Are they just an issue with wefwef or trying to use an exploit

      • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        sorry i’m missing it. why this specific TLD? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there something special with .mov?

    • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      sorry i’m missing it. why this specific TLD? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? why is this a reason to block it?

        • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          i think i understand that part but why is this specific event “another reason to block this TLD”? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there another inherit security issue with .zip that doesn’t exist with other domains?

            • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              gotcha ok i think i’m getting it. just to make sure i’m not missing anything, you’re saying that in this case it didn’t matter as in the end they could use any TLD and achieve the same effect.

              but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this “.zip” TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?

              • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this “.zip” TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?

                Exactly!