full-disclosure - Re: Google's robots.txt handling

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:27:42 +0000
From: Benji <me@...ji.com>
To: Gynvael Coldwind <gynvael@...dwind.pl>
Cc: Full-Disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Google's robots.txt handling

What we need is a robots2.txt that defines what users are allowed to access
the robots.txt file.

Problem solved.


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Gynvael Coldwind <gynvael@...dwind.pl>wrote:

> Hey,
>
> > > Here is an example:
> > >
> > > An admin has a public webservice running with folders containing
> > > sensitive informations. Enter these folders in his robots.txt and
> > > "protect" them from the indexing process of spiders. As he doesn't
> > > want the /admin/ gui to appear in the search results he also puts his
> > > /admin in the robots text and finaly makes a backup to the folder
> > > /backup.
>
> If no one would know about a folder, why would one add it to
> robots.txt in the first place?
> But that's missing the point anyway - robots.txt is not a security
> mechanism.
> If someone uses robots.txt as the only and last line of defense he
> plainly doesn't understand what he's doing (especially that it's one
> of the first files both pentesters & attackers look at).
>
> If someone has an /admin/ site (which is a really easily guessable
> name, checked by every web directory scanner out there) he cannot rely
> on concealment*, but on proper user authentication using mechanisms
> designed for such purpose (e.g. requiring a password).
>
> (* for historical reasons there is a Polish IT term for such attempts
> - "deep hiding", there's even a wiki page on that -
> http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C5%82%C4%99bokie_ukrycie)
>
> > I'm wondering if, in perhaps .htaccess, one could allow ONLY site
> > crawlers access to the robots.txt file.  Then add robots.txt to
> > robots.txt...would this mitigate some of the risk?
>
> 1. It's still missing the point.
> 2. No, it wouldn't work in case of scanners that try to impersonate robots.
> --
> gynvael.coldwind//vx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/