Why does putting a dot after the URL remove login information?Why does Chrome remove extension's icon when in 'incognito mode'?How to remove an entry from Chrome's Remembered URLs from the url bar?Why does Firefox use the “chrome://” protocol / schema in URLs?Mac External HDD (time machine) unwanted accessWhy does Chrome incognito keep cookies after the closing browser?Why does Google Search load and then reload when I search from Chrome's URL bar?Why the other URL is opening instead of the expected URL after clicking on a link received from google search in Firefox?Why does this script work as expected in 'curl', but not in the browser?Why does browser always converts $ to %24?Why does my browser not display the index.html file when I type a directory in the URL?

Probably terminated or laid off soon; confront or not?

Write The Shortest Program To Check If A Binary Tree Is Balanced

How does Rust's 128-bit integer `i128` work on a 64-bit system?

How to increase Solr JVM memory

Would the shaking of an earthquake be visible to somebody in a low-flying aircraft?

If someone else uploads my GPL'd code to Github without my permission, is that a copyright violation?

Javascript - Find a deepest node in a binary tree

How to check a file was encrypted (really & correctly)

Can a Hogwarts student refuse the Sorting Hat's decision?

What could prevent players from leaving an island?

What license to choose for my PhD thesis?

Has J.J.Jameson ever found out that Peter Parker is Spider-Man?

Awk to get all my regular users in shadow

Why wasn't interlaced CRT scanning done back and forth?

Why do my fried eggs start browning very fast?

Is it uncompelling to continue the story with lower stakes?

Why should I "believe in" weak solutions to PDEs?

Is Infernal Healing actually worth it as a Wand?

Generate random number in Unity without class ambiguity

How do the surviving Asgardians get to Earth?

Are valid inequalities worth the effort given modern solver preprocessing options?

Repeated! Factorials!

Getting an entry level IT position later in life

What's "halachic" about "Esav hates Ya'akov"?



Why does putting a dot after the URL remove login information?


Why does Chrome remove extension's icon when in 'incognito mode'?How to remove an entry from Chrome's Remembered URLs from the url bar?Why does Firefox use the “chrome://” protocol / schema in URLs?Mac External HDD (time machine) unwanted accessWhy does Chrome incognito keep cookies after the closing browser?Why does Google Search load and then reload when I search from Chrome's URL bar?Why the other URL is opening instead of the expected URL after clicking on a link received from google search in Firefox?Why does this script work as expected in 'curl', but not in the browser?Why does browser always converts $ to %24?Why does my browser not display the index.html file when I type a directory in the URL?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








10















Why?



When I put a dot after the superuser URL, it acted like I wasn't signed in. Why is this happening? What does a dot symbolize in the URL?










share|improve this question







New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    Curious. Same behaviour on Firefox so it's not just some weird behaviour of Chrome. I suspect the extra dot is changing the domain (to com.) that means cookies no longer resolve to superuser.com as a domain, and as a result you are not logged in because you don't have any session cookies. It would be good for someone with more definite knowledge to answer.

    – Mokubai
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    If you click the button to login you get redirected to superuser.com and as a result logged in. Note: this is not just a Super User issue, you get the same result if you add a dot to youtube.com.

    – Mokubai
    9 hours ago


















10















Why?



When I put a dot after the superuser URL, it acted like I wasn't signed in. Why is this happening? What does a dot symbolize in the URL?










share|improve this question







New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    Curious. Same behaviour on Firefox so it's not just some weird behaviour of Chrome. I suspect the extra dot is changing the domain (to com.) that means cookies no longer resolve to superuser.com as a domain, and as a result you are not logged in because you don't have any session cookies. It would be good for someone with more definite knowledge to answer.

    – Mokubai
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    If you click the button to login you get redirected to superuser.com and as a result logged in. Note: this is not just a Super User issue, you get the same result if you add a dot to youtube.com.

    – Mokubai
    9 hours ago














10












10








10


3






Why?



When I put a dot after the superuser URL, it acted like I wasn't signed in. Why is this happening? What does a dot symbolize in the URL?










share|improve this question







New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











Why?



When I put a dot after the superuser URL, it acted like I wasn't signed in. Why is this happening? What does a dot symbolize in the URL?







google-chrome browser






share|improve this question







New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question







New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 10 hours ago









Riley CarneyRiley Carney

1535 bronze badges




1535 bronze badges




New contributor



Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Riley Carney is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • 2





    Curious. Same behaviour on Firefox so it's not just some weird behaviour of Chrome. I suspect the extra dot is changing the domain (to com.) that means cookies no longer resolve to superuser.com as a domain, and as a result you are not logged in because you don't have any session cookies. It would be good for someone with more definite knowledge to answer.

    – Mokubai
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    If you click the button to login you get redirected to superuser.com and as a result logged in. Note: this is not just a Super User issue, you get the same result if you add a dot to youtube.com.

    – Mokubai
    9 hours ago













  • 2





    Curious. Same behaviour on Firefox so it's not just some weird behaviour of Chrome. I suspect the extra dot is changing the domain (to com.) that means cookies no longer resolve to superuser.com as a domain, and as a result you are not logged in because you don't have any session cookies. It would be good for someone with more definite knowledge to answer.

    – Mokubai
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    If you click the button to login you get redirected to superuser.com and as a result logged in. Note: this is not just a Super User issue, you get the same result if you add a dot to youtube.com.

    – Mokubai
    9 hours ago








2




2





Curious. Same behaviour on Firefox so it's not just some weird behaviour of Chrome. I suspect the extra dot is changing the domain (to com.) that means cookies no longer resolve to superuser.com as a domain, and as a result you are not logged in because you don't have any session cookies. It would be good for someone with more definite knowledge to answer.

– Mokubai
10 hours ago






Curious. Same behaviour on Firefox so it's not just some weird behaviour of Chrome. I suspect the extra dot is changing the domain (to com.) that means cookies no longer resolve to superuser.com as a domain, and as a result you are not logged in because you don't have any session cookies. It would be good for someone with more definite knowledge to answer.

– Mokubai
10 hours ago





1




1





If you click the button to login you get redirected to superuser.com and as a result logged in. Note: this is not just a Super User issue, you get the same result if you add a dot to youtube.com.

– Mokubai
9 hours ago






If you click the button to login you get redirected to superuser.com and as a result logged in. Note: this is not just a Super User issue, you get the same result if you add a dot to youtube.com.

– Mokubai
9 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















12














Adding the dot to the end of the domain name makes it a canonical fully-qualified domain name instead of just a regular fully-qualified domain name, and most browsers treat canonical domain names as being a different domain from the equivalent regular domain name (I'm not sure why they do this though).




A bit of background:



The domain name system is strictly hierarchical, just like a filesystem, or an X.500/LDAP directory. Unlike filesystems ro X.500 though, the hierarchy is listed right-to-left instead of left-to-right. So the rightmost component of a domain name is the top of the hierarchy. Putting a dot to the far right of a domain name makes it canonical, meaning that it's explicitly rooted at the top of the DNS hierarchy. In essence, it's the same as using a full distinguished name instead of a common name in an X.500 lookup, or putting a / at the beginning of a POSIX path.



Using a canonical FQDN has a few specific implications for how a client system will look up the DNS record for that domain:



  • It causes some resolvers to skip any locally defined entries (for example, it will cause some resolvers to ignore /etc/hosts on a UNIX-like system).

  • When used with the .local domain, it will force some systems to use mDNS instead of traditional DNS to try and resolve the name.

  • It causes all resolvers to ignore any configured search domain or local DNS domains when looking up the name.

That last part is the important part, and is the reason that the concept of a canonical FQDN exists. Most systems can be configured with what's called a search domain. When they go to resolve a given domain, they will try looking under any configured search domains first, and only resolve from the top of the hierarchy if they can't find the name in any configured search domains (so, if you had foo.com configured as a search domain on your system and tried to go to bar.com in a browser, it would (normally, see below) try to go to bar.com.foo.com first, and only if it couldn't find that would it try bar.com directly). Most, but not all, resolvers these days ignore the search domain when resolving a domain that ends with a known top-level domain name (.com, .net, etc), so it's not usually necessary for most users to use canonical FQDN's, and thus most people don't know about them.






share|improve this answer



























  • Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

    – Riley Carney
    7 hours ago


















5














The explanation given by Mokubai is exactly correct, and the problem is in the browser
not identifying that this is the same domain and therefore not sending the cookies.



But the situation is even worse: The dot at the end marks the domain as
fully-qualified (unambiguous), which works quite well with the DNS,
since in the end
all domain names have a dot at the end, even if not specified by the user.



I have even gotten from Fiddler this dialog for superuser.com. (with dot):



enter image description here



Here are the headers sent with the requests.



https://superuser.com (sensitive info crossed out)



enter image description here



https://superuser.com. (with dot no sensitive info needs to be crossed out)



enter image description here



Conclusion: The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of
a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard.



Further remark: The browser developers were not the only one to fall in this
trap. I have the NoScript add-on installed to stop all JavaScript, but
superuser.com (no dot) is allowed through. But NoScript still blocks
superuser.com. (with dot) as being an unknown website.






share|improve this answer



























  • Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

    – ivanivan
    9 hours ago











  • "The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

    – Bob
    1 hour ago














Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Riley Carney is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1467958%2fwhy-does-putting-a-dot-after-the-url-remove-login-information%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12














Adding the dot to the end of the domain name makes it a canonical fully-qualified domain name instead of just a regular fully-qualified domain name, and most browsers treat canonical domain names as being a different domain from the equivalent regular domain name (I'm not sure why they do this though).




A bit of background:



The domain name system is strictly hierarchical, just like a filesystem, or an X.500/LDAP directory. Unlike filesystems ro X.500 though, the hierarchy is listed right-to-left instead of left-to-right. So the rightmost component of a domain name is the top of the hierarchy. Putting a dot to the far right of a domain name makes it canonical, meaning that it's explicitly rooted at the top of the DNS hierarchy. In essence, it's the same as using a full distinguished name instead of a common name in an X.500 lookup, or putting a / at the beginning of a POSIX path.



Using a canonical FQDN has a few specific implications for how a client system will look up the DNS record for that domain:



  • It causes some resolvers to skip any locally defined entries (for example, it will cause some resolvers to ignore /etc/hosts on a UNIX-like system).

  • When used with the .local domain, it will force some systems to use mDNS instead of traditional DNS to try and resolve the name.

  • It causes all resolvers to ignore any configured search domain or local DNS domains when looking up the name.

That last part is the important part, and is the reason that the concept of a canonical FQDN exists. Most systems can be configured with what's called a search domain. When they go to resolve a given domain, they will try looking under any configured search domains first, and only resolve from the top of the hierarchy if they can't find the name in any configured search domains (so, if you had foo.com configured as a search domain on your system and tried to go to bar.com in a browser, it would (normally, see below) try to go to bar.com.foo.com first, and only if it couldn't find that would it try bar.com directly). Most, but not all, resolvers these days ignore the search domain when resolving a domain that ends with a known top-level domain name (.com, .net, etc), so it's not usually necessary for most users to use canonical FQDN's, and thus most people don't know about them.






share|improve this answer



























  • Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

    – Riley Carney
    7 hours ago















12














Adding the dot to the end of the domain name makes it a canonical fully-qualified domain name instead of just a regular fully-qualified domain name, and most browsers treat canonical domain names as being a different domain from the equivalent regular domain name (I'm not sure why they do this though).




A bit of background:



The domain name system is strictly hierarchical, just like a filesystem, or an X.500/LDAP directory. Unlike filesystems ro X.500 though, the hierarchy is listed right-to-left instead of left-to-right. So the rightmost component of a domain name is the top of the hierarchy. Putting a dot to the far right of a domain name makes it canonical, meaning that it's explicitly rooted at the top of the DNS hierarchy. In essence, it's the same as using a full distinguished name instead of a common name in an X.500 lookup, or putting a / at the beginning of a POSIX path.



Using a canonical FQDN has a few specific implications for how a client system will look up the DNS record for that domain:



  • It causes some resolvers to skip any locally defined entries (for example, it will cause some resolvers to ignore /etc/hosts on a UNIX-like system).

  • When used with the .local domain, it will force some systems to use mDNS instead of traditional DNS to try and resolve the name.

  • It causes all resolvers to ignore any configured search domain or local DNS domains when looking up the name.

That last part is the important part, and is the reason that the concept of a canonical FQDN exists. Most systems can be configured with what's called a search domain. When they go to resolve a given domain, they will try looking under any configured search domains first, and only resolve from the top of the hierarchy if they can't find the name in any configured search domains (so, if you had foo.com configured as a search domain on your system and tried to go to bar.com in a browser, it would (normally, see below) try to go to bar.com.foo.com first, and only if it couldn't find that would it try bar.com directly). Most, but not all, resolvers these days ignore the search domain when resolving a domain that ends with a known top-level domain name (.com, .net, etc), so it's not usually necessary for most users to use canonical FQDN's, and thus most people don't know about them.






share|improve this answer



























  • Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

    – Riley Carney
    7 hours ago













12












12








12







Adding the dot to the end of the domain name makes it a canonical fully-qualified domain name instead of just a regular fully-qualified domain name, and most browsers treat canonical domain names as being a different domain from the equivalent regular domain name (I'm not sure why they do this though).




A bit of background:



The domain name system is strictly hierarchical, just like a filesystem, or an X.500/LDAP directory. Unlike filesystems ro X.500 though, the hierarchy is listed right-to-left instead of left-to-right. So the rightmost component of a domain name is the top of the hierarchy. Putting a dot to the far right of a domain name makes it canonical, meaning that it's explicitly rooted at the top of the DNS hierarchy. In essence, it's the same as using a full distinguished name instead of a common name in an X.500 lookup, or putting a / at the beginning of a POSIX path.



Using a canonical FQDN has a few specific implications for how a client system will look up the DNS record for that domain:



  • It causes some resolvers to skip any locally defined entries (for example, it will cause some resolvers to ignore /etc/hosts on a UNIX-like system).

  • When used with the .local domain, it will force some systems to use mDNS instead of traditional DNS to try and resolve the name.

  • It causes all resolvers to ignore any configured search domain or local DNS domains when looking up the name.

That last part is the important part, and is the reason that the concept of a canonical FQDN exists. Most systems can be configured with what's called a search domain. When they go to resolve a given domain, they will try looking under any configured search domains first, and only resolve from the top of the hierarchy if they can't find the name in any configured search domains (so, if you had foo.com configured as a search domain on your system and tried to go to bar.com in a browser, it would (normally, see below) try to go to bar.com.foo.com first, and only if it couldn't find that would it try bar.com directly). Most, but not all, resolvers these days ignore the search domain when resolving a domain that ends with a known top-level domain name (.com, .net, etc), so it's not usually necessary for most users to use canonical FQDN's, and thus most people don't know about them.






share|improve this answer















Adding the dot to the end of the domain name makes it a canonical fully-qualified domain name instead of just a regular fully-qualified domain name, and most browsers treat canonical domain names as being a different domain from the equivalent regular domain name (I'm not sure why they do this though).




A bit of background:



The domain name system is strictly hierarchical, just like a filesystem, or an X.500/LDAP directory. Unlike filesystems ro X.500 though, the hierarchy is listed right-to-left instead of left-to-right. So the rightmost component of a domain name is the top of the hierarchy. Putting a dot to the far right of a domain name makes it canonical, meaning that it's explicitly rooted at the top of the DNS hierarchy. In essence, it's the same as using a full distinguished name instead of a common name in an X.500 lookup, or putting a / at the beginning of a POSIX path.



Using a canonical FQDN has a few specific implications for how a client system will look up the DNS record for that domain:



  • It causes some resolvers to skip any locally defined entries (for example, it will cause some resolvers to ignore /etc/hosts on a UNIX-like system).

  • When used with the .local domain, it will force some systems to use mDNS instead of traditional DNS to try and resolve the name.

  • It causes all resolvers to ignore any configured search domain or local DNS domains when looking up the name.

That last part is the important part, and is the reason that the concept of a canonical FQDN exists. Most systems can be configured with what's called a search domain. When they go to resolve a given domain, they will try looking under any configured search domains first, and only resolve from the top of the hierarchy if they can't find the name in any configured search domains (so, if you had foo.com configured as a search domain on your system and tried to go to bar.com in a browser, it would (normally, see below) try to go to bar.com.foo.com first, and only if it couldn't find that would it try bar.com directly). Most, but not all, resolvers these days ignore the search domain when resolving a domain that ends with a known top-level domain name (.com, .net, etc), so it's not usually necessary for most users to use canonical FQDN's, and thus most people don't know about them.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 5 hours ago

























answered 9 hours ago









Austin HemmelgarnAustin Hemmelgarn

3,0772 silver badges10 bronze badges




3,0772 silver badges10 bronze badges















  • Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

    – Riley Carney
    7 hours ago

















  • Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

    – Riley Carney
    7 hours ago
















Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

– Riley Carney
7 hours ago





Thank you for your answer. I was really confused why I wasn't logged in to the website and noticed a dot was on the end of URL. After trying both of the urls with or without dot I thought the behavior was interesting :P Your explanation was clear and concise and gave me a relative understanding of why the browser reacted the way it did.

– Riley Carney
7 hours ago













5














The explanation given by Mokubai is exactly correct, and the problem is in the browser
not identifying that this is the same domain and therefore not sending the cookies.



But the situation is even worse: The dot at the end marks the domain as
fully-qualified (unambiguous), which works quite well with the DNS,
since in the end
all domain names have a dot at the end, even if not specified by the user.



I have even gotten from Fiddler this dialog for superuser.com. (with dot):



enter image description here



Here are the headers sent with the requests.



https://superuser.com (sensitive info crossed out)



enter image description here



https://superuser.com. (with dot no sensitive info needs to be crossed out)



enter image description here



Conclusion: The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of
a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard.



Further remark: The browser developers were not the only one to fall in this
trap. I have the NoScript add-on installed to stop all JavaScript, but
superuser.com (no dot) is allowed through. But NoScript still blocks
superuser.com. (with dot) as being an unknown website.






share|improve this answer



























  • Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

    – ivanivan
    9 hours ago











  • "The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

    – Bob
    1 hour ago
















5














The explanation given by Mokubai is exactly correct, and the problem is in the browser
not identifying that this is the same domain and therefore not sending the cookies.



But the situation is even worse: The dot at the end marks the domain as
fully-qualified (unambiguous), which works quite well with the DNS,
since in the end
all domain names have a dot at the end, even if not specified by the user.



I have even gotten from Fiddler this dialog for superuser.com. (with dot):



enter image description here



Here are the headers sent with the requests.



https://superuser.com (sensitive info crossed out)



enter image description here



https://superuser.com. (with dot no sensitive info needs to be crossed out)



enter image description here



Conclusion: The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of
a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard.



Further remark: The browser developers were not the only one to fall in this
trap. I have the NoScript add-on installed to stop all JavaScript, but
superuser.com (no dot) is allowed through. But NoScript still blocks
superuser.com. (with dot) as being an unknown website.






share|improve this answer



























  • Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

    – ivanivan
    9 hours ago











  • "The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

    – Bob
    1 hour ago














5












5








5







The explanation given by Mokubai is exactly correct, and the problem is in the browser
not identifying that this is the same domain and therefore not sending the cookies.



But the situation is even worse: The dot at the end marks the domain as
fully-qualified (unambiguous), which works quite well with the DNS,
since in the end
all domain names have a dot at the end, even if not specified by the user.



I have even gotten from Fiddler this dialog for superuser.com. (with dot):



enter image description here



Here are the headers sent with the requests.



https://superuser.com (sensitive info crossed out)



enter image description here



https://superuser.com. (with dot no sensitive info needs to be crossed out)



enter image description here



Conclusion: The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of
a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard.



Further remark: The browser developers were not the only one to fall in this
trap. I have the NoScript add-on installed to stop all JavaScript, but
superuser.com (no dot) is allowed through. But NoScript still blocks
superuser.com. (with dot) as being an unknown website.






share|improve this answer















The explanation given by Mokubai is exactly correct, and the problem is in the browser
not identifying that this is the same domain and therefore not sending the cookies.



But the situation is even worse: The dot at the end marks the domain as
fully-qualified (unambiguous), which works quite well with the DNS,
since in the end
all domain names have a dot at the end, even if not specified by the user.



I have even gotten from Fiddler this dialog for superuser.com. (with dot):



enter image description here



Here are the headers sent with the requests.



https://superuser.com (sensitive info crossed out)



enter image description here



https://superuser.com. (with dot no sensitive info needs to be crossed out)



enter image description here



Conclusion: The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of
a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard.



Further remark: The browser developers were not the only one to fall in this
trap. I have the NoScript add-on installed to stop all JavaScript, but
superuser.com (no dot) is allowed through. But NoScript still blocks
superuser.com. (with dot) as being an unknown website.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago

























answered 9 hours ago









harrymcharrymc

278k14 gold badges293 silver badges606 bronze badges




278k14 gold badges293 silver badges606 bronze badges















  • Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

    – ivanivan
    9 hours ago











  • "The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

    – Bob
    1 hour ago


















  • Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

    – ivanivan
    9 hours ago











  • "The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

    – Bob
    1 hour ago

















Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

– ivanivan
9 hours ago





Good reasoning, etc. but your conclusion is off. If I can hijack your DNS, and know what search-domain you have set, I could block access to youtube.com. (notice trailing . to make it fully qualified) and your browser would cheerfully accept youtube.com.your.search-domain.tld but it would appear in your browser URL field, etc. as youtube.com. It is good this behavior happens, even if youtube.com and youtube.com. resolve to the same address, etc.

– ivanivan
9 hours ago













"The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

– Bob
1 hour ago






"The problem is with the browser not ignoring a dot at the end of a fully-qualified domain name, as is mandated by the DNS standard." There is no such requirement. It is allowed in URIs as per RFC3986 and should be used "if it is necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain".

– Bob
1 hour ago











Riley Carney is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Riley Carney is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Riley Carney is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Riley Carney is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1467958%2fwhy-does-putting-a-dot-after-the-url-remove-login-information%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367