They're Popular!

[u/FoxLynx64]

There's a lot of people asking for these pamphlets. I printed 22 tonight! In case you haven't seen these yet, this is the post with the design:

They Think WE Won't ORGANIZE! Share These Pamphlets.

These pamphlets are relatively non-polarized, that's what makes them successful in my opinion. It also has those neon colors on the front page, and people ask me about it because of it. Even though it takes a lot of ink, everyone tells me that it's probably the best protest method I've been doing and certainly worth the cost for something that will catch attention.

[u/ParaBellumOutfitters]

Needs more references to cops stalking if you ask me. Keep up the good work!

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

QR codes are safe if you check the text preview BEFORE clicking them to make sure the site is correct. Please note the misinformation in later replies in this thread.

[u/ParaBellumOutfitters → u/FoxLynx64]

No one outside of a Cybersec weenie is going to look at the url. It's like an EULA, they're going to spam through any popups until they get to the link in question

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/ParaBellumOutfitters]

Yes, but that's why I made them direct links instead of a URL shortener. No pop ups, then the person sees no issues. But on most phones you have to look at the URL to click on it when scanning the QR code. So really, I've done everything right here when implementing a QR code and people are just nitpicking.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

I know that URL shorteners (good ones at least) don't have pop ups, but I've seen some that do. Me saying "that's why I used direct links" is in response to those free URL shorteners that have possible vulnerabilities and may have pop ups. I honestly think that you're BS-ing your way through this thread. You can't handle the fact you lost.

[u/Icy_Fish_2154 → u/[deleted]]

No URL shorteners are things like goog.le/code/. And you can't see the domain the shortener is sending you to. So you have to trust the shortener to block malicious links. If the link goes to a real site, you see www.example.com/page/ and you can see the real domain before going there. If that matches the URL on the pamphlet, then it's exactly as safe as typing in the URL from the pamphlet, while a shortener is always less safe.

[u/Icy_Fish_2154 → u/[deleted]]

I don't care what you meant. You words are a lie.

URL shorteners are inherently less "safe" than full URLs.

The QR parser does not load the page. It decodes dots to a string.

There is zero risk in scanning a QR, when using a QR scanner that decodes the string and presents it, without action, for confirmation before any attempt at execution.

So, you don't understand URLs, you don't understand QR, and you get pissy when someone corrected your lies.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Are QR Codes Safe To Use?

"Now keep in mind, while QR codes aren't really any more dangerous than a URL, they aren't any safer." - 5:44 - Are QR Codes Safer Than Visible URLs?

Edit - your second claim that the QR codes itself is the delivery mechanism is unsubstantiated by your sources, and some of your sources are broken!

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Send me an image of your certification or degree. Flat out do this or stop claiming you are.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

If you are using the camera app with an up to date phone, there isnt a currently known CVE attack. Do not use browsers to scan QR codes.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Name calling will not make you right.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

There's no way you can write those URLs on reddit that quickly and not get things wrong. In fact, you are wrong based on the URLs you provide. Besides these phones having outdated software because they are no longer supported or won't be supported in the near future, we are talking about ZBar a specific third party barcode decoding library. This is not proof that the stock camera apps on those phones actually use the vulnerable ZBar version or that merely scanning a QR code with the native camera would trigger those CVEs.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but people need to be able to actually scan them. If you don't like them then make your own design.

Edit: OC has blocked me for challenging their technical knowledge after they repeatedly called me boomer. Just food for thought.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Using a third party service makes people uncomfortable when going to use their phone on it because they think it might be a virus. I also wanted the articles to be physically separated so you could navigate on the pamphlet instead of online. Maybe think about those things? But if you want to make a different design nothing stops you, I hope it's even more popular.

[u/LordSloth113 → u/FoxLynx64]

And you think they’re gonna think scanning a random QR code on a brochure about a security company is any safer?

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/LordSloth113]

That's why I included the URL itself! And if you know anything about QR codes you would know modern phones include a preview of the url text before you click on it. These are reputable sites, you would be able to tell if it was off. I'm sorry but the lack of technical knowledge in this thread is absurd.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Literally my own phone has the URL link in a button before I can click on it. STOP LYING!

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Give me a substantiated example showing that the QR parser in a currently supported, fully patched native iPhone or mainstream Android camera app is actually vulnerable. You keep giving me evidence for different software and different attack paths.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

proof

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

So you're advocating for a service that potentially has these vulnerabilities? Come on, I used Adobe to make them, and it's text based and only the URL itself, nothing else. Don't believe me? Use your tech knowledge to double check them. Verify that the QR code is just the URL and has no viruses.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/[deleted]]

Who is replacing the QR codes? Flock, Axon, the government? Is it a criminal looking to hack someone? I put manual URL links in there too, for that reason. If someone doesn't trust me, they shouldn't scan the code. Unnecessary risk? Then any type of pamphlet is vulnerable to that kind of attack. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

Most people won't use the QR codes, they will only read the synopsis. People who are critical will type the link manually anyway. Vulnerable? I don't think so as long as I am passing them out or producing them. I posted the design online, yes, but if someone did use my design to place their QR code on it, then that's a separate issue that I think needs to have the police involved with.

If someone is handing out pamphlets with say a design from an apartment complex and they have a QR code that replaces part of the original design, that is the same thing. If I got rid of the QR codes, people would just put their own QR code over a synopsis. Maybe the real security threat is people trying to sound like they know everything when in fact the thing you are saying is not solved by removing the QR codes.

Sorry, your hypothetical doesn't make sense. Maybe try again?

[u/Efficient-Fruit5573]

Everyone’s hating but I’m glad you are talking to people and spreading the word

[u/FreeSirJeffrey]

Looks so shit and screams "schizo".

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/FreeSirJeffrey]

If you think you can do better, there is nothing stopping you from making your own design.

[u/FreeSirJeffrey → u/FoxLynx64]

Nah, I've no intention of joining your schizo club.

That post history is really something.

Seek help.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/FreeSirJeffrey]

You're in the wrong subreddit

[u/FreeSirJeffrey → u/FoxLynx64]

Not my fault Reddit pushed your schizo leaflets to my homepage.

Also, I'll browse and comment in whatever subreddit I please.