Oh yeah, that’s the new hexadecimal IPV8
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
430 points (99.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
30547 readers
983 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
IPv5.
I think you mean IPV0x08
I try to avoid "this" style comments, but I genuinely don't know how else to respond to this one. It was hilarious. I literally (by which I actually mean "literally") laughed out loud.
Hello, I am apparently an idiot. What is wrong with that IP address that people can tell it's an immediate phishing scam?
IPv4 was easy to remember. IPv6 made it very hard. This implies that IPv8 has to be base64 encoded.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I often assume this kind of thing is part of an effort to filter for idiots
If you know that's an invalid IP address, you're probably less likely to fall for the scam after the scammer has put the setup work in. So if they filter you out before a scammer has to spend any actual effort on you, that means more time they can spend scamming people who might be more likely to fall for it
That's why these things often have egregious spelling errors and other seemingly obvious red flags
Just because I know what a valid IP is doesn't mean I'm not an idiot 😎
Let's see you write a regex for one, then we'll decide.
lemme try
(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])(\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])){3}
tbh i have seen the stackoverflow solutions so i kinda know what i needed to do
this is entirely typed out from brain tho
I'm currently on my phone and I'm not going to try to figure out how to test regex on Graphene. Therefore I can only say: well done!
Why would anyone want to do that when there are dozens on stackoverflow?
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's possible in general, but I don't think that's what's going on specifically here; not many people read IP addresses in such detail to notice such things at first glance.
It’s exactly what is happening, they’re filtering out people who know what an IP address is and can contain so that they get fewer time wasters.
Movies and TV shows actually do it this way to prevent actual machines getting group hugged.
Like in that one X-Files episode, where the Lone Gunmen hack into an invalid IP.
It's also why there's usually bad spelling or grammar in those e-mails as well
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is just an IPv5, they're quite rare in the wild
It's not often you see IPv5
Took me a second to figure out what was wrong with the email... I choked on a laugh when I saw the IP
What a bizarre, narrow window of knowledge that person must have
Alternatively, the scammer is saving themselves some time; more educated, well-versed people will see the ip and not bother calling in. Less savvy people who don't know the IP address is bogus are likely easier to scam if they call the phone number or reply to the mail.
This is exactly right, I'm pretty sure. Scam emails are poorly written and have tells for anyone paying attention on purpose. It's a feature, not an error.
Scammers don't want to waste time on someone who will never believe that the government takes Walmart gift cards.
Dark patterns, aka reverse psychology, are rather fucked up by their very nature...
That's exactly the reaction they want. That aspect of the scam helps filter out people who might be smart enough to properly retaliate if they were to get scammed out of 20k or whatever.
They just wanted to make doubly sure that whoever they are phishing is an idiot before they proceed further.
In addition to what others have already posted, I suspect that this might be an attempt to evade spam/phishing filters that are looking for an IP address with a specific regular expression. Having a fake IP address that doesn’t match the traditional ^((25\[0-5]|(2\[0-4]|1\d|\[1-9]|)\d)\\.?\b){4}$ format might let this message slip through.
New address space unlocked
That's called Web 3.0
homey is being phished from internet 7.
I think I see why the login attempt was unsuccessful!
For the uninitiated, the joke is:
spoiler
Each number should has a maximum value of 255.
The fact that I have a test in school today, and this is probable questiom in it, and this post reminded me of it, thanks I guess?
EDIT: wait, so each number should be maximum of 255? Why did I think it was just the last numbe :|
anyway thanks again for the unsolicited coincidental heads up
I'm still angry even 15 years later after a teacher lowered my grade just because I checked "USB" as capable technologies for video transmission. There are literally USB monitors.
Granted, back then it really wasn't popular and bandwidth was shit, but it was capable of it.
USB to VGA dongles were definitely a thing over 15 years ago. USB 2.0 could manage it fineish. Maybe not at high resolutions and refresh rates, but it could handle a monitor just fine.
Yes, each number can land somewhere between 0-255, but there are some default reservations on specific IP ranges.
For instance, 0 is typically used as an identifier for the subnet, not as an actual device IP. For instance, a DHCP server may tell a device “your IP address is 192.168.1.168. The subnet range is 192.168.1.0/24 (meaning the mask is 255.255.255.0). But the 0 won’t (or shouldn’t) get assigned to a specific device.
255 is another special address, as it is used for broadcast messages. A packet sent to 255 gets sent to everything in that subnet. So for instance, if I wanted to broadcast a message to everything on the 192.168.1.0/24 range, I would send it to 192.168.1.255.
In regards to reserved IP ranges, there are a few standard private IP ranges:
192.168.0.0/16 one of the more common. (Subnet mask of 255.255.0.0). This basically means that (if everything is configured properly) your WAN IP won’t ever be something inside of that same range, as the router would very quickly throw up its hands in defeat. Like if your WAN IP from your ISP was 192.168.1.50, and you also had a device on your network with that same IP address, the router wouldn’t know which one (WAN IP or LAN device) to send traffic to.
The second private IP range is 172.16.0.0/20 (subnet mask of 255.240.0.0) meaning the second number can range from 0-31, and the last two octets can range from 0-255.
The last common private IP range is 10.0.0.0/8, (subnet mask of 255.0.0.0) so the last three octets can range from 0-255. You tend to see these more in corporate settings, as it allows for a truly astronomical number of devices to be connected.
Basically, all of this means that if you see an address in the 192.168.x.x, 172.0-32.x.x, or 10.x.x.x range, you know it’s a private IP address, not a WAN IP.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Spain has better food, better beaches, hotter women, better fiesta, better weather, better lifestyle, better IP's.
Deal with it.
no shit they don't recognize that IP :-D but hey, they also single handedly solved the IP4 address space crisis!
Sorry, that's my IP. I was trying something
(theft)
Jesus Christ, that’s Jason Bourne’s IP address!
Ok I admit I didn't get it at first because I expected the joke to be that the IP is 127.0.0.1 and didn't look closer at the digits
I was surprised to find that this doesn’t work at all.
For instance, 300 is considered a valid IP by e.g. Firefox, typing 300/ into Firefox will navigate to http://0.0.1.44/.
I was expecting this to be interpreted as just Σ 256ⁿ × dₙ mod 256⁴. But it isn’t, Firefox won’t accept this (it performs a web search instead). Neither will curl (which tries to look up a domain by this name).
Please, do not share the button. It's gross.
view more: next ›