User talk:Anonymous31415927
jpegs
You have started to repeat posting this block of text in the discussion on matrix with two diagonals:
-- Sorry to say, childs, but dangerous-JPEG is an old urban legend. The https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2004-0200 was in 2004 and was caused by a bug in MS Windows (GDI+), not that it was JPEG. But I understand - some people's ass is on fire because they are afraid of exploits from 2004. I would advise you to drink a glass of water, switch from MS Windows 98 to MS Windows 11, install all updates and anti-virus program other than Kaspersky. And take the pills prescribed by your doctor regularly.
Likewise, Samantha virus was not a de facto JPEG file, it only pretended to be one. Which was only possible because a few of the less clever MS programmers thought they had a good idea of hiding the file extension from users.
In fact, every link - and even the image of the Rosseta stone displayed on the Rosseta Code website - could be ... oh yo oh ah - terrible and terrible CVE. Fear and terror, terror and hiccups. We should all be dead.
But every day we somehow open thousands of jpegs on websites and we live? Strange isn't it?
I have been removing it for several reasons:
- The 2004 thing was not the only example of this buffer overflow problem -- it's something that keeps happening, so
- Suggesting that there's no historical validity to being cautious about image links is the wrong approach, and
- There are people who actively go out and try to deal with people taking advantage of buffer overflow problems, which means the problems tend to be relatively rare, so a lack of examples isn't particularly meaningful (especially when you ignore well documented examples of jpeg buffer over problems which are more recent than 2004), and
- Minimizing external dependencies on a website is generally good practice anyways, so being "too cautious" in this context seems like a maybe mediocre but not horrible and maybe even good idea. (Certainly a lot better than some of the other stunts people have been pulling, recently.)
Now, ... it's undoubtedly true that some people somewhere discourage image links because they have been annoyed by porn. But that does not seem relevant here, since that's not the kind of image under discussion. And, in fact, almost nothing you wrote here seemed, to me, to be particularly relevant.
Of... if you would put some effort into researching your claims and/or writing text which is relevant, that would be Really Nice.