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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50C65FE7.50804@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:19:19 +1100
From: Scott Ferguson <scott.ferguson.it.consulting@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Google's robots.txt handling

> /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.
>
> (Additionally i have to say that i advocate robots.txt files without sensitive content and working security mechanisms.)
>
> 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.
>
> <snipped>
>
> This shouldn't be a discussion about bad practice but the google feature itself. 
>
> Indexing a file which is used to prevent indexing.. isn't that just paradox and hypocrite?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> 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.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (263 bytes)

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