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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:34:17 +0100
From: Petko Petkov <ppetkov@...citizen.org>
To: Bojan.Zdrnja@....hr, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com,
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Anonymous Web Attacks
	via	DedicatedMobileServices

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bojan Zdrnja wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
>> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of
>> Morning Wood Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2005 5:02 a.m. To: Petko
>> Petkov; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com Cc:
>> full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure]
>> Anonymous Web Attacks via DedicatedMobileServices
>>
>> google's language translation also does this..
>> http://ipchicken.com
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://ipchicken.com
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I don't see any special risk with this, even for mobile devices
> (mentioned in the original post) -- a proxy just does it's job, no
> matter which proxy it is. If Google keeps logs, even if you don't
> save X-Forwarded-For header and parse them, you can find out who
> visited the web page, if it goes to investigation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bojan
>
> _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure -
> We believe in it. Charter:
> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and
> sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
>
Hi Bojan,

You are completely right that proxy servers do their job and it is
easy to trace back the intruder if this is the case. And you are right
that proxy servers have their own configuration files and log files.

Regarding Google ? no, Google is too big. If you compromise a server
in Romania I doubt that Google Inc. will be very helpful in this case.
Google has massive amount of log files that needs to be processed and
examined. Don?t get me wrong; I believe that Google has the power to
find your intruder.

The question is if everybody start hacking with WMLProxy, how
responsive Google would be?

On the other hand, it is very likely to see Web Attacks executed from
Simple Mobile Phones that have WAP enabled. Now, this is my concern.
An attacker can spend around £40 for cheap WAP device plus SIM. I
believe that it is a reasonable price for not going in jail.

X-Forwarded-For is a nice feature. I love it. Some people are not even
aware of it. But, in reality, it doesn?t works always the way we want it.

All the best,

Petko

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFC5KQEFf/6vxAyUpgRAt3aAKCDt0tTgo1JZm0psben+MTkzcTpqQCgpsbV
L/DE/w+pmoVlWYrmFZ0V0wk=
=JCur
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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