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: [Webappsec] Tacking A Difficult Problem - Solutions HTTP Response Splitting |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:43:18 +0200 |
Every example I hear is either proxy-related (and still misunderstood), or goes exactly like this:
Scanner Jockey: "Looks like your site is vulnerable to HTTP RS"
Q: "What does that mean?"
Scanner Jockey: "It means an attacker could split the HTTP response."
Q: "What does that mean?"
Scanner Jockey: "It means that like, man, I could like add a cookie or control your browser man."
Q: "How?"
Scanner Jockey: ...
<Blink>
I'll try to test some different browsers next week for local caching attacks. I'm still not seeing the surface on that.
> 4. Those conditions may not at *apply to you at all*.
Theoretically - yes. Practically, since it's hard for a site owner to verify that NO set of preconditions apply, I think it's better to assume the attack is feasible.
I can't agree with you at all on the assumption that the situation is exploitable. The attack landscape on this is pretty quiet. There's plenty of attacks yet to tip, that will tip long before this does. </prediction>
I have to disagree to this argument ;-)
> I didn't grok your XSS rebuttal. Not to equivocate, since we
> lump an entire bucket of "arbitrary script injection" under XSS,
> but I don't see that at all unless you mean reflected XSS.
[...]
I was referring to non-persistent XSS, which is a special kind of
CSRF.
According to your original post, if I need the client's browser to do
something for me, it's already CSRF (so, if I'm reading correctly,
it's
"not interesting"). Yet non-persistent XSS requires exactly that.
Okay, we are in complete agreement here then. I painted with too
broad a brush in sweeping that aside. Thank you for being polite,
considering two of these items are your children. :) (CSRF and AS checks)
CSRF? you probably mistake me for someone else...
<OT> So when are we going to beat the "let's re-valuate the non-persistent XSS attack surface" drum? Is the email attack vector drying up?
But what about the malicious sites (hence the original name XSS)?
-Amit
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: Watchfire
https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701500000008fHA --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Webappsec] Tacking A Difficult Problem - Solutions HTTP Response Splitting, Amit Klein |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Webappsec] Tacking A Difficult Problem - Solutions HTTP Response Splitting, Amit Klein |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Webappsec] Tacking A Difficult Problem - Solutions HTTP Response Splitting, Amit Klein |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Webappsec] Tacking A Difficult Problem - Solutions HTTP Response Splitting, Amit Klein |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |