Hi,

I help run the anti-spam team here at Weebly, and I can report that we're not observing any notifications from Facebook indicating that sites on the Weebly network are blocked. I've run a few tests using some popular sites on the network, and wasn't blocked from posting any of them.

More importantly, the site that the OP posted is not hosted on Weebly.

I recommend reaching out to Facebook for more information.

It's in their best interest to get rid of all photos posted to the service.

Not exactly genius.

Finding it very strange that this change is presented under the guise of safety, as there are absolutely very malicious extensions currently circulating on the Chrome Web Store.

They do seem to have very little policing of the Chrome Web Store. It's actually annoying to have an app on there that is legit, as so many of the top places in the store are taken up by unscrupulous rip-offs of Super Mario Bros and Sonic the Hedgehog. I could make some money too by putting classic games into a javascript emulator, plastering the page with ads, and submitting a few hundred apps (one for each game) to the Chrome Web Store. I'd rather play by the rules and have Google properly run their marketplace, though.

This isn't true.

Obviously you cannot do so any longer as the bug has been fixed, but that seems like a good description of the exploit as shown in the video.

This isn't very good, because you don't describe the reason that one would lose the three stands.

This code's pretty riddled with SQL injection vulnerabilities. Can't imagine anyone recommending use of this for new projects.

For a single instance, https://github.com/WhatCD/Gazelle/blob/master/sections/user/...

The $UserId variable, which is used throughout the queries within this file, is set by an unfiltered GET variable.

Actually they check the $_GET['id'] variable, which is used to set the $UserId variable. Check the top of the source:

if (empty($_GET['id']) || !is_numeric($_GET['id']) || (!empty($_GET['preview']) && !is_numeric($_GET['preview']))) {

Depending upon configuration, it competes with the upper range 767/777/787s. http://i.minus.com/ibue0fziZTMd11.jpg shows the comparisons pretty well, as far as size alone is concerned.

Interestingly, their email lacked an unsubscribe link.

That's a big oversight, email me frank@revsys.com and I'll make sure you don't receive anymore email. I hate that shit, our bad.

Weird, when I originally submitted, the actual title reflected the title in the URL. Guess the BBC changed it at some point, as someone has for this post too.