×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Plugs Hole That Lets You Remove Any Website

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the yeah-we-uhh-meant-to-do-that dept.

Google 116

blowdart writes "Google today disabled their webmaster tools after it was discovered that anyone could use the tool to remove any site from the google index. The exploit was pretty simple, all anyone had to do was to have a google webmasters tool account and edit a query string parameter on a valid removal to point to a domain they didn't own!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

I really wish... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36823750)

this hole was open long enough for someone to remove Expert Exchange & all the other BS...

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36823806)

He, Expert Exchange is ok. Just look into the source code or the cached page and you will find the answers without paying :)

Re:I really wish... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36823850)

He, Expert Exchange is ok. Just look into the source code or the cached page and you will find the answers without paying :)

It's easier than that... just scroll down!

Re:I really wish... (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823878)

No need to do that. Just scroll the page 3 miles down. There are the answers.

Re:I really wish... (1)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824524)

Only if you've clicked through from a Google search result

Re:I really wish... (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824678)

I believe the complaint originated at Experts Exchange showing up in google search results.

Re:I really wish... (2)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824830)

Yes, a common suggestion is that Experts Exchange *aren't* playing the system because the answers are there if you scroll down.

I was pointing out that they *are* playing the system because the answers are *only* visible after clicking through from a Google search result. Try finding a page where the answer is at the bottom, and copy the URL into a new tab/window/browser. Abracadabra! The answer disappears!

Experts Exchange is just another paywalled site at the end of the day, but they use dodgy practices to try and make you pay for their service rather than actually concentrating on being a useful service.

Re:I really wish... (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825176)

No shit! They show google the answer in exchange for showing up in search results. Google requires them to not hide the answers when people click through the results. Why would they show you the answer if you didn't click through the results?

It's not dodgy, and yeah, they're just another paywall.

Re:I really wish... (1)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825322)

I realise they're just another paywall, I even said as much myself [slashdot.org] already.

But it's still dodgy - even the page which has the answer at the bottom strongly hints that you need to "Subscribe now" to get "Instant Access to this Solution". I don't have problems with paywalls but this is an extra level of deviousness.

Re:I really wish... (1)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826510)

Only if you've clicked through from a Google search result

It works from Yahoo as well...it must be the referrer...because it doesn't work from, say, startpage.com...

I could see Yahoo and Google saying to Experts-Exchange: "Hey, we like it when people use our engine over any else's...we'll shoot you some cash if you let is read your answers...

Re:I really wish... (1)

jason1178 (2396638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826756)

Nah, it's just the requirements of the search engines that visitors from the search engine see what the search engine sees. If you try to come in without that, you will see the paywall. Folks have to make money...big web sites aren't free to run anymore.

So? (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824136)

Stackoverflow still gives you better answers. I see no reason to even get their answers for free.

By the way, google should remove experts exchange, they give the googlebot the answer but try to hide from regular users.

Re:So? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824236)

I never understood that - Google made such a big deal about not showing different content to the bot than you do to users (to the extent that they banned high profile sites like BMW's .de site) and yet ExpertSexchange (which is how I always read it, anyhoo) are still around when their entire business model seems to be gaming the system.

Re:So? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825652)

They DO give the same content to the user as they give to Googlebot - as long as the user is coming from Google, which is all Google really cares about.

Of course, it's really not that hard to forge the referer header [mozilla.org]...

Re:So? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826244)

EE dosn't show different information to the bot then the users, the bot just views things differently. Both the user and the bot have to scroll down past the huge block of nothingness to get to the answers, the difference is the bot tends to only focus on and highlight the relevant information, while the user tends to skim over the "please pay now" buttons and stop. Yes if you aren't getting to the page from a google link, the solutions aren't hidden at the bottom, but that isn't googles concern, anything other then the result they give you in their search page, is no longer google's responsibility. Yes EE cheated and basically found a way to follow the letter of the law while pissing on the spirit of it, but nothing can be done about that.

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824240)

Or just scroll down to the bottom of each page - only the top is obfuscated, the thread is repeated at the bottom.

Re:I really wish... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36823860)

What!?!? Would you rather your sex change be done by an amateur?

Re:I really wish... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824122)

Hehe...

But, seriously, has anyone an appropriate site to put after the RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} experts-exchange.com in my apache config...?

Preferably something which has still expertsexchange somewhere in its URL, but with lots of pictures of scantily clad ladies (which once were lads...) in it?

Re:I really wish... (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824740)

I've not used Google for a while, but I seem to still have these lines in my user CSS:

li h3 a[HREF*="http://www.experts-exchange.com/"] {display : none ! important }
A[HREF*="http://www.experts-exchange.com/"]:after { content: " [IDIOT WARNING]"!important ; color: red }

The first hides expert sexchange links from Google search results, the second flags them with a red idiot warning if they appear elsewhere, so I don't accidentally click on them.

Re:I really wish... (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823900)

this hole was open long enough for someone to remove Expert Exchange & all the other BS...

What's wrong with EE? At least you can find some help there. What really needs to go is the endless product search engines, all proclaiming "be the first to write a review!".

Re:I really wish... (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824004)

How about the several pages of ads mixed in with the useful results? Or the blocking of answers (on pages where just the question gets matched)?

Re:I really wish... (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824226)

They dont block answers, scroll down past all the crap.

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824286)

They've changed their site since the last time I was there, they used to have pictures "blurred out" answers along with "subscribe now and see the answers". Back then, scrolling down got you nowhere.

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824674)

Yup. *That* is what got them kicked out of Google's indexes for a while: presenting a different page to Googlebot and a human. "Cloaking", I believe it's called, and Google considers that a blackhat SEO technique.

Re:I really wish... (1)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824954)

Technically they don't break any of Google's rules. Google's First Click Free [blogspot.com] initiative is designed to allow paywalled content to be crawled and indexable, subject (among other things) to guidelines like:

- All users who click a Google search result to arrive at your site should be allowed to see the full text of the content they're trying to access.
- The page displayed to all users who visit from Google must be identical to the content that is shown to Googlebot.

Now, these are true for EE, but the page which is shown to both Googlebot and users who've clicked through from Google is very obviously geared around making you think you have to pay to see the answer which is at the bottom of the page.

Also, Google only requires that click-through users see the same content as Googlebot. It doesn't require that a casual user sees the same content. Experts Exchange is in effect a paywalled site and you should think of it in the same way you think of other paywalled sites.

Re:I really wish... (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825534)

They sometimes block the answers if google picks up a page with just the question. It doesn't violate the rules because it shows the same page to google and other visitors, but there isn't useful information beyond the question.

Re:I really wish... (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825090)

create a bookmark called "goognoreviews" with the following: javascript:sURL='http://www.google.co.uk';sTerm=prompt('Enter%20a%20Google%20search%20term','');if(sTerm!=null){void(document.location=sURL+'/search?q='+encodeURIComponent(sTerm)+"+-inurl:(kelkoo|bizrate|pixmania|dealtime|pricerunner|dooyoo|pricegrabber|pricewatch|resellerratings|ebay|shopbot|comparestoreprices|ciao|unbeatable|shopping|epinions|nextag|buy|bestwebbuys)")}else{void(document.location)}

Re:I really wish... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826136)

Er, if you want answers, all you have to do is google the question being answered, and click thru from google, then scroll all the way to the bottom. By Google's TOS, you cannot present different information to the google search engine than you present to someone coming from Google, so its not even likely to be blocked, nor do I feel bad about it-- it is the price of being indexed on Google.

I mean, they can present ads that try to make you feel bad, and make it obnoxious to get to the info, but if anyone is being shady here it is a website trying to find loopholes in Google's TOS.

Re:I really wish... (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824030)

The BS that they pull in trying to hid the solution to get you to pay. Granted you usually just need to scroll to the bottom, or use the Google cache of it. But they do some dodgy things. I would prefer the product search engines go before ExpertsExchange since you are correct there is some value to ExpertsExchange. Also on the list of things that should go are those sites that republish others content as their own they are by far the worst.

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36826292)

I agree. EE was one of the first sites I considered blocking with google, but then reconsidered since you _can_ sometimes find useful (and free) information from user comments at the bottom of their pages. This is unlike the other two sites I did block that day - bigresource and askmefast, which must have somehow been gaming google for a few weeks since I was seeing them a lot at the time.

Re:I really wish... (5, Informative)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823908)

1. Log in to your Google Account
2. Search for Experts Exchange
3. Click on the result for Experts Exchange
4. Press Back on your browser
5. Click "Block all www.experts-exchange.com results"

Re:I really wish... (4, Informative)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823932)

Alternatively, manually block sites from your results here: http://www.google.com/reviews/t [google.com]

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36825166)

Also doesn't work in Opera.

Re:I really wish... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824316)

Thanks, but I tried that... It turns out that I intentionally don't stay signed in to Google services, so I wrote a userscript for Grease-Monkey instead.

// ==UserScript==
// @name F-Experts-Exchaneg
// @namespace http://userscripts.org/users/useridnumber [userscripts.org]
// @include http://www.google.com/search [google.com]
// ==/UserScript==

var f = 1;
while ( f ) {
var a = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
f = 0;
for ( var i = 0; i < a.length; ++i )
if ( a[i].href.match('experts-exchange.com') ) try {
f = 1;
var p = a[i];
while ( p != null ) {
if ( p.tagName == 'LI' ) {
p.parentNode.removeChild( p );
break;
} else p = p.parentNode;
}
if ( p == null ) a[i].parentNode.removeChild( a[i] );
} catch ( x ){}
}
void(0);

(Sorry for the formatting, still haven't figured out how to keep slash from eating my &nbsp;s.)

I also have a script to remove all the "ads" links on search results -- Now that they don't color their backgrounds yellow or light-blue and I'm tired of accidentally clicking them. While I was at it I removed the non-intrusive side-bar ads too. Your move Google.

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824902)

Doesn't work in Opera.

Re:I really wish... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824064)

Expert Exchange is annoying because of how it's page ranked. But the site does offer solutions to those strange one-off technical issues. I don't mind the fact it's a paid subscription as it keeps the trolls out, but I'm sure as hell not going to spend 12 bucks a month (or 100 a year) some a service I would rarely use. OTOH, maybe I can get my company to purchase a subscription for all of us in the office. Hmmm

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36826578)

Or you can answer a couple of questions and earn free membership. Not hard to do.

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824196)

Yes, like that "wiki" thing that Google keep pushing to the top of the results. As far as I can tell it just consists of content ripped-off from other sites.

Re:I really wish... (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825038)

Use the Personal Blocklist [google.com] Chrome extension to remove ExEx from Google search just for you. Also, it's quite amazing that you still get it high in your result, I mostly get StackOverflow at the top (as it should be).

Re:I really wish... (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826232)

Seconded. I use it to block w3schools and sexchange sites. Perhaps someone should do an intervention a la w3fools [w3fools.com]...

Re:I really wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36826688)

It comes up high in the results because it works for people and has a proven history. Seriously, I don't get the hate for them.

Too late (2)

esocid (946821) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823830)

/. was already removed from the internet. That's why no one is commenting.
Come to think of it, how did I get here? Where am I? I'm old.

Re:Too late (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823970)

You're probably such an old fart by now that you've memorized slashdot's IP address.

Re:Too late (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825010)

You see, most people these days type "facebook login" into Google, but some old geezers still use a thing named "DNS".

Bobby tables (0, Offtopic)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823880)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

Re:Bobby tables (4, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823912)

http://bobby-tables.com/ [bobby-tables.com] Obligatory response.

Re:Bobby tables (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36823964)

That was fast. Someone mod parent informative.

Re:Bobby tables (2)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824116)

The bug in webmaster tools has nothing to do with SQL injection, so although I like XKCD the two posts are quite irrelevant.

Re:Bobby tables (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824528)

They are both inserting unexpected data into an unverified field. The only difference is that with SQL injection you are inserting sql to do what you want instead of just data.

Re:Bobby tables (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826370)

Well, many attacks are based on unexpected values (if the developer expected that and it fails, he's a bit stupid). I was just pointing out this is not exactly SQL injection - the difference is that in this case there was a piece of business logic missing (check that the user is authorized to do that) and in case of SQL injection it's a failure at much lower level (data access).

Anyway, let's not argue about this and let's read some old XKCD strips we've already forgotten.

Re:Bobby tables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824716)

Just reading XKCD makes me feel autistic.

Re:Bobby tables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824410)

Finally, someone other me is saying that and whilst we're correcting XKCD.... Security [xkcd.com]
Um, It's called Deniable Encryption [wikipedia.org], and it's been around in consumer [truecrypt.org] products [jetico.com] for ages, so I wish people would stop giving that "obligatory" response to other stuff as well.

Re:Bobby tables (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825306)

The problem I see with deniable encryption is that while they can't prove there is more to see you can't prove that there isn't. So if they think the keys you have given them are decoys they will just keep tortuting you until you either reveal further keys or die.

Re:Bobby tables (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825410)

It's called Deniable Encryption

In the real world, deniable encryption means they beat you with the wrench even after you have given them a password that appears to work.

Re:Bobby tables (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824338)

This is about performing basic validations and checking permissions, not sanitizing data. Most likely Google is sanitizing the data, they're just not checking it to make sure it matches domains assigned to the user.

Strange (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36823934)

Maybe the same happend to me as I can't access my site http://voip-sip.org

Anyone can access it, guys?

Re:Strange (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824212)

.... This hole in Google's code doesn't affect the general availability of your site. It affects whether or not the site is contained in Google's index.

Re:Strange (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824294)

An awful lot of sites depend on visitors from search engines. No visitors = no business, so if you can block competing sites from the index (and thus from results), your business will be hurt badly.

Re:Strange (0)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824794)

I understand that. :) The way AC phrased it gives me the impression that they're referring to general availability of the site to the open Internet, not indexability.

Probably an honest mistake (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824016)

Well, this is pretty bad, though I imagine it probably happened because one webmaster could control multiple domains that look dissimilar, and they forgot to add checks to make sure that the webmaster really controlled the requested one. Oops. Nowhere near as bad as this [slashdot.org], which was simple gross, heads-should-roll, incompetence, but still a pretty big mistake. Kinda sad that address bar "hacks" still work in this day and age. Especially at a company like Google.

Looks like the removal isn't permanent, either, just temporary, so take that for what its worth. Still, wow, a malicious user could do serious damage to a lot of websites with this.

Re:Probably an honest mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824192)

Not an honest mistake, a horrid design flaw. What's the URL doing in the query string at all?

Re:Probably an honest mistake (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824276)

A POST is in no way more secure than a GET.
The flaw was to trust user input, plain and simple.

Re:Probably an honest mistake (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824574)

Trust but verify. Verify the crap out of anything you get from the user. Even if its a read only field, even if its a hidden field, even if it is encrypted.

Re:Probably an honest mistake (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824620)

This. Rule # 1 for creating anything with user input is - Never trust user input. Always sanitize before submission.

Re:Probably an honest mistake (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826764)

At least we know a whole different group of people put together Google+ and it's totally secure...

Interesting applications possible... (3, Funny)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824044)

What if someone used this exploit to remove Google.com? Then my parents couldn't enter 'google' in the white box (Google homepage) to get to 'the internet'!

Agh. I think my head exploded.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824086)

My head already apslode from the thought of needing Google to get to Google.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

yanyan (302849) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824934)

Yo dawg i herd you like searching so i put a google in your google so you can search while you search.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825684)

I had a girlfriend once who did this. She would type "google.com" into the google search bar at the top of her browser (firefox) to get to google so she could run searches. Drove me crazy.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (2)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824272)

I can't remember how many times I've tried to explain to various family members the differences between the two boxes in the title bar. It's a lot, that's for sure.

They never seem to get it, and perpetually type URLs into the search box.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824346)

One more hint at that introducing the search box was an error. After all, you can do everything from the URL bar which you can do from there.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824816)

That's nothing, I know people who type google.com into the address bar, THEN type URLs into the google search box.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825158)

Well, that's better than Google's typo-jacking that sadly got into most browsers. I have that misfeature disabled -- to do a search, I type "g furry squid porn" (the default Firefox config has it on "google" which might be good enough for most, I shortened it to "g").

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825338)

That's nothing, I know people who type google.com into the address bar, THEN type URLs into the google search box.

Oh? You know my parents? What a small world!

(Oh, wait, I set up Google as their homepage, so I guess they usually skip the first part...)

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826108)

Use chrome then..

Even in Firefox, the address bar acts as a search bar if you dont enter a website address

Re:Interesting applications possible... (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824904)

No worries. Google hard-codes its services to appear on the results page like a good monopoly should.

Re:Interesting applications possible... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#36826320)

http://www.google.com/search?q=photos [google.com]
Thats odd, that doesnt point to picasa at all!

http://www.google.com/search?q=social+networking [google.com]
wait a sec, wikipedia isnt a google product.... whats going on here?

http://www.google.com/search?q=email [google.com]
Wait a second, the top result is a sponsored ad, which DOESNT point to gmail!

Is it possible that youre just utterly wrong?

Re:Interesting applications possible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36826670)

They do? http://www.google.com/#q=search+engine

plug Google into it (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824054)

The author of this 'xploit' would have gotten more attention from Google if he tried removing 'google.com' and some other domains that belong to the company.

I think this is the closest one could get to breaking the Internet [youtube.com] by 'typing google into google'.

Re:plug Google into it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824330)

You can put Firefox inside Firefox. Just type chrome://browser/content/browser.xul into the URL box. Try setting it as your home page for even more fun.

WHAT!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36824758)

This is a joke, right?

History? (1)

popo (107611) | more than 2 years ago | (#36824818)

One wonders if Google can trace anyone who has previously used this technique to remove competitors from the index.

It would be fascinating to see just who has been a bad boy.

Collusion (1)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825120)

With the security hole plugged, people who wish to remove their erroneous information online will need to use paid service such as Reputation Defender. I bet how much did RD paid to Google to get this fixed?

Google doesn't GET that they should use POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36825370)

The whole point of URLs is to allow people to Locate a Resource. The whole point of the query string is to have a way to communicate data through a GET request, that way people can access it later. However, I am a firm believer that if you are not going to access something in the future then it shouldn't be in the query string of a get request. One time actions like this or session cookies should not be placed in a query string. POST it to reduce the replayability. Yes, I get that you can still arbitrarily change POST data, but it is more difficult to do then substituting it in the browsers location bar. In addition, it makes a website easier to navigate and send to your friends as all the unnecessary stuff (i.e. parts of the URL not needed to actually navigate to the page) is removed from the URL.

this bug and Google code review and testing (1)

necode (1860700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36825392)

I've read interesting article (Testing at the speed and scale of Google) about continuing integration system used by Google and a blog entry by a former Google employee which claims every line that is checked in at Google gets reviewed. I wonder how this obvious bug got through.

Removing websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36825506)

Bye-bye, whitehouse.gov! ;)

FiR5t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36826074)

Exa3tly what 7ou've
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...