Is there a ceiling on the size to which an image may be upscaled?
One wrinkle a vandal figured out today was altering the image markup on [[en:User:Hephaestos]] to produce a massive image. Done prolifically, I figure there's some potential both to DOS the server that does the scaling, and to similarly slow visitors' browsers.
I can't see much reason to allow scaling of images to beyond a few thousand pixels.
FIn
Finlay McWalter wrote:
Is there a ceiling on the size to which an image may be upscaled?
If you scale an image larger than its actual pixel size, the image isn't thumbnailed to that size; rather the larger size is simply put on the <img> tag's width and height attributes, so it displays larger in the browser.
This might be annoying, but won't eat up server time.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Finlay McWalter wrote:
Is there a ceiling on the size to which an image may be upscaled?
If you scale an image larger than its actual pixel size, the image isn't thumbnailed to that size; rather the larger size is simply put on the <img> tag's width and height attributes, so it displays larger in the browser.
This might be annoying, but won't eat up server time.
Thanks, that greatly reduces the scope of evil :)
Still, it's possible to make images with a horizontal dimension of at least 10 million pixels, which gives even a nice modern browser significant problems (and rather impressively grants NS4 the capacity to reboot my machine outright).
Later, FIn
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org