On 13/09/2022 17:18, Apd wrote:
> "HunterBD" wrote:
>> On 13/09/2022 12:51, Apd wrote:
>>> "HunterBD" wrote:
>>>> You DID say that you weren't going to spend any more time
>>>> investigating!!!
>>>
>>> I changed my mind. When SC mentioned you can use '+' for spaces and
>>> FTR posted a link about it, I thought I'd better check if there's a
>>> special case for underscores. There isn't, so it must be something
>>> Smugmug or their hosting service offer. All the SD links with spaces
>>> replaced with '_' or '%20' or '+' (I've not seen any of the latter)
>>> should be treated as the same link (the same file) and they are except
>>> for the one I noted. The one with underscores that doesn't work
>>> (treated as a jpeg) indicates a fault at their end. There's nothing
>>> about the file that should cause it to happen - it's the same type of
>>> MP4 as the others.
>>
>> In such a situation, do you ever contact the folk at "their end" with a
>> view to solving the puzzle?
>
> Not in this case because it ain't much of a puzzle.

There is ALWAYS a reason.

>>> Depending on the format, anything can be hidden in a file or appended
>>> to it. However, it needs an executable to make use of that. It can't
>>> be used by the file itself when it's non-executable, or a legitimate
>>> player or viewer (aside from any vulnerabilities, as I mentioned).
>>
>> Hmmm!
>>
>> So now you DO agree that 'malware' CAN be hidden within a video file!
>
> I just said it depends. Read up about MP4 file format. If it contains
> chunks that are informative rather than playable it could be hidden
> there. Otherwise it must be appended.

I wasn't expecting foul play.

>> Do you ALSO agree that 'someone' could TAMPER with a video file and
>> insert malicious code where none had been in the link originally?
>
> It wouldn't matter because no legitimate player will run it.

Is there such a thing as an illegitimate player?

>> How can you and/or I inspect the one you believe has a fault?
>
> It doesn't have a fault. The fault is at the server where it resides.
> For the particular file in question (Morro Bay Feb 2 mp4-1920.mp4),
> there are two versions. One is 1920x1080 and there's a smaller version
> of 640x360 which appears to be incorecctly marked (on the server) as
> being "image/jpeg". For some unknown reason, that's the one you get if
> you use Firefox to request that filename where underscores are used
> instead of spaces. It doesn't happen if I download with curl or wget.

Have you any idea why there are two sizes?

> Regarding underscores, I've discovered that there's no special
> handling. You can remove just one from the problematic file and it
> works correctly. In fact, it doesn't matter what filename you give,
> the file identification is in the string of random-looking characters
> before. For example, this:
>
> photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work-2021/i-NvqWJth/0/58fae328/1920/mb-feb2.mp4
>
> will get the large "Morro Bay Feb 2 mp4-1920.mp4" file. Removing the
> "/1920" part of the path will get the smaller version:
>
> photos.smugmug.com/Air-2-Work-2021/i-NvqWJth/0/58fae328/mb-feb2small.mp4
>
> Same for the other files you've shown; you can refer to them by any
> filename you like, as I did here, but there are no smaller versions of
> those.

I'm still left wondering what was/is so special about having two versions.

--
Thanks for looking into this. :-D

On 15/09/2022 22:34, HunterBD wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 14:47, Apd wrote:
>> "HunterBD" wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2022 22:55, Apd wrote:
>>>> Perhaps I'm being too helpful.
>>>
>>> Absolutely not! I'm not here to learn things (although I do) but to
>>> 'look
>>> under the stones' like kids do on the beach.
>>
>> That's the problem - you rarely learn anything. This is why you keep
>> asking about the same things over and over. No doubt you've heard this
>> proverb:
>>
>> "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you
>>   feed him for a lifetime".
>
> Of course. :-D
>
> You are so forgetful.
>
> I was a professional Training Officer. A TEACHER!
>
> My most notable student was Prince Andrew, duke of York, during his
> flying training in the Royal Navy.
> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andrew-duke-of-York
>
>> An interpretation is that if someone is taught how to do something,
>> it's of more benefit in the long run than doing it for them. For you,
>> that means if you made an effort to understand some of the
>> technicalities about aspects of computing that are confusing, you
>> could move out of Punxsutawney.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GncQtURdcE4&t=0s
>
> I can confirm that I have done some things the same way over and over
> and expected to get the same answer - but just occasionally the answer
> WAS different! Crazy, eh?!!
>
> Tell me YOUR claim to fame, Ant. What was the high point of YOUR career?
>
>>> You have found an odd-ball video amongst the others. There MUST be a
>>> reason for that. I'd like to be sure that it's innocent.
>>
>> There's nothing odd about the video(s). As I said earlier, it's the
>> way the server is reporting them, usually to the browser but in one
>> case to other utilities.
>
> You said. But you do not know why.
>
>>> You have, I'm sure, checked that there aren't hidden messages inside.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous. I'm not going through hundreds of megabytes of
>> data when it's obvious nothing will be found. Naturally, I've looked
>> at the headers to see if there's any noteworthy differences (there
>> aren't).
>
> I once opened just about every file on a Windows XP machine using
> Notepad ...... and discovered that Hewlett Packard was sending messages
> 'home' to disclose the usage of my printer.

That ended with this outcome:-

https://www.euroconsumers.org/activities/printergate-euroconsumers-asks-hp-to-compensate-printer-owners-up-to-eur150

>>> It's still a bit of a puzzle!
>>
>> The only puzzle to me is the behaviour of the Smugmug server when
>> following differently-named links to the same file, both from Google
>> Groups and from entering the URL directly. It's not any indication
>> of maliciousness. Unless anyone has any better ideas, it has to be a
>> server configuration issue at their end.
>
> There must be a reason for that.

--
Kind regards,
HunterBD