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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:01:46 +1100
From: Scott Ferguson <>
Subject: Re: Google's robot.txt handling

> If I understand the OP correctly, he is not stating that listing something
> in robots.txt would make it inaccessible, but rather that Google indexes
> the robots.txt files themselves, 


Well, um, yeah - I got that.

So you are what, proposing that moving an open door back a few
centimetres solves the (non) problem?

Take your proposal to it's logical extension and stop all search engines
(especially the ones that don't respect robots.txt) from indexing
robots.txt. Now what do you do about Nutch or even some perl script that
anyone can whip up in 2 minutes?

Security through obscurity is fine when couple with actual security -
but relying on it alone is just daft.

Expecting to world to change so bad habits have no consequence is
dangerously naive.

I suspect you're looking to hard at finding fault with Google - who are
complying with the robots.txt. Read the spec. - it's about not following
the listed directories, not about not listing the robots.txt.  Next
you'll want laws against bad weather and furniture with sharp corners.

Don't put things you don't want seen to see in places that can be seen.

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Scott Ferguson <
> () gmail com> wrote:
>     /From/: Hurgel Bumpf <l0rd_lunatic () yahoo com>
>     /Date/: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:25:39 +0000 (GMT)
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Hi list,
>     i tried to contact google, but as they didn't answer my email,  i do
> forward this to FD.
>     This "security" feature is not cleary a google vulnerability, but
> exposes websites informations that are not really
>     intended to be public.
>     Conan the bavarian
> Your point eludes me - Google is indexing something which is publicly
> available. eg.:- curl http://somesite.tld/robots.txt
> So it seems the solution to the "question" your raise is, um, nonsensical.
> If you don't want something exposed on your web server *don't publish
> references to it*.
> The solution, which should be blindingly obvious,  is don't create the
> problem in the first place. Password sensitive directories (htpasswd) -
> then they don't have to be excluded from search engines (because listing
> the inaccessible in robots.txt is redundant).  You must of missed the
> first day of web school.
> Kind regards.

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

Powered by blists - more mailing lists