Userdir URLs like https://example.org/~username/ are dangerous

Hanno's Blog

Monday, April 6. 2020

Userdir URLs like https://example.org/~username/ are dangerous


Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Thanks for your article and the very practical advice!

Don't you feel like this is a problem with the web (as it is today) in general? It has to do with client-side scripting (as decided by the server) as an anti-feature.

Some protocols like Gemini ( https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.txt ) try to reinvent a simpler web (or more advanced gopherspace). But still i wonder if the web has to be doomed. Shouldn't we aim to build entirely noscript websites and browsers?

Cheers
#1 southerntofu (Homepage) on 2020-04-06 21:21 (Reply)
The multi-tenant webserver model in edus is fine. If a malicious script was found in someone's directory, you could pinpoint the flesh and blood person. Once you have large numbers of anonymous user accounts that cannot be tied to a person, then that becomes an issue. Generally once the application becomes a viable economic entity, it's not likely that the application is on a machine with this usage model. Or rather, you have to trust that the magical triumvirate of https, dns and public key infrastructure is working such that everything is working ok.

If you're doing something more serious, wouldn't the application try to do it's own certificate pinning?
#2 munchkin (Homepage) on 2020-04-09 08:09 (Reply)
> If a malicious script was found in someone's directory, you could pinpoint the flesh and blood person.

That's not true. By the time you find out the person could've deleted the code. (Unless you log all filesystem changes.) Or the person could claim plausible deniability by installing code with an XSS that is used by the attack.

> If you're doing something more serious, wouldn't the application try to do it's own certificate pinning?

I have no idea what this has to do with the described attack.
#2.1 Hanno Böck on 2020-04-09 08:13 (Reply)
> That's not true. By the time you find out the person could've deleted the code. (Unless you log all filesystem changes.) Or the person could claim plausible deniability by installing code with an XSS that is used by the attack.

Yes that's true. On the other hand, the cost of this might be negligible. Or rather the cost of this on the institution might be negligible if a student get's breached, even if it is leveraged to a broader scope, like for example the student's home environment, since that is not within the institution's purview.

> I have no idea what this has to do with the described attack.

i'll have to think about that one a bit as well
#2.1.1 munchkin on 2020-04-09 09:24 (Reply)

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
 

About

This blog is written by Hanno Böck. Unless noted otherwise, its content is licensed as CC0.

You can find my web page with links to my work as a journalist here.

I am also publishing a newsletter about climate change and decarbonization technologies.

The blog uses the free software Serendipity and is hosted at schokokeks.org.

Hanno on Mastodon | Contact / Imprint | Privacy / Datenschutz