7 comments

[ 2500 ms ] story [ 953 ms ] thread
So, what, I'm not supposed to click on any link that I don't already know to be valid? I'm really npot sure what point this 'article' is trying to prove. Yes, I clicked on a link that sounded interesting - if I can't trust my browser to not then open a security breach into my system, it's time to shut down the entire Web...
It is only a small test to see if you will click on the link! I hope you will stay tuned to Friday and hang in here with us :)
Yeah, I probably won't be "staying tuned". If that's what you want, you may want to rethink the tone of the page at the end of the link - it comes across as "ha ha weren't you stupid for clicking the link, I totally could have pwned your system".

1) I doubt that's actually true for many of us here on HN - we use systems that are relatively hardened against intrusion, and even when there are security holes, we generally have secondary mechanisms for protecting our important data

2) You don't offer suggestions for how those that aren't already protected could do so, which would actually be helpful.

At any rate, you successfully rubbed me up the wrong way. I won't be coming back to see what you're up to on Friday.

I agree with you - it was the wrong place to post that link and would have been better if it had stayed on Facebook - Thanks for clarification.
Psst - demallien,

I really enjoyed reading 'greedy routing.'

Cheers, /Bev

Because they wanted to get the money, I presume.
The problem with this experiment is that you assume many people would click on the link even it it was malicious.

Hacker News is essentially peer reviewed, and I would imagine bad links would have been flagged quickly, preventing many users from going there.

Even if your experiment leads to a large number of visitors to your site, I wouldn't assume this to be the case if your site actually had malicious content.