Ask us more about the forums: READ THE OP or get BANNED. Yes, search is currently disabled for blue - General

Afaik VBulletin keeps logs of this kind of thing so Postal's in the know!!

-snip, bullshit, don't listen to me-

[QUOTE=Dori;37227462]also, is this ban retroactive? there are quite a few people who ignored the mods warnings but tried the exploit anyway[/QUOTE] This was stated pages back, people tried it, saw it worked and was like "shit this is gonna earn me a ban" and changed it. They listened to mods warnings and decided to change it making them void. People who didn't change it and continued to use it even though they acknowledged mods warnings got the ban Seriously, this is a forum exploit, you were doing something that wasn't allowed, 80x80 is as far as you can go unless you're a mod.

Large avatars are overrated. I found a pagebreaker involving [list] and only copped a day ban. Perma's are too harsh for an exploit, but now it's up to them to appeal it. RIP [list].

[QUOTE=digigamer17;37227499]APNGs may be animated but blue members have been using aPNG avatars. And mods didnt see any problem, but if they exploit like 80x80 APNG avatars over the 60x60 limit then the blue member get perma'd for it. Well not at all in my opinion so...[/QUOTE]thanks for the incredibly useful contribution.

[QUOTE=3deep5u;37227478]i knew someone was going to post this. if an admin disables uploading of animated gifs, they probably don't want animated material of any kind.[/QUOTE] Garry probably knew what a APNG is when he allowed it. I'm pretty sure he modified the permissions for file types when gold member was created. Plus APNG is only compatible with Opera and Firefox

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37227521]This was stated pages back, people tried it, saw it worked and was like "shit this is gonna earn me a ban" and changed it. They listened to mods warnings and decided to change it making them void. [/QUOTE] it hasn't been stated how garry wants postal to deal with it. that's why I ask [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37227534]Garry probably knew what a APNG is when he allowed it. I'm pretty sure he modified the permissions for file types when gold member was created. [/QUOTE] apng isn't a file type. he shouldn't have had to edit any permissions to allow it

[QUOTE=3deep5u;37227170]except it's a browser exploit, not a forum one.[/QUOTE] It doesn't work on phpBB forums and both Filesmelt and Imgur freak out if you try it so I'd say it's definitely not a browser exploit. Not really sure how you'd come to that conclusion anyways since it relies entirely on the site you're trying to exploit rather than your browser.

If I've seen correctly - mods are only pbanning people who currently have the exploit, nobody cares if you switched it back

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37227534]Garry probably knew what a APNG is when he allowed it. I'm pretty sure he modified the permissions for file types when gold member was created. Plus APNG is only compatible with Opera and Firefox[/QUOTE]apng was never "allowed", since it's merely a png file with unofficial block types.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37227534]Garry probably knew what a APNG is when he allowed it. I'm pretty sure he modified the permissions for file types when gold member was created. Plus APNG is only compatible with Opera and Firefox[/QUOTE] APNG is just a really hacky really shitty unsupported extension to PNG, garry didn't disable/enable it at all and has no real power to do so

[QUOTE=Dori;37227462]postal: how are you banning people for abusing this exploit? do you ban people as you see them or is there a log of uploaded avatars? also, is this ban retroactive? there are quite a few people who ignored the mods warnings but tried the exploit anyway[/QUOTE] Ban them as I see them. I'm banning anyone that's still doing it, those smart enough to ditch it when i warned to got a free-pass.

[QUOTE=douche beat;37227570]APNG is just a really hacky really shitty unsupported extension to PNG, garry didn't disable/enable it at all and has no real power to do so[/QUOTE]he could check for pngs with acTL/fcTL/fdAT chunks.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37227521]This was stated pages back, people tried it, saw it worked and was like "shit this is gonna earn me a ban" and changed it. They listened to mods warnings and decided to change it making them void. People who didn't change it and continued to use it even though they acknowledged mods warnings got the ban Seriously, this is a forum exploit, you were doing something that wasn't allowed, 80x80 is as far as you can go unless you're a mod.[/QUOTE] You missed "people who were offline when this shit went down" Based on timezones, I'm pretty sure Chrisaster for one missed all the drama.

Shouldn't have done it in the first place

[QUOTE=rilez;37227621]Shouldn't have done it in the first place[/QUOTE] maybe some people don't expect mods to flip out over mundane shit.

[QUOTE=postal;37227141]Can't say we didn't try to warn everyone (like 10 times). Even though we didn't need to. Because exploiting the forums should obviously be a bad idea.[/QUOTE] I don't see how this is a forum exploit tho the Gif89a specification clearly specifies "... define the area of the display device within which the images will be rendered." This is both Firefox and Chrome operating outside standards.

[QUOTE=3deep5u;37227655]maybe some people don't expect mods to flip out over mundane shit.[/QUOTE] Mods had no idea what to do. Garry told them to press the big red button. Garry had a right to do this. I'm not saying this because I'm some sort of "Garry Fanboy". If people were abusing the fact that there was an exploit on my forums then I would be upset.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37227696]Mods had no idea what to do. Garry told them to press the big red button. Garry had a right to do this. I'm not saying this because I'm some sort of "Garry Fanboy". If people were abusing the fact that there was an exploit then I would be upset.[/QUOTE] Garry's forums, garry's rules.

[QUOTE=3deep5u;37227655]maybe some people don't expect mods to flip out over mundane shit.[/QUOTE] you haven't been paying attention have you

[QUOTE=postal;37227713]you haven't been paying attention have you[/QUOTE]was about to edit my post but the textbox is nigh impossible to use on android

[QUOTE=OldFusion;37227689]I don't see how this is a forum exploit[/QUOTE] people edited their avatars so that they would report false dimensions when uploaded, thus bypassing the limitations set by the uploader

Knowingly dodging / breaking rules deserves bans for sure

They don't report false dimensions, they report the right dimensions, its just chrome and firefox that are rendering them wrong. IE also does the wrong thing and doesn't render them at all. Photoshop for example does the right thing and opens a 60*60 frame over the top left corner.

[QUOTE=OldFusion;37227829]They don't report false dimensions, they report the right dimensions, its just chrome and firefox that are rendering them wrong.[/QUOTE] the exploit isn't the result of a rendering issue. if it were, how do you think the images were able to be uploaded in the first place? the uploader only looks at the header for the dimensions, which is easily spoofed. if the header reported dimensions over 80x80, the image would be automatically resized

[QUOTE=Dori;37227842]it's not a rendering issue. if it were, how do you think the images were able to be uploaded in the first place? the uploader only looks at the header for the dimensions, which is easily spoofed. if the header reported dimensions over 80x80, it would be automatically resized[/QUOTE] what? it is a rendering issue. if a gif is defined as 0x0, it shouldn't be rendering at 120x250. it's non-standard behaviour.

This random guy started flaming me on my visitor messages, do I report it or what? He is mad because I told Garry he could make money by disabling avatars and make them a dollar fee. Although I know Garry wouldn't actually do it.

[QUOTE=Dori;37227842]it's not a rendering issue. if it were, how do you think the images were able to be uploaded in the first place? the uploader only looks at the header for the dimensions, which is easily spoofed. if the header reported dimensions over 80x80, the image would be automatically resized[/QUOTE] Well the Logical Screen Descriptor defines a render height/width of 60*60 and the Image Descriptor defines a img size of 100*100 this means that the topleft 60*60 pixels of the Image should be rendered, this is specified in the documentation, but instead Chrome and Firefox resize the render height/width to 100*100. I did exactly this about a year ago and it showed expected behavior (On chrome at least at the time)

[QUOTE=Zee Captain;37227870]This random guy started flaming me on my visitor messages, do I report it or what? He is mad because I told Garry he could make money by disabling avatars and make them a dollar fee. Although I know Garry wouldn't actually do it.[/QUOTE] It's just JetBlack. Either ignore him since he tends to troll or PM a mod about it since he's flaming.

[QUOTE=digigamer17;37227701]Garry's forums, garry's rules.[/QUOTE] Every time I see this I imagine Garry playing xbox or whatever with a friend, with this conversation: Garry: You've got way to many kills, let me kill you a few times. Friend: No fuck off. Garry: GARRY'S GAME GARRY'S RULES!