bugtraq - RE: [Full-disclosure] Anonymous Web Attacks via DedicatedMobileServices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:04:58 +0300 (IDT)
From: Alexander Klimov <alserkli@...ox.ru>
To: Bojan Zdrnja <Bojan.Zdrnja@....hr>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Anonymous Web Attacks via DedicatedMobileServices


On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Bojan Zdrnja wrote:
> Regarding Google - yes, if you log only connections.
> However, when you use translate.google.com service, Google will add a new
> header in the HTTP request:
>
> X-Forwarded-For: <IP address>
>
> All proxy servers should add this header, even in the case of multiple
> proxying, in which case all IP addresses should be listed under this header.
>
> For Apache, there is even a mod_extract_forwarded module which should change
> the connection so it looks like it's coming from the IP behind the proxy
> server.
>

If you do assume that x-forwarded-for is always genuine then you will
have problems when somebody with direct connection adds
x-forwarded-for to confuse you (this is very similar to email
headers).

BTW: I don't sure that it is that important for real attackers -- most
of them are likely to use owned hosts anyway.

-- 
Regards,
ASK