The 0.0.0.0 Day news story
-
Apparently we're supposed to be outraged that web browsers allow entry of 0.0.0.0 as a URL, but the part that surprised me on my desktop Linux computer when I tried netcat and ping, was that some part of the OS changed it to 127.0.0.1 and carried on like I meant localhost.
-
Apparently we're supposed to be outraged that web browsers allow entry of 0.0.0.0 as a URL, but the part that surprised me on my desktop Linux computer when I tried netcat and ping, was that some part of the OS changed it to 127.0.0.1 and carried on like I meant localhost.
-
Apparently we're supposed to be outraged that web browsers allow entry of 0.0.0.0 as a URL, but the part that surprised me on my desktop Linux computer when I tried netcat and ping, was that some part of the OS changed it to 127.0.0.1 and carried on like I meant localhost.
Depending on the context, 0.0.0.0 could be null, a placeholder, any address, or even self-referential. It's the general purpose address to butcher as you please. Don't expect it to route anywhere though even if the intent is self-referencing. Loopbacks are specific though. It's got one job. Sooooo... if a tool wants to translate 0.0.0.0 as a loopback, technically that's kinda ok-ish... depending on who you ask and the moon phase of course. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Apparently we're supposed to be outraged that web browsers allow entry of 0.0.0.0 as a URL, but the part that surprised me on my desktop Linux computer when I tried netcat and ping, was that some part of the OS changed it to 127.0.0.1 and carried on like I meant localhost.