How are sites allowed to capture the fact you're running devtools and stop execution?
>open devtools>open url>site refreshes itself until i get rateblockedkek they try to hard to stop mei will mitm them and capture their mp4s despite their best efforts
>>108231591>How are sites allowedk.. Lets follow this one through to it's logical conclusion...You set up a website. As this is /g that's likely for furry pr0n. I rock up and start being a dick. Start trying to tell you what you can or cannot do with your site.What happens next?
>>108231612based they will never stop scrape chads
>>108231645i'm not setting up a website, i'm trying to scrape urls to feed to yt-dlp to download videos
>>108231591disable breakpoints, genius
>>108231790insufficient, sites employ many other methods to detect the presence of devtools
>>108231771Same rewls apply, dipshit. Just as I have no mechanism - or even right to attempt - to dictate your use, you have no mechanism to enforce your opinon..
>>108231801Like what?
>>108231807my side has far more weapons at its disposal thoughbeit
>>108231818>my side has far more weapons at its disposal thoughbeit/me shakes head sadly.That wasn't the question, was it dipshit? For that matter, what makes you so confident your premise is true? What makes you certain they don't have access to precisely the same tooling as you?
>>108231894i'm getting those mp4s and your side cannot stop me without orwellesque approaches like DRM (which a pirate site will not use anyway lmao)no honor amongst thieves
>>108231591Generally you just need to open the devtools in a separate window, not on the bottom of the window, and it doesn't detect anything, so their trick seems to be using the resize event and compare windowHeight to clientHeight or something to know if the devtools are open.
i welcome the arms race between copyright holders/ad faggots and downloaders/ad blockersi think the latter camp has the advantage
>>108231919It's more than that, for instance flixtor.mov uses an approach which still detects that and forces a refreshits annoying and interesting to delve into webshittery, i'm astounded that websites can block keybindings (e.g. f12) outright. what have these retards wrought?
>>108231929The absolute state of the modern web.
>>108231911>your sideHow nice of you to define what and who I am for me.>cannot stop meShould I feel the requirement, I really don't imagine it'll represent a significant challenge. I apply pressure on one domino and the failure cascade does the rest.>without orwellesque approachesEvidence these are not already in application?>no honor amongst thievesLegitimately, I have experience of the opposite. Sure, f'kin criminals. Like any other 'people' they are people, and each should be judged on individual merit... But most do operate under some sort of moral code. It may misalign 'societies' code, but it is there, and frequently rigidly applied. Much of that code is expressly honour based.In contradiction, those tasked with stopping the criminals frequently display dishonourable behaviors, engaging in acts of similar or greater moral quandry in the execution of their goals...
What's the motivation of this autistic vagueposting retard? He put some trash on the web without knowing how to config a server and third world bots took it down? I sense trauma in his past
>>108232077>What's the motivation of this autistic vagueposting retard?I'm not sure anon. Why are you posting vague autistic shit?>He put some trash on the web without knowing how to config a server and third world bots took it down? And you've managed to draw this conclusion... How, precisely?That's not a rhetorical question. I'm geniunely interested in your lack of thought process.>I sense trauma in his pastI sense projection...
>>108231591They're not, you are under a false impression.A webpage is not allowed to read which browser tools the user has poppedIf such a thing existed, most companies would block dev tools on the client
I wonder if it would be easy to just patch firefox to keep devtools secret. I have a feeling this would be incredibly hard to do in a bulletproof way.>>108232132>If such a thing existed, most companies would block dev tools on the clientI wonder why none do. It's definitely possible, I've been slightly inconvenienced by shady sites who do it
>>108232163It's easy to bypass such a blockage.Just pop dev tools from the browser menu
>>108232132>A webpage is not allowed to readYou can actually provision evidence to support this premise, ofc?I put it to you that I can do whatever I want with my server and when it comes to 'consequences' you're going to left all limp dick - like normal - because you went out of your way to make that execute on your computer. I didn't make you do that.>If such a thing existed, most companies would block dev tools on the clientMost companies don't even know it exists. Anywhere that takes security seriously wouldn't give you a browser.>>108232163>to keep devtools secretYou really are a fucktard, isn't it? If you'd tried that three decades back you might have been able to get somewhere. But even then you'd come up against the inevitable fact that operating the server means your target is likely already familar with the tooling...
>>108232186I'm sceptical this would work, as I already disabled all sites from changing my context menu, so I think this would prevent them noticing me using it. But I will try, next timeBtw, I'm 90% certain I've also seen sites set breakpoints themselves to frustrate very incompetent "hackers". I think if you can set breakpoints yourself, it's trivial to detect dev mode by just watching a timer and checking if it took longer, which means user opened dev mode and had to waste some time disabling it, so no context menu snooping needed.>>108232286>But even then you'd come up against the inevitable fact that operating the server means your target is likely already familar with the tooling...I don't know what you are talking about. Like I said, I agree it's hard, but I think at least the tools that don't debug the javascript directly should in theory be able to implemented rather stealthily. I.e. the request sniffer or storage inspector
>>108232319>don't know what you are talking about.It shows. It shows.>but I think at least the tools that don't debug the javascript directly should in theory be able to implemented rather stealthilyIn theory.However I would suggest a 'stronger' path to obtain 'stealth' to be operate outside of the paradigm they are expecting.Researching the methods they are using for detection usually defines methods to evade... tho to achieve this you may require to modify the browser source so it behaves differentyl...
I ended up writing an extension that copies ~1% of devtools functionality for such sites. super annoying.
>>108231911>like DRM (which a pirate site will not use anyway lmao)Tangential thought:How long before someone vibecodes up malware that'll ramp thru a victim's collection and apply DRM that expires after a single play?Then a ransomware version that'll unlock it after payment...Prolly a lot faster if they're reading this post I suppose, I really should stop giving folk ideas.Another 'interesting' premise is who'll offload it first, 'criminals' or firms like RIAA...
>>108231591You are allowing to run their proprietary anti-user programs on your computer when you are navigating to their website. That's on you.
>>108231929>It's more than that, for instance flixtor.mov uses an approach which still detects that and forces a refreshhow?
