>>10649847

>>10649744

>>10649810

Do you mind explaining what makes you think that images are containers for executable code and that your box is executing them?

If that's happening due to a buffer overrun error on your device or something similar, isn't that a problem of your box having unpatched code?

Normally images are not executable.

Even if someone inserted executable code into image data, there is no reason that data would ever be on an execution path within the running code.

Unless there's a defect in your system.

If you disagree with my assessment, kindly explain with COPIOUS DETAIL what makes you think that is the case.

>>10649956

That's what I was telling them.

Anons are complaining of single-pixel (transparent, invisible) image that their browser fetches from a 3rd party site?

Such images do exist but if they are on the page, the link would have to be present in the HTML.

I think you meant to talk to the same anons I was responding to. Not me.

>>10650045

I don't generally argue with shills,

but your post is false and needs to be refuted.

Children are precious in God's sight.

So are adults, and people of all ages.

There are harsh penalties for those convicted of crimes against other humans, and especially so for crimes against children.

I am glad for this.

Some of the wrongdoers will never repent.

I think we are going to see a lot of indictments get unsealed, and a lot of convictions of the human traffickers, pedophiles, drug runners, embezzlers, those working for foreign governments and infiltrators/insurrectionists.

I support the rule of law.

People should be held accountable for their personal conduct. GOD holds people accountable for their personal conduct.

>>10650095

Yes there is such a thing as single-pixel web bugs. They have been around since at least the 1990s if not before.

HOWEVER you failed to prove the existence of one on pages hosted at 8kun.top.