I haven't, and didn't, and am wondering whether if it was a CGer instead of what I figured to be a mispricer if my account would have been.. Well.. dead by now.
No. Once you change your password, your old cookies are no longer valid.ira_7700 wrote:I'm sorry if i've missed it, but I want to know something. Does visiting a site with the cg code make you a "spreader"? Or does the person just get your password and steal stuff from your account.
In order to become a "spreader," what happens is that the person who runs the cookie grabber must access your account and insert the cookie-grabber scripting or referrer or whatever into your shop or user lookup. At that point, you are a spreader.
My two cents? TNT should ban all links in shops except to other shops. They should ban all html in shops except "font," "a href" and "img."
There was a point in time where TNT had banned all CSS coding in shops. Whatever happened to that?. I know when I returned I was absolutely amazed to see it implemented again.
Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:09 am
LDP prize alert: while you are locking things up with PINS, remember that lost desert plot points are not protected. If you haven't spent them yet, you might want to make your secision soon and stash your prize in your SDB.
really. I'd *sure miss* going to a shop and hearing bad music, hunting for invisible prices, deciphering faded shaking upsidedown pictures, and all those scroll boxes inside of scroll boxes inside of scroll boxes.
mattjcasey wrote:You know, things would be a heck of a lot easier if Neopets just got the clue and disabled all HTML, Javascript, ect ect and just allowed basic text or BBCode style commands...
really. I'd *sure miss* going to a shop and hearing bad music, hunting for invisible prices, deciphering faded shaking upsidedown pictures, and all those scroll boxes inside of scroll boxes inside of scroll boxes.
Last edited by WockyChocky on Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:54 am
I'm sorry if i've missed it, but I want to know something. Does visiting a site with the cg code make you a "spreader"? Or does the person just get your password and steal stuff from your account.
In order to become a "spreader," what happens is that the person who runs the cookie grabber must access your account and insert the cookie-grabber scripting or referrer or whatever into your shop or user lookup. At that point, you are a spreader.
My two cents? TNT should ban all links in shops except to other shops. They should ban all html in shops except "font," "a href" and "img."
Thanks for the info.But if the account is under 13, the person cannot insert the scripting, right? Because under 13 account cannot change/add anything into UserLookUp and Shops. So, means he cannot use my account to spread, right?
If so, I'm just glad!
Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:46 pm
I'd like it if an account had to be a certain age to put in any kind of HTML, CSS, etc. That way, only established, legitimate accounts could do it. Then, people who were frozen for putting cookie grabbers in their shops wouldn't be able to do it again for a certain amount of time, even if they started a new account.
Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:56 pm
theonlysaneone wrote:I'd like it if an account had to be a certain age to put in any kind of HTML, CSS, etc. That way, only established, legitimate accounts could do it. Then, people who were frozen for putting cookie grabbers in their shops wouldn't be able to do it again for a certain amount of time, even if they started a new account.
This wouldn't stop stolen accounts being used for cookie grabbing though unfortunately. Personally I think shops and user lookups should be a lot less limited in how customised they can be. And this is from someone who's spent a *long* time working out the code for her userlookup. I know it' seems harsh, but I'd rather that than have to be avoiding shops constantly.
Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:20 am
WockyChocky wrote:really. I'd *sure miss* going to a shop and hearing bad music, hunting for invisible prices, deciphering faded shaking upsidedown pictures, and all those scroll boxes inside of scroll boxes inside of scroll boxes.
Oh, me too. Wouldn't it be sad if we no longer got to scroll through six pages of dubious quality "adoptables" and quiz results? And I would certainly miss the blinding backgrounds that so many shops feature!
Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:30 am
TNT may or may not change what we, as users, can and cannot put on our lookups, in our shops, galleries, pet descriptions, or petpages. I think out of everything, if things were made even more strict, I would miss petpages the most. Why? Because I have my petpages set up as help pages and so do many others, as well as being used for guild "webbies".
When all this started in December (geez, almost 3 months of this stuff now!), I was one of the people saying disable everything. I'm not so sure now. I think of the site spotlight of the week, lookup of the week, gallery spotlight and the thought that those would all go away saddens me. the gallery spotlight could technically continue, but it sure wouldn't be the same without the spiffy backgrounds, blogs, etc. that people spend so much time and thought on.
I do think something will have to be done, though. And unfortunately it's all the honest players who once again will be "punished" for the actions of a few people who are determined to make things miserable for the rest of us.
It just seems to me with the programmers the site has, there should be a way to completely disable whatever it is that these people are exploiting. In other words, there's a security hole or a weakness that should be fixed from TNT's side. I'm not blaming TNT, I think they do their best, it's a huge site and lots to take care of. But if someone's able to insert jscript or whatever they're doing, then obviously there's something that TNT's missed.
I wouldn't miss music, I will say that! And I would love to see all those fake RE and "what petpet are you" things gone from shops and lookups. But that's a whole different topic.
Hopefully, TNT will be able to figure out how this is being done and stop it cold - forever - without having the entire site in an uproar. I'd just like them to be able to find out WHO ... and take them out legally.
When all this started in December (geez, almost 3 months of this stuff now!), I was one of the people saying disable everything. I'm not so sure now. I think of the site spotlight of the week, lookup of the week, gallery spotlight and the thought that those would all go away saddens me. the gallery spotlight could technically continue, but it sure wouldn't be the same without the spiffy backgrounds, blogs, etc. that people spend so much time and thought on.
I do think something will have to be done, though. And unfortunately it's all the honest players who once again will be "punished" for the actions of a few people who are determined to make things miserable for the rest of us.
It just seems to me with the programmers the site has, there should be a way to completely disable whatever it is that these people are exploiting. In other words, there's a security hole or a weakness that should be fixed from TNT's side. I'm not blaming TNT, I think they do their best, it's a huge site and lots to take care of. But if someone's able to insert jscript or whatever they're doing, then obviously there's something that TNT's missed.
I wouldn't miss music, I will say that! And I would love to see all those fake RE and "what petpet are you" things gone from shops and lookups. But that's a whole different topic.
Hopefully, TNT will be able to figure out how this is being done and stop it cold - forever - without having the entire site in an uproar. I'd just like them to be able to find out WHO ... and take them out legally.
Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:20 am
Well, besides all info posted above..
Legal action, as I have come to hear, is taking place.
At this moment, a friend is speaking to TNT (through "LawyerBot")... they're collecting heaps of information.
I believe they have a sufficient amount of information on Infamous.. I think they are starting to concetrate on Chase (commonly, "Kaos")
Legal action, as I have come to hear, is taking place.
At this moment, a friend is speaking to TNT (through "LawyerBot")... they're collecting heaps of information.
I believe they have a sufficient amount of information on Infamous.. I think they are starting to concetrate on Chase (commonly, "Kaos")
Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:25 am
Good.
Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:31 am
Well it's about time. 
Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:49 pm
I haven't done PIN yet, should I do it? if so, should I put it on everything?
Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:31 pm
I definitely would.I think you can put it on the bit where you change your email which is especially useful because it stops your account getting stolen. I've got PIN on everything,
Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:39 pm
ArwenEarendil wrote:Well, besides all info posted above..
Legal action, as I have come to hear, is taking place.
It's about time. Any word on why they didn't take this course of action sooner?
Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:44 pm
Maybe they were gathering enough evidence to have a good court case?
Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:54 pm
ira_7700 wrote:I'm sorry if i've missed it, but I want to know something. Does visiting a site with the cg code make you a "spreader"? Or does the person just get your password and steal stuff from your account.
In order to become a "spreader," what happens is that the person who runs the cookie grabber must access your account and insert the cookie-grabber scripting or referrer or whatever into your shop or user lookup. At that point, you are a spreader.
My two cents? TNT should ban all links in shops except to other shops. They should ban all html in shops except "font," "a href" and "img."
Thanks for the info.But if the account is under 13, the person cannot insert the scripting, right? Because under 13 account cannot change/add anything into UserLookUp and Shops. So, means he cannot use my account to spread, right?
If so, I'm just glad!
Right. Unless they have parental permission, like I've had since I was 11.