Website-Finder is a collection of light scripts written in various programming languages without the need for external libraries that finds websites of all sorts for you and make reports of that either in the form of automatically generated json files or in the form of a webpage.
Keep in mind that this software will find ANY website that exists, no matter how morally wrong it may be. It may also (on purpose) find websites which are hosted by a server that simply doesn't reply to requests.
You can run the Python or Ruby script by simply double clicking on it or going into the command-line, moving into the right directory and entering the file name.
* Run the HTML file into your web browser, by either double-clicking it or by dragging the file into it
* Visit that same file hosted on [GitHub Pages](https://tttaevas.github.io/Website-Finder/Javascript/index.html)
In both cases, I *personally* recommend using the [NoScript extension](https://noscript.net/), just in case for your satefy, so only the JS file used to find websites is executed, and nothing gets executed from the websites it finds. I'm no security expert so that may be useless as no JS should get executed from other websites in the first place, but hey, better safe than sorry.
Unless you're using the Javascript script, if you wish to use arguments, you are required to use the command line in order to launch the script with arguments.
* "-m" defaults to "http", but the Javascript script defaults to "https" due to [requests made with the "http" application protocol being blocked when not run locally](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Mixed_content).
Using arguments with the Javascript script is simple, as you can enter values in labeled fields. Leaving those fields empty will make the script use the default values.
# To make the Ruby script go through 500 URLs of min length 5 and max length 7 in HTTP and HTTPS with only the .com and .fr top-level domains with a 30% chance for each URL to feature a second level domain with logging:
A: As far as I am aware, nope! However, the reports are generated differently depending of the script and some websites send different codes depending of the script.
A: Requests in "http" receive more status codes than error codes compared to "https". I suspect it's because some websites don't support "https" very well, even in the current year.