Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Who made Imageshack so butthurt?

Kz3r0

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
27,012
DarkUnderlord said:
Admiral jimbob said:
Can we make the TITS crowd members-only or anything? Seems a waste to fuck up imageshack for the whole forum for one thread - if nothing else, it's an annoying blow to old threads and anyone new who wants to browse around them.
Just to clarify, you want the website that was setup on the entire principle that we don't suck cock, to suck imageshack's cock - over an issue that can be caused by anyone simply uploading a disallowed image to ImageShack and then linking it in the forums, a process that takes all of 5 seconds and knowing the users here would be done repeatedly by some troll or another?

I have a better option: How about I ban all links to ImageShack and force people to use any one of the infinitely better image hosting services? That is, image hosting services that don't cause stupid issues by trying to enforce their ToS in draconian ways that are reminiscent of the sorts of shit SecuRom gets up to. Issues which by the way, can be fixed on your end quite simply with any of the hacks provided in this thread.
:bravo:
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
DarkUnderlord said:
That includes DAC three times
Would one of these happen to be you by any chance? :smug:

Admiral jimbob said:
Always with the cock with you.
It must be all the cock pictures he keeps seeing as he sends them off to Retardoland. Liberal was right.

Xor said:
Changing the sendRefererHeader setting in Firefox to 1 worked for me.
Worked here too. :thumbsup:
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
1,128
DarkUnderlord said:
You can embed malicious code into JPG files and have it executed when people look at that file. Best way around it is to re-generate the image using PHP's GD image functions.

I think there was only one public exploit ever that had code execution on display of a jpg and that was in 2004?
Its a user problem anyway. Who cares?

I guess someone could root the server by exploiting a new httpd upload hole. But this will happen anyway even if you recreate the images with php functions since they have to be uploaded first?

I dont see the point, aside for a reason to ask more donation for hookers and blow.
Please give some details about the previous hacks.
 

Frau Bishop

Erudite
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,147
Location
Mitten im Vaterland
So is imgur working problem free now for the Codex? I was always happy with them.. they don't delete "normal" offending stuff and host whole of reddit (so bandwith should be no problem I suppose). Happy until we had that little meltdown some weeks ago and the pics sporadically disappeared. That was the time when you (DU) told me to better upload images to imageshack. Hurr.

edit: But they delete pics cauz of inactivity. So, not a great idea for LPs, ok, I see.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,343
Black Bart Charley said:
DarkUnderlord said:
You can embed malicious code into JPG files and have it executed when people look at that file. Best way around it is to re-generate the image using PHP's GD image functions.
I think there was only one public exploit ever that had code execution on display of a jpg and that was in 2004? Its a user problem anyway. Who cares?
You can embed PHP code into JPG and GIF images (there are a number of ways, such as in the headers or by hex-editing a file so that the server thinks it's a JPG when really it isn't). Simply upload your code infected file, browse to the image and wallah. You can now execute code on the server that takes the whole server out (or does whatever it is you wanted it to do).

OSK was able to do it in his testing. He wasn't able to execute the code given I have precautions against that but he could upload the infected file and I was able to execute it. Given any infected file on the server runs the risk that at some point, it may be executed directly (There's more than me on staff here and any one of them could view the image in the root gallery or do something to it one day and go OOPS), I go the full hog of re-writing it.

Black Bart Charley said:
I guess someone could root the server by exploiting a new httpd upload hole. But this will happen anyway even if you recreate the images with php functions since they have to be uploaded first?
Only to a temp directory where they exist for a very short period of time (seconds). Not only would you need access to the temp directory (it's outside of the web root) but you'd also have to be quick as well.

micmu said:
Perhaps it would be much better to be able to upload image in a lossless format (.png, .bmp?).
Already available. You can upload 256, full colour and alpha transparent PNGs if you're concerned about image quality. Anyway, I've not had anyone who's complained about their image Q (that is, someone who's actually uploaded a file) and with all my JPG testing, I've not seen an image uploaded where quality was an issue. Most of the artifcating that I saw there was because they were JPGs in the first place (JPGs create artifacting - they have to, it's how they work. It's the whole point of the file format that quality is lost the minute you save something as a JPG. It's the reason you get such low file sizes).

Frau Bishop said:
So is imgur working problem free now for the Codex? I was always happy with them.. they don't delete "normal" offending stuff and host whole of reddit (so bandwith should be no problem I suppose). Happy until we had that little meltdown some weeks ago and the pics sporadically disappeared. That was the time when you (DU) told me to better upload images to imageshack. Hurr.
Better upload to the Codex Gallery. Guaranteed not to fail on you (unless the Codex is down as well that is)!
 

Frau Bishop

Erudite
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,147
Location
Mitten im Vaterland
DarkUnderlord said:
Better upload to the Codex Gallery. Guaranteed not to fail on you (unless the Codex is down as well that is)!
Uhm, okay. But it seems I first have to check that hidden spot at the back of the garden, behind the fountain, where grandfather used to store the tiny little gold bars he brought home from work on weekends.
 

MicoSelva

backlog digger
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
7,480
Location
Vigil's Keep
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is. Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Divinity: Original Sin 2 Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
Since we already have workarounds for Firefox, Opera and Chrome (I somehow doubt many codexers use other browsers), we should just avoid imageshack in future uploads, and spread the word about its shittiness. There's plenty of other image hosting sites out there.
 

Taluntain

Most Frabjous
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
5,439
Location
Your Mind
Each of which could pull an imageshack at any point in time (I doubt that their TOS are much different). Just in case this wasn't blindingly obvious by now, the only 100% Codex-proof solution is the Codex gallery. Anywhere else you put your images, they may still be there and/or easily accessible tomorrow... or they may not. The Codex gallery on the other hand will work as long as the Codex does.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
DarkUnderlord said:
Anyway, I've not had anyone who's complained about their image Q (that is, someone who's actually uploaded a file)

I'm complaining! The quality is fine for my Dark Heart of Uukrul LP (since that game has no graphics to speak of), but as for my Final Fantasy LP, well, this

3817.jpg


looks like total shit compared to this:



Which means that, even with a batch upload feature implemented, I wouldn't be able to use the Codex gallery for my FF LP due to low image quality.

(In b4 "serves you right for making a FF LP in the first place").
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,241
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
I don't see a single difference between the 2 pictures? Only thing I can see is the top codex one has a very very lightly darker dialog text?
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Well, to me, the first picture looks extremely pixelated, and the second one smooth as silk. :? Not sure if my LCD is to blame or maybe I'm just seeing things.

I wonder if anyone but me sees the difference...
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,241
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
Crooked Bee said:
Well, to me, the first picture looks extremely pixelated, and the second one smooth as silk. :? Not sure if my LCD is to blame or maybe I'm just seeing things.

I wonder if anyone but me sees the difference...

Could also be a browser issue as well. What browser are you using? I'm using Chrome and I honestly do not see a single bit of difference. At all.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
I'm using Firefox, but I've just switched to Chrome and the difference remains... :?

Well, okay, if the difference is visible only to me, then I may as well use the Codex gallery for my LP even with the current quality. Once the batch upload is in, of course.
 

Kz3r0

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
27,012
Jaesun said:
I don't see a single difference between the 2 pictures? Only thing I can see is the top codex one has a very very lightly darker dialog text?
Opera here. :M
 

spekkio

Arcane
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
8,278
ITT Crooked Bee turns into a total graphixwhore...

:love:

Thanks for explaining the reason behind recompressing .jpgs, DU.
And the response to Admiral's undignified request was made of pure this.

:salute:
 

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
Crooked Bee said:
Well, to me, the first picture looks extremely pixelated, and the second one smooth as silk. :? Not sure if my LCD is to blame or maybe I'm just seeing things.

I wonder if anyone but me sees the difference...

It's just you. Like Jaesun, all I see is a slight difference in gradient.
 

praetor

Arcane
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
3,069
Location
Vhoorl
Crooked Bee said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Anyway, I've not had anyone who's complained about their image Q (that is, someone who's actually uploaded a file)

I'm complaining! The quality is fine for my Dark Heart of Uukrul LP (since that game has no graphics to speak of), but as for my Final Fantasy LP, well, this



looks like total shit compared to this:



Which means that, even with a batch upload feature implemented, I wouldn't be able to use the Codex gallery for my FF LP due to low image quality.

(In b4 "serves you right for making a FF LP in the first place").

they both look like shit due to low art quality :smug:

anyway, the first one has some pretty obvious compression artefacts (easily spotted around text), so you're not the only one seeing the better IQ of the second :M
 

Turisas

Arch Devil
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
9,926
Jaesun said:
I don't see a single difference between the 2 pictures? Only thing I can see is the top codex one has a very very lightly darker dialog text?

You have to look for them, but the artifacts are there. Of course, the first pic is less than 40KB when the second is almost 200KB.
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,241
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
3927.png


Just FYI Crooked Bee, this is how it looks for me. I cannot see a difference. Maybe it is video card related?

Again the text in the top one just has a very slightly darker color to it (which looks more readable to me).
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
There's a notable difference between the two. The first one is extremely fuzzy and full of artifacts. It's visible in pretty much every part of the image, but it's most obvious around the text.
 

Taluntain

Most Frabjous
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
5,439
Location
Your Mind
The lower your resolution and the closer that you look at the monitor, the more obvious the compression is. Though that one's really one where it's least visible - it'd be far more obvious if it was a dark picture with light text and lots of bright reds. That'd look like crap at such high compression.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
I prefer how it looks in the first picture. The text is darker which makes it easier to read.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom