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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:40:02 +0100
From: Mario Vilas <>
To: Christoph Gruber <>
Subject: Re: Google's robots.txt handling

That paragraph says pretty much the exact opposite of what you understood.

Also, could we please stop refuting points nobody even made in the first
place? OP never claimed this to be a vulnerability, nor ever said
robots.txt is a proper security mechanism to hide files in public web

All OP said was the way robots.txt is indexed allows for some Google dorks
to be made, and it may be a good idea to avoid that. Clearly it's not the
discovery of the century, but it seems fairly reasonable to me... I don't
get what all this fuzz is about.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Christoph Gruber <> wrote:

> On 12.12.2012 at 00:23 "Lehman, Jim" <>
> wrote:
> > It is possible to use white listing for robots.txt. Allow what you want
> google to index and deny everything else. That way google doesn't make you
> a goole dork target and someone browsing to your robots.txt file doesn't
> glean any sensitive files or folders. But this will not stop directory
> bruting to discover your publicly exposed sensitive data, that probably
> should not be exposed to the web in the first place.
> Maybe I misunderstood something, but do you really think that "sensitive"
> can be hidden in "secret" directories on publicly reachable web servers?
> --
> Christoph Gruber
> By not reading this email you don't agree you're not in any way affiliated
> with any government, police, ANTI- Piracy Group, RIAA, MPAA, or any other
> related group, and that means that you CANNOT read this email.
> By reading you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code
> 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995.
> (which doesn't exist)
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter:
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

“There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy
of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military
becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists