Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Exploit Let Two Pranksters Post 30,000-Character Tweet (engadget.com)

sqorbit writes: Two German twitter users were able to post a 30,000-character tweet, blowing way past the 280-character limit it is testing for select users. The accounts were banned for a brief period of time but are now back online after they apologized. The original 30,396-character tweet has been archived and can be viewed here. The two pranksters exploited "a rule Twitter made in 2016 that links would no longer count in the 140-character limit," reports The Daily Dot. "Yes, this is just one big web address with a URL code hidden deep in the large block of text."

38 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. The limit is stupid anyway by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    280-character limit

    I just can't fathom why anyone would use such a pathetically limited platform.

    1. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Yet your post and my response fits easily into that limit.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      That is only enough for short messages. But what if I wish to speak in detail about any complex matter? That would require me to be more long-winded. This platform's artificially imposed limitations hinder any rational discussion with more nuance than a few snippets. I think it's

    3. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by tepples · · Score: 1

      Post the article on a blog or a pastebin like Twitlonger. Then Tweet the headline and a link to the article.

    4. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by tepples · · Score: 1

      I noticed that the Mastodon(tm) FOSS social networking platform apparently *CHOSE* to have some 500 character limit.

      500 characters is close to the maximum length of a message in Internet Relay Chat.

    5. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      example: Here's my easy to understand paper that proves climate change. http://someurl/ #notahoax #climatechange

      there, that's one way you could change the world with a tweet.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Because this generation just doesn't have the 30 second attention span that the MTV generation had.

    7. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Idiots haven't they heard of Bitly.com

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    8. Re:The limit is stupid anyway by antdude · · Score: 1

      Like SMS. Even more limited!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  2. The limit by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Funny

    280-character limit

    I just can't fathom why anyone would use such a pathetically limited platform.

    Hey, 280 characters ought to be enough for anybody.

    1. Re:The limit by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Funny

      280-character limit

      I just can't fathom why anyone would use such a pathetically limited platform.

      Hey, 280 characters ought to be enough for anybody.

      Really? My computer has a whopping 640K of RAM and I should be limited to 280 character messages?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:The limit by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Twitter is so shittily coded that your 640K of RAM wouldn't even handle their header file.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:The limit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What's that, 2.6K per character? Probably not enough the way emojis are going. Just wait, they'll be embedding sounds in them next.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. It's not any fun by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    Unless you tweet the entire contents of "War & Peace". Or maybe the Twitter TOS.

  4. It's got imanges and video clips anyway by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Whatever. As soon as they started allowing anything other than text, they were sort of doing that anyway. You could encode text in an image and use a front-end to get big tweets, or do what a lof of people do and post images of text (yuck), and get huge ugly tweets with the normal front end. It's all a bunch of silliness. If you don't lock it down to text, there's not much of a limit. Even then, you've got the Trumpian... tweets that continue... because I'm too... bigly to adhere to... your limit.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:It's got imanges and video clips anyway by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Animate GIFs of my latest novella? That's sure to get me followers and re-tweets.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:It's got imanges and video clips anyway by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bring back the blink tag!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. subject by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand why this is news.

    1. Re:subject by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      He'd just link to Fox News clips; that's where he gets most his information (cough).

    2. Re:subject by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Because Twitter doesn't use a varchar(140) field in its database to store tweets.

      In a way, it's quite cool that this worked. It's not cool the users were banned and had to apologise for allowing Twitter let them do it.

    3. Re:subject by gustygolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because not one, but two (!) Twitter users apologised.

      If that's not news, I don't know what is.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    4. Re:subject by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Just have fun with it.

      In other news - writing Secure Code still is a thing. And: "where there's a will - there's a way" to get around anything you attempt to build.

      First come the pranksters having fun. Then come the hackers who realize "hey - look at what is possible!"

    5. Re:subject by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

      That's a cool perspective but I'm an old trog (see my profile age) and I miss the era when Slashdot wasn't where you went to post when Reddit rate limited your posts.

  6. 140 characters by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before the wide use of smart phones (remember Twitter was out before the iPhone), there were limits to the early version of the SMS protocol used. Depending on carrier and network but typically the maximum individual short message size was 160 7-bit characters, 140 8-bit characters, or 70 16-bit characters.
    If you're one of those, like me, who still sends Tweets using SMS (rather than MMS which can be a bit finicky on Android devices), you'll still run into these limits.

    But the users, audience, and content is pretty well versed in the 140 character limit. And while many people try to make multiple tweets to explain some thought in a rambling way, most of the well-shared re-tweets are concise statements and fit in well with the theory behind sound bites. Also, look at this very post if you want to want an example of a long winded ramble of the kind that really doesn't exist on Twitter but is commonplace on Slashdot.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re: 140 characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have an Android device and still tweet with text message? Why? Why do it, why buy the phone why let people know? Why?

    2. Re:140 characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, lots of people send longer Tweets in the form of screenshots.

      I believe it's the modern equivalent of pasting a picture into an MS Word document before emailing it.

    3. Re:140 characters by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It is very difficult to be concise and have something worth saying at the same time. That is why almost all of the tweets I have read seem rather dumb.

    4. Re:140 characters by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      $ echo -n "It is very difficult to be concise and have something worth saying at the same time. That is why almost all of the tweets I have read seem rather dumb." | wc -c
      151

      I suppose you're right. Or at least you've exceeded your 140 character limit; it's a subjective matter if what you said was worth saying.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:140 characters by Calydor · · Score: 1

      True, but on Twitter your post would boil down to something akin to, "140 chars R enuf bcuz it is limit @ SMS" and maybe, if you're a good user, a link to the SMS specs that no one would click anyway. No further explanations or dissemination, just a sound bite with little to no context and use.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    6. Re:140 characters by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      And while many people try to make multiple tweets to explain some thought in a rambling way, most of the well-shared re-tweets are concise statements and fit in well with the theory behind sound bites.

      And therein lies the problem. Sound bites. That's all you get out of Twitter. Nothing deep, no interesting communication, nothing of substance.

      But the users, audience, and content is pretty well versed in the 140 character limit.

      It would take me two tweets to tell someone the title of my master's thesis. Two entire tweets! Here is something with deep meaning to me, something I might love to share with someone, and I can't even efficiently tweet the fucking title! We spent weeks on that title, trying to summarize the research as concisely as possible. But when your research needs long, technical words to describe it, there isn't a substitution. Imagine me trying to explain what the words in the title actually mean - I'm into dozens of tweets at that point, and not even getting into anything of substance.

      I can't fathom why people love twitter and defend it. It's the definition of noise. The effort it takes to cut through that noise is so extreme that most users don't bother, adding to the noise. I don't get why people like the noise, and I don't get the effort that goes into cutting through the noise.

      On a semi-regular basis I'll see some stupid fucking news article where they decide to highlight some tweets, and inevitably the person they're showing tweets from is doing some sort of 1/12, 2/12 series of tweets because their thoughts don't fit into 140 characters. How do otherwise seemingly rational human beings not stop at that point and realize that a tweet is not the appropriate medium for their voice? How did Twitter become so crack-like that people can't fathom not using it?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  7. As was pointed out ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... in the reply tweets, that's just a sentence in German.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:As was pointed out ... by glitch! · · Score: 2

      Q: "You have been staring at that screen for a half hour! What are you doing?"
      A: "Hang on, I'm waiting for the verb!"

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
  8. Why is this News.???... by OppMan29 · · Score: 1

    Because if the Donald gets a hold of this exploit... God help us!!!

  9. That's by design by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Because Twitter autoshortens URLs you can post one as big as you want, no "hack" needed. That's sort of the point of URL shortening. You can argue that the design is bad, but I still don't see how this is news.

  10. "Churn & Shoe" ratio record breaker? by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Compared to churning butter or shoeing a horse, the injection of this 30k tweet may be the most arbitrary and arcane human endeavor to date, stealing the crown from Bitcoin.

    In order to fully grasp the "churn & shoe" ratio try to delineate the advances that have led to a point, and identify jump-off points where technology has opened up or closed off human potential.

    OPENED UP: From electrons skidding through wires, distance communication, analog voice impulses, time domain digital pulses, store and forward numeric registers, packet communication, buffered reassembly, transparent fragmentation and reassembly, sessions, multiplexing, the OSI model, point to point stream and broadcast through virtual circuits, routing among autonomous systems, mapping names to addresses, from overhead intensive multiple connections to timed keepalive, from bare ASCII to gzip...

    We should be living in space by now.

    CLOSED OFF:
    - SMS developers were concerned that digital text traffic from cell users would disrupt voice communication and imposed a character limit. They needn't have bothered, now you can be watching an HD video with full audio clarity embedded in a busy Facebook page while experiencing a crappy voice call.

    - Twitter adopted the character limit for novelty in an attempt to enforce brevity and succinctness. They imagined the imposed limits would broaden human horizons as human intellect funneled into terse communications of awesome power and simplicity. The speed of networks combined with this focus would form global consensus in minutes, solve the world's problems in days, and give us all the 7th day off. They needn't have bothered, because the character limit exposed the human tendency towards short snarky comments, and these have overtaken all other content.

    - Now a 30k tweet has been successfully injected but in comparison with every ground breaking moment in technological history preceding it, it is more like an abandoned starving canary locked in a cage that has discovered a new note. The 'injection attack' is a triumph but it is a system-within-a-system-within-a-system, that 30k of content hidden in some 1 megabyte page load of style sheets and HTML fluff, served by half a dozen mysterious IP addresses and keepalive connections that torment in-memory DOM objects with Javascript ooglies.

    Meanwhile no butter has been churned, the cows have not even been milked, they are mooing restlessly. And the horses' hooves are wearing thin.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:"Churn & Shoe" ratio record breaker? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      SMS developers were concerned that digital text traffic from cell users would disrupt voice communication and imposed a character limit.

      Not quite. SMS was originally a kind of by-product of voice-only GSM, using the control channel for extra message data when it was free of other signals. Basically empty slots between the voice packets. This also explains why they are relatively expensive, since there's a lot of total data traffic per each actual message.

      The initial concept also didn't involve phone-to-phone messages, it was more about broadcasting things like weather or traffic reports. In fact, my first GSM phone could only receive, not send any messages. For such uses, single short messages were considered long enough. Later, when phones could compose longer messages, they would be split into multiple proper SMS messages (which would show in your phone bill).

      In a sense, it's possible that SMS flooding might disrupt the control signals, but from the basic concept it seems they really prioritized voice. Of course, this might be different in later systems since basic GSM.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  11. Sigh by Amezick · · Score: 1

    This is why we can't have nice things...

  12. Sane example by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I've not had any problems with the 140 char limit.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire