If a configuration parameter is specified to
disable the component, getToken returns "" and isTokenValid
returns true.
WDYT?
Caleb
Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
>> On 03/10/2010 07:44 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>> Take a look at the "sammy is my hero" worm, myspace sent a hash to
the user like the one you propose,
>>> the worm made the required get request to get the hash, then made the post
along with the hash.
>>> What prevents javascript from opening the page with the hash in an iframe and
then reading in the iframe
>>> to get the hash, then creating a form with the required data and posting it
to the save action?
>>>
>>> If we were to combine a requirement for post requests with checking of the
referrer header, then we
>>> would block links, forms and javascript based attacks leaving only an attack
through older versions
>>> of flash which support referrer forgery and at this point the difficulty of
the attack becomes such that
>>> we need to consider a wider array of attack vectors.
>> Sammy also required that XSS is enabled.
>>
>> Protecting from attacks originating in the wiki is kind of impossible at
>> the moment, since JS can be inserted anywhere, and there's no (nice) way
>> to prevent attacks from JS inside the application. As long as JS can be
>> inserted, an attacker can do all the steps that the client would do to
>> perform an action.
>>
>> The secret token works as a prevention mechanism when the attack comes
>> from another site because the browser security model prevents the attack
>> code to read the form.
> I just did a few tests on iframes and I was wrong, they do have good same origin
policy.
>
> Caleb
>
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex Busenius wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, using POST requests instead of GET requests is not
>>>> enough. It will not prevent attacks that use forms and/or JavaScript to
>>>> generate POST requests.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/09/2010 02:48 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>>> I had thought about proposing this myself but decided against it
because it seems
>>>>> to me like a workaround for problems which can be solved in other
ways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose we were to add a check to the actions which alter data which
made sure the request method
>>>>> was 'post' and made it configurable in one of the
configuration files? We would have
>>>>> to look over the default skins for incorrect links and leave the
configuration
>>>>> option off by default for backward compatibility at least until the
next major version
>>>>> but we could provide wiki operators the ability to prevent CSRF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devs mailing list
>>>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>>>>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devs mailing list
>>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>>>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org