Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript > #11755 > unrolled thread

OT: webpage encoding

Started by"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
First post2017-09-07 09:44 -0400
Last post2017-09-07 12:48 -0400
Articles 3 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript

Contents

  OT: webpage encoding "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2017-09-07 09:44 -0400
    Re: OT: webpage encoding "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-07 17:12 +0200
      Re: OT: webpage encoding "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2017-09-07 12:48 -0400

#11755 — OT: webpage encoding

From"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Date2017-09-07 09:44 -0400
SubjectOT: webpage encoding
Message-ID<oorihk$1idg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
  Does anyone know what the popular encoding is that's
used in webpages and is not Base64? There's a sample
here:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/_jcr_content/.gallery.2016-09.json

  I wrote an HTA javascript de-obfuscator some time ago
and would like to add a decoder for this encoding. If I
run it through a Base64 decoder it's nonsense.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11756

From"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net>
Date2017-09-07 17:12 +0200
Message-ID<XnsA7E9AF041EF7Deejj99@194.109.6.166>
In reply to#11755
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote on 07 Sep 2017 in
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript: 

>   Does anyone know what the popular encoding is that's
> used in webpages and is not Base64? There's a sample
> here:
> 
> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/_jcr_conte
> nt/.gallery.2016-09.json 

That is not an image-encoding, but an purposefully made unreadable url.

Try the first one:

<http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/u/fQYSUbVfts-
T7odkrFJckdiFeHvab0GWOfzhj7tYdC0uglagsDq7lL-cXwOymWx5FC3eCY-
9uqjN4TCLw4ps8fwoCT7kCMVvHkRfCfatCc7MuHFZ7bY4P12muIu5hpYURa4nqYvkarZ69qDc-
WfphiN5GhZ4uF5d390vlIGh01rXq4ZLOL8YlvLJfS_DzTV7p5pYwsDAbq6FIpO7FXv6m2QacndE/
>




-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11757

From"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Date2017-09-07 12:48 -0400
Message-ID<oort96$634$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#11756
"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote

| That is not an image-encoding, but an purposefully made unreadable url.
|

   Ah. Thank you. That possibility never occurred to me!

  I didn't think it was image encoding but I had assumed
it was probably text encoding. google, for instance, uses
some kind of non-base-64 encoding in their URLs, but I
don't know how to decode that.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript

csiph-web