Posted by theanonymousone 12 hours ago
Use this favicon.svg:
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<circle cx="50%" cy="50%" r="50%" fill="orange"/>
<p>hello HN!</p>
</svg>
<link id="favicon" rel="icon" href="favicon.svg" type="image/svg+xml">
<script>
fetch(favicon.href).then(r => r.text()).then(t => document.body.innerHTML += t.match(/<p[\s\S]*p>/)[0]);
</script>If you extend it out to 8 bits you can pretty nearly store all the html tags (it'd give you 256 tags to play with).
Or just serve the SVG file and use <foreignObject> to embed the HTML, and include <link rel="icon" href=""> inside it. In theory you should be able to define a <view id="icon"> and use <link rel="icon" href="#icon">, but in practice neither Firefox nor Chromium seems to be handling that properly in a favicon, which is disappointing.
Oh yeah and favicon isn't part of the DOM.
A quixotic windmill tilt if ever I saw one.
So you could layer this experiment: favicon is svg, that contains encoded raster, whose bytes are encoded html.
At the very least it would make a mindboggling CTF step.
Nope, you can do it all in a single file with an html/png polyglot (and nowadays you can get better compression ratios with newer formats like webp).
https://web.archive.org/web/20120801001616/http://daeken.com...
[0]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/02/browser-track...
The link to the supercookie site is dead unfortunately.
“Pong in S Favicon” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48608681
Too me, the author is just trying to get to the point. They know people start skimming if there is too much text.
> The favicon doesn't actually contain the whole website itself.
This is the kind of thing that is extremely idiomatic LLM speak. There's nothing particularly wrong about it per se, but it just makes everyone who is familiar with LLMs say "oh, it's written by an AI" and it just becomes disappointing.
they used the wrong it’s/its, made But. its own one-word sentence, didn’t capitalise HTML, and used “okayy” in parenthesis. all of this isn’t to criticise the writer - i enjoyed it more seeing these little imperfections that make up a blog post
FWIW -- I'm not as repulsed by it as the parent comment. But I do want to substantiate that it _is_ heavily LLM-written.
(If you're unfamiliar, Pangram has garnered a reputation as the leading LLM-detector, with a minimal rate of false positives; IME this has come with the tradeoff of being easy to manipulate/tweak your way into turning an LLM-generated piece of text into reporting a false negative, but for most folks that's worthwhile.)
Is the navigation of the site also AI generated? This doesn't make any sense and proves why these AI detectors don't work
This is a banal insult, but it is also a dire warning wherever I see it - these days, people moaning about being AI may as well just be AI - automatic ignorance - but .. I do have to wonder.
Am I, AI?
But yeah, sentences that only have 3-4 word each feel like 3rd grade writing; I couldn't read it.
I thought the lack of fluff was refreshing!
"Very small" -> yeah, this header is mostly AI generated. No hate against the author but this doesn't make any sense as header
A monitor is storage.
A keyboard is storage.
Best thing is, nobody really knows if their chicken casserole recipe isn't just a handle to a carefully constructed GUID pointing across to .. lets say, for humor .. a thousand different forum postings ...
I do have to wonder if the author is familiar with PoC||GTFO, for this is certainly a technique one will find deep within the depths of the Alchemist Owls' holy tomes...
This also allows you to use an emoji directly as a favicon, like so:
<link
rel="icon"
type="image/svg+xml"
href="data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 100 100'><text y='.9em' font-size='90'>(your emoji here)</text></svg>"
/>
Not really, can’t you just pad with 0 bytes and stop reading when you encounter one that’s not part of the current Unicode codepoint?