EDIT: I realize I don't know the meaning of terms, and I admit I am talking out of my a** a little bit. However, just because I don't know the specific name for something I am not familiar with, does not invalidate the fact that there
could be something to find.
niski wrote:there is nothing going on in there. if there was a hidden document it would have to be embedded into the HTML. CSS could have some leftover stuff from the old instance of the site anyway
and half of the terms you mentioned like JS injection aren't even relevant to what you've found in any way possible
I think that seeing the favicon.ico returning as text was a cool find... I suppose my question is what is going on with this CSS if there is nothing here? Why leave in the comments about a mozilla bug that loads scripts inside zero size elements? if this is a bare bones, plain text site, why are they being so specific about the way text is wrapping and the direction of the text? It just seems like a lot of effort for what? Making sure it loads correctly on mobile?
And, by JS injection I was referring to using dev console to interact with the page using JS, while yeah it may not be technically called "JS injection" but it is very possible to lob JS commands at it and have it do
something to the page. I am sorry I do not know the exact term for that, I am not claiming to be a web developer, or any kind of developer.
Personally I think this is something, but if you know for a fact why they created the style sheet the way they did I will take your word for it.
Why make it so all pages return status 200 rather than 404 page does not exist? Why the 7 static IP addresses that all end in multiples of 16? Why the comment about scripts loading in zero size containers? Maybe each on their own, I would say "who knows" but, the fact that there is multiple 'weird' things going on has me intrigued. With a website so deliberately cleaned up to include a simple message, I would think the CSS wouldn't have random dev comments left in. BoC seems too meticulous for that sort of thing (not that I assume they are personally writing the code for the site, but you know what I mean)
I appreciate the reality check. I understand about maybe the CSS being left over but it's named plaintext.css, while using the wayback machine I can only load pages back from the debut of the site, and so far I've found terminal.css, (which is the actual css from back then):
- Code: Select all
body {
margin:0;
background-color:#000;
padding:3px;
font-family:monospace;
color:#22FF07;
font-size:14px;
min-height:100%;
min-width:100%;
}
h1,
h2,
h3,
ul li {
margin:0;
font-size:14px;
font-weight:normal;
}
h1 {
font-weight:bold;
text-align:center;
padding:20px 0;
}
p {
margin:5px 0;
}
a {
color:#22FF07;
text-decoration:none;
}
a:hover {
color:#22FF07;
}
ul {
list-style:none;
margin:0;
padding:0;
}
h2 {
clear:left;
padding-top:10px;
font-weight:bold;
}
h3 {
margin-top:10px;
font-style:italic;
}
#terminal-container {
width:100%;
padding-bottom:16px;
position:relative;
}
#command-line {
float:left;
position:absolute;
left:0;
bottom:0;
right:0;
}
.completed-command,
#command-line,
#command-line span,
.completed-command span,
#command-line .commands,
.completed-command .commands {
float:left;
}
#command-line span,
.completed-command span {
margin-right:5px;
}
#command-line .commands b {
display:block;
background-color:#22FF07;
width:0.75em;
height:1em;
float:right;
}
.completed-command .commands b {
display:none;
}
/*
FILE ARCHIVED ON 02:53:32 May 12, 2013 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 06:30:05 May 16, 2025.
JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.
ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
SECTION 108(a)(3)).
*/
/*
playback timings (ms):
captures_list: 0.622
exclusion.robots: 0.025
exclusion.robots.policy: 0.013
esindex: 0.011
cdx.remote: 19.404
LoadShardBlock: 104.955 (3)
PetaboxLoader3.datanode: 71.454 (4)
load_resource: 267.261
PetaboxLoader3.resolve: 203.641
*/
The stuff at the bottom is included from the wayback machine when the snapshot was taken, but everything else there is original.
So, this css looks way more like what someone would expect to see. The site back then was also quite simple in terms of layout and style. The new plaintext.css looks fishy to me, just because it's formatted in a way that seems to allude to something more. The old style sheet had no multi line dev comments the way the new style sheet does. I am trying to access snapshots from 2024 but I'm guessing the site was down until they changed it around April sometime. But, I guess what I am getting at is I have yet to find plaintext.css in any other available snapshots.
After doing more research I don't think the unobtainable_document() is anything, but I do think there is more to the CSS as a whole than what we see.
It just seems weird to me, and I think it is something to at least keep playing around with.
As far as why the CSS looks weird, although I am not a web developer, I have made simple sites before, and the terminal.css looks a lot more familiar than plaintext.css - that doesn't mean it is anything because I am unfamiliar with it, it is clearly over my head. It just seems different from all the css I've seen or worked with.
)
sorry