Timeline for Should a bank/financial service use external URL shortener services?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2020 at 14:38 | comment | added | Jan Hudec | @Steve, indeed, if it's your site, just create a memorable link. Somewhat longer but memorable link is better than tinyu.rl/bFlmPSvZ. Shorteners are for cases where you want to, say, give a link to someone else's paper that does not have a short url in a footnote in a printed journal. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 8:55 | comment | added | tripleee |
Unless you regularly use ac.me for all your links, how are your users supposed to know that it's owned by acme.com? In other words, using a well-known domain name which clearly belongs to you is probably more important for this use case than short, convenient URLs (though of course a competent organization could easily have both; having a machine generate long, meaningless labels for human consumption is just lazy and stupid).
|
|
| Apr 17, 2020 at 21:34 | comment | added | craq | @MechMK1 I think the question is an XY problem. The banks shouldn't use link shortening, but they really shouldn't send any links in emails at all. That's why I'm upvoting F. Hauri's answer | |
| Apr 17, 2020 at 11:08 | comment | added | user163495 | @craq Depends, but this would make URL shorteners just as bad. I assumed that they want to send links via e-mail. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 21:18 | comment | added | craq | I thought it was discouraged to click on links in emails from banks? I'm fairly sure I'd been told to open my web browser and type their url myself, specifically to avoid hyperlinks to fake websites hidden by text like "this link" | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 17:40 | comment | added | user10216038 | @Nzall - Yes I'm aware of that. It was just a quip. I apologize to all for inadvertently derailing the topic. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 17:37 | comment | added | user10216038 | @onurcanbektas - Just Google nuclear launch codes 00000000 and you'll have many references. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 16:04 | comment | added | Steve | "QR codes are slowly getting implemented more and more to solve this exact problem." - which is exactly where a URL shortener is likely to get used - QR codes for long URLs tend to be more awkward to handle - if you can even get the camera resolution and software to handle them. That said, it's still an awful idea to use a THIRD PARTY url shortener for this. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 10:45 | comment | added | Nzall | @user10216038 Nuclear launch codes are pretty much useless without access to Air Force One, the Nuclear Football, Mount Cheyenne or any other place where you can actually use them. It's not like you can click on a GET request and accidentally launch a nuclear missile. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 8:09 | comment | added | user163495 | @RazvanSocol Might be that I was referring to that vulnerability. It's been a while. I'll edit this when I get the time | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 7:02 | comment | added | Our | @user10216038 how do you know that? Can you give any reference? | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 4:39 | comment | added | Razvan Socol | Are you sure that the Windows XP DRM vulnerability is linked to a URL shortener? Can you provide a source for this information? I only found docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securityadvisories/… and news.softpedia.com/news/… | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 1:37 | comment | added | chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- | Note that SMS is a particular still-current case of limited length. | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 16:15 | comment | added | user10216038 | Ironically, and contrary to the xkcd, for about 15 years the nuclear launch code was a well known 00000000. Not the point I know, just anecdotal. | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 10:39 | history | answered | user163495 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |