> you do realize that a QR code "attack" doesn't have to be malicious, yeah? it could be some gorilla PR campaign of something like a local band essentially rick rolling the users. or sending them to the menu of the competing restaurant up the street. or goatse. or or or...
They can do that already just by placing their logo, or whatever, instead of a QR code.
Plus whether it is malicious or not, it’s still hugely inefficient given all the other points I raised.
> at that point, it could just be someone that printed up a bunch of stickers and plastered them on anything they could find. people love jokes.
Again, nothing about this needs to be a QR code
> like unscrewing the salt/pepper shakers before they leave the restaurant type of asshattery.
And yet nobody suggests you shouldn’t use salt and pepper shakers at a restaurant. So why are QR codes suddenly “dangerous” if they’re at the same level of “asshattery”?
> at this point, i'm just trying to keep going to make it look like this reply's length is worthy of what ever rabbit hole you went down in some vain attempt at trying to prove a point.
I was giving you a breakdown as to why people don’t do the kind of QR attacks / jokes that you seem to assume are common place rather than just saying “nice theory but that doesn’t happen in the real world”. There’s no need for you to be snarky.
> They can do that already just by placing their logo, or whatever, instead of a QR code
What in the world are you on about? Just slapping a logo on top of a QR code suggests to me you’ve lost the plot. The point is to hide your attempt at subverting the “attack”. You’re specifically trying to get the person to go to some other site in the normal process of scanning a QR code. Covering the original QR code with a logo would be obvious some subterfuge is at hand, and totally defeats the purpose. How is that not obvious to you?
> I was giving you a breakdown as to why people don’t do the kind of QR attacks / jokes that you seem to assume are common place rather than just saying “nice theory but that doesn’t happen in the real world”. There’s no need for you to be snarky
I’ve consistently been talking about how QR codes are not dangerous. The last post was just asking for you to tone down the ad hominem attacks.
I’m happy to discuss QR codes with yourself but I only if you can be civil. Otherwise why would I want to chat further if you’re just going to be rude in all of your comments?
They can do that already just by placing their logo, or whatever, instead of a QR code.
Plus whether it is malicious or not, it’s still hugely inefficient given all the other points I raised.
> at that point, it could just be someone that printed up a bunch of stickers and plastered them on anything they could find. people love jokes.
Again, nothing about this needs to be a QR code
> like unscrewing the salt/pepper shakers before they leave the restaurant type of asshattery.
And yet nobody suggests you shouldn’t use salt and pepper shakers at a restaurant. So why are QR codes suddenly “dangerous” if they’re at the same level of “asshattery”?
> at this point, i'm just trying to keep going to make it look like this reply's length is worthy of what ever rabbit hole you went down in some vain attempt at trying to prove a point.
I was giving you a breakdown as to why people don’t do the kind of QR attacks / jokes that you seem to assume are common place rather than just saying “nice theory but that doesn’t happen in the real world”. There’s no need for you to be snarky.