Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: BBCode [IMG] [/IMG] Tag Vulnerability |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:20:03 -0500 |
If you wanted to use the script to check it, yet not have to retrieve the image every time you could have your server download the image during the post request (assuming it was a reasonable size..) ... check it, and then have the link be local from that point onward. This would open more possibilities for exploitation as far as denial of service attacks though (if your server is downloading it each time, or if it downloads it once), both for your server and for the server you're requesting it from. An example: I sign up for a bunch of accounts on one forum, or even multiple forums using this software - then have all the accounts post at the same time, with multiple images from the same site... the server(s) then effectively (D)DOS the target server. It would also work against your server, but in reverse, using a bunch of accounts (through proxies if necessary) and requesting as many images from fast servers as possible.. You'd probably be better off just deciding which image file types you consider safe for users... i.e. you probably don't want to allow flash... and only allow images with those extensions. Making sure images are safe isn't really you're responsibility, it's the responsibility of the image standard, and the browser displaying the information. Just my thoughts, Tony
Paul Laudanski <zx@castlecops.com> 08/22/05 11:12PM >>>
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Christopher Kunz wrote:
Or, you could just disallow remote images altogether. It kinda boils
down to a
security vs. feature set question...
This is very interesting indeed. I was originally approaching this 'problem' from a strictly local host perspective (where the website resides) rather than from a remote attack. You're reply set me straight on that one. There ought to be a more creative way to monitor this stuff than just moving it from GET to POST (and POST in itself is not fool proof). I'm going to munch on this. Paul http://castlecops.com ________ Information from Computer Cops, L.L.C. ________ This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Server. part000.txt - is OK http://castlecops.com
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Entrust - Identity Guard - Any experience?, Saqib Ali |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Windows 2003 Server Hardening, Martinez Azair Francisco |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: BBCode [IMG] [/IMG] Tag Vulnerability, Paul Laudanski |
| Next by Thread: | Re: BBCode [IMG] [/IMG] Tag Vulnerability, Zak McGregor |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |