Ask A Mod: All Questions Answered (whether you like it or not) [NS]

Actually, it's a very real line in some sense. Only Phun staff could speak for whether they want to allow stream embeds. But, by default, the functionality isn't there.

Allowing the embed codes that you copy from these video sites is actually a very dangerous security risk because somebody could embed something other than a video. So, you have to "sanitize" the input allowing embeds from only known sites that fit the right pattern. vBulletin does this and allows you to post urls from popular sites with the VIDEO tag. To post embeds from another site, like all the porn sites you're talking about, you have to either write the code to do it or install a plugin that supports the sites you want (such as the Youtube one which is probably a holdover from before vBulletin did it natively).

So, even if the staff agrees with you on whether it should be done, these kind of changes seem like they take a while to actually get done for whatever reason. I'm not arguing with you, I just don't see it happening soon.

 

yup i found a site where it wasnt banned
teh links do not work with the video embed tool
oh well
to bad,

suppose your right then

 

Oh well.

 

Yep, it's an iframe. That's what's dangerous to allow by default. You only want to allow those from trusted domains. So the vBulletin software, or a plugin for it, checks that the site is allowed before outputting an iframe to the page.

Sure, that means that Phun apparently has xhamster in vBulletins list of censored words. But, that doesn't affect the basic premise about what I said.

Yes, vBulletin 4 and up I believe.

When you use use the video tag, it lists the sites that it will allow.

• Hulu
• YouTube
• Vimeo
• Dailymotion
• Metacafe
• Google
• facebook

Like I said, there are plugins that allow other sites. It's very likely that they are using something like that.

Letting users post arbitrary iframes is pretty much the biggest risk there is.

You're free to, you'll just be wrong. I'm not trying to shoot down your idea. I'm just saying that it's something Cayne would need to do even if the other staff agree it should be done.

This is what it looks like when you use the VIDEO tag to post an iframe from an unknown domain using a long string of characters that is too random for them to have it censored. The BBCode:

Code:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.wlkjwekjweiuweflkjwefklwdfkhwiuywf.com/embed/DCRD7ZddPZo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And the result:

[video]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.wlkjwekjweiuweflkjwefklwdfkhwiuywf.com/embed/DCRD7ZddPZo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video]

It mangles the iframe and turns it into a link. If it were YouTube or an allowed site, it would leave the iframe intact and output it as it's supposed to be.

 

thanks

 

sorry i didnt respond green, i deleted that post and replaced it with one that said you were right,
the link provided in those sites is apparently not the same as the one from other flash sites
as they link would not operate correctly when i tied to insert it into a forum that hadnt banned those sites
it was impossible for me to determine that here, as the sites are banned from appearing in the board.

i apologize for not saying more, but i was on my phone, its hard to read and respond on this forum to stuff on it
and, i was busy pouting becouse i was wrong
so, i apologize for not being more a gentleman

but i still think if the tech was available, like it is with the other flash sites you listed, it would be a great add.
but the point is moot.

 

and by the way, look at all the fucking red thanks on your post saying
yea you tell him...
lol

sorry, tis just the way it looked


and if you havnt noticed, im trying , still, for some stupid reason, to come up with ways to set this place appart from the other forums
all of which are suffering dreadfully from the switch to mobile devises.

or at least thats what i think it is.

 

No problem

Also, just for clarity, I explained this part very badly:

With the VIDEO BBcode tag, you don't paste the actual embed code anyway. Even if you posted a YouTube embed code in the VIDEO tag, it would still mangle it like that because you're supposed to post the URL to the video page. The result is the same, maybe even more so, because the software has to know how to take that URL and reconstruct a proper embed code for that particular site.

Indeed, and mobile usage is only going to increase.

 

so it has to cut through all the static and find the flv file to play? like gif ads and other rubbish
i put the url in and it turned it into a link, just as you said
but if the site admin allowed that site as an approved host, would that video work?

 

ive stated on here before, as i watched the traffic fall, partly due to the forum failings and glitches, but partly to the move to other devises.
more and more people surf the net on an android based tablet or phone.
peronsally ive never tried to dl and unpack a video to play it on my phone.
dont think it would work out well, i dont even know if i can unpack it.

point is, the desktop, laptop world is not going to end
but the personal casual use of desktops is, and laptops, in my opinion, and it think the opinion of many lap top makers, is moving strictly to business and away from casual

to this point i give the evidence, i bought my wife a new samsung lap about a year ago, she is still pissed because she wanted the tablet.
i got my son a tablet that ran windows 8, so he could load office and other things and use it at school.
he was unhappy becouse again, wanted android based

this is just my little view, but i think its just the way of things

 

It's not just about the flv file. Most of the embed codes you see are just an iframe tag. An iframe isn't exclusive to video or flash, it's just a way of including something external into the local page. It's literally including a separate web page (say from youtube) into the current page (from phun). In the case of YouTube or a similar site, that external page is going to be some code that shows a video player. But it doesn't have to be a video player. Somebody could post an iframe that just serves malware instead and doesn't show anything.

So, what the video tag does is basically this:

1. Find the hostname (youtube.com) of the URL you posted
2. Check if that hostname matches one of the hosts that is supported
3. If so, find the significant part(s) of the url (ie. the video id) and transform it into the proper embed code.

But, the embed code part (iframe) is going to be a little different from site to site. So, they need write kind of an "adapter" for each site that turns this:

Code:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg1RBO1Cj4Y[/VIDE0]

into:

Code:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gg1RBO1Cj4Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And that "adapter", so to speak, has to be hard coded into vBulletin or a plugin for each site that you want to support.

So, if Phun took xHamster off of the censored words list and you posted a link in a video tag, you'd just get a link to the video and not an embedded video. Because vBulletin doesn't have an "adapter" for xHamster to build the embed code from an URL. That's the part you'd need to write yourself or add a vB plugin for.

Anyway, if the embedding thing is clear, I think maybe my part in this has run it's course. After all, it's a thread to ask the mods questions and I don't want to derail that. I was just trying to point out that you might have another roadblock beyond a simple decision to allow streaming embeds. Because it seems like it takes while to get new features and fixes implemented, which is actually pretty common in forums/communities like this.

 

your explanation corresponds with the explanation I received from the owner of another site, thanks again. I'll have to think of a new question for the mods. I appreciate your input

 

I guess that leads me to a question. At first I thought ISPrime (the user here) was another owner/admin, but I've since seen it's the host. So now I'm wondering, do you typically ask them to make changes? Like say if you wanted to add a vB plugin or something like that at the admin level, is that who would do it? Or does Cayne do that stuff?

It seems like you're paying for managed hosting (VPS?) and that might be why they don't get into much detail or give you that attitude. Typically the "managed" part covers server level things, but software level things like vBulletin would be mostly on the customer. Not that that excuses treating customers badly if that's the case.

Just wondering.

 

yup, I knew that. couldn't pass up the observation.
do you have an opinion on flash porn vids? or is scribbles on target for the collective

 

Understood.

If that was upgrading from v3 to v4 that would be somewhat understandable if the plugins simply weren't available for v4. Sometimes you have to let the old plugins go to move forward. But, if things stopped working unexpectedly or without them telling you what would happen, that's bad. It's usually a good idea to do a test upgrade on a staging or local server of some kind rather than just going commando on the live site. The botched upgrade this past fall/summer seemed like it could have benefited from a test run. I don't think they even turned the forum off first.

I know this would be Cayne's area and not yours, but I'd maybe think about looking for new host if it's that bad. I mean not adding new features is one thing and is sometimes even a good idea (if it isn't broken...). But, if fear of the host fucking up is keeping you from vB upgrades, I'd make a change. You at least want to upgrade vB core for security updates.

[/being nosy]