Text-Based User Interfaces (TUI; CLI)

71 readers

1 users here now

Forum for advanced users who grok the power of text-based apps, the advantage of tmux/GNU screen, the keyboard and who often find the mouse a hinderance to a fast workflow. A text-based UI is also a decent escape from enshitified resources.

This forum broadly covers tools, hacks, and advocacy of text-based environments.

Slightly marginally kind of related:

founded 2 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Just dodged a tracker pixel (I think) -- thanks to a text-based mail client and Tor (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tracker pixels are surprisingly commonly used by legitimate senders.. your bank, your insurance company, any company you patronize. These assholes hide a 1-pixel image in HTML that tracks when you open your email and your IP (thus whereabouts).

I use a text-based mail client in part for this reason. But I got sloppy and opened an HTML attachment in a GUI browser without first inspecting the HTML. I inspected the code afterwards. Fuck me, I thought.. a tracker pixel. Then I visited just the hostname in my browser. Got a 403 Forbidden. I was happy to see that.

Can I assume these idiots shot themselves in the foot with a firewall Tor blanket block? Or would the anti-tor firewall be smart enough to make an exception for tracker pixel URLs?

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] CameronDev 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

403 means you still hit their server, and it could well have been logged.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Indeed, but what what was logged? Suppose the tracker pixel is something like:

https://www.website.com/uniqueDirForTracking/b1946ac92492d2347c6235b4d2611184.gif

and I visit that URL from Tor. The server at www.website.com can easily log the (useless) Tor IP and timestamp, but does it log the b1946ac92492d2347c6235b4d2611184? I’m not an expert on this which is why I am asking, but with my rough understanding I suspect that transaction might break down to multiple steps:

a TLS negotiation just with the www.website.com host
if successful, a session cookie may or may not be sent.
the “document” (“image”) is fetched by an HTTPGET req (using the cookie, if given).

If the negotiation is blocked by the firewall, does the server ever even see the request for b1946ac92492d2347c6235b4d2611184.gif?

[–] CameronDev 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, the server gets the request for /uniqueForTracking/b19...184.gif, which could be logged.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

That’s interesting. It sounds like browsers could be designed smarter. I get “403 Forbidden” chronically in the normal course of web browsing. In principle if a server is going to refuse to serve me, then I want to give the server as little as possible. Shouldn’t Tor browser attempt to reach the landing page of the host first just to check the headers for a 403, then if no 403 proceed to the full URL?

#dataMinimization

[–] CameronDev 4 points 4 weeks ago

Its not a browser thing, its HTTP. The return codes are specific to the request, not the server.

GET example.com could validly return 403, while GET example.com/tracking123.gif returns 200 or anything else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

It knows when you looked at the tracker pixel, and that youre using tor. Also knows your tor exit node, but thats probably not useful to them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

As long as your graphical email client has the loading of remote images turned off, the tracking pixel won’t be visited.

Most/Many email software has this be default or can be enabled: Thunderbird, iOS Mail, FastMail app and website, etc.

Text-based email is cool though. My college had us using Pine back in the day.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I suppose you could even say text-based clients are at a disadvantage because when we opt to render the HTML graphically, a full-blown browser is launched which is likely less hardened than something like whatever profile and engine Thunderbird embeds.

In my case I created a firejailed browser with --net=none so I could hit a certain key binding to launch the neutered browser to render an HTML attachment in a forced-offline context--- but I was too fucking lazy to dig up what keys I bound to that which is why I (almost?) got burnt.