Is it possible to modify the Response Headers for an IFRAME in a Node.JS application?
Do you have to create a proxy first? ( Something similar to this? http://www.bennadel.com/blog/2179-Extending-EventEmitter-In-Order-To-Create-A-Response-Proxy-In-Node-js.htm )
I basically want to be able to show the mobile version of Gmail within an IFRAME.
In general the answer is yes, you would have to proxy it. However in this particular case, that may not even work - Google seems to have deployed additional counter-measures to block logging-in via proxies. (If you're proxying the request, then you can see the users password, read their email, etc.)
If you only need to read your own email, then you have an alternate option: https://USERNAME:PASSWORD#gmail.google.com/gmail/feed/atom will give you an RSS feed of recent emails. This also has the x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN header, but you can proxy it through node.
Related
I'm writing some http client code to interact with a website, and I need to set some cookies. Simply visiting the website sets 4 cookies (as seen in Chrome Settings).
However, when I look at the HTTP response headers for when those cookies were set (using Live HTTP Headers extension), there is no Set-Cookie header anywhere. How were those cookies set? Is there another way than through Set-Cookie?
Edit: Some of the cookies are HttpOnly.
If you load a site in your browser, it might also load other assets that can also set cookies (given that they are on the same domain).
But there is a second way to set cookies: with Javascript via document.cookies.
As far as I know, if your javascript or python code sets a cookie for that domain, then the response will include the SET-COOKIE field. You can view that from at least the inspect console.
So I see that you're using HTTP live extension, but it doesn't look like it shows that field in the response.
I tried looking for other extensions that could show it, but I wasn't able to find one as far as I know. I suppose we both can always fall back to the chrome inspect console. If you go to the network tab, you should actually see the req-resp.
I develop software which stores files in directories with random names to prevent unauthorized users to download a file.
The first thing we need about this is to store them in a separate top-level domain (to prevent cookie theft).
The second danger is HTTP referer which may reveal the name of the secret directory.
My experiments with Chrome browser shows that HTTP referer is sent only when I click a link in my (secret) file. So the trouble is limited only to files which may contain links (in Chrome HTML and PDF). Can I rely on this behavior (not sending the referer is the next page is opened not from a current (secret) page link but with some other method such as entering the URL directly) for all browsers?
So the problem was limited only to HTML and PDF files. But it is not a complete security solution.
I suspect that we can fully solve this problem by adding Content-Disposition: attachment when serving all our secret files. Will it prevent the HTTP referer?
Also note that I am going to use HTTPS for a man-in-the-middle not to be able to download our secret files.
You can use the Referrer-Policy header to try to control referer behaviour. Please take note that this requires clients to implement this.
Instead of trying to conceal the file location, may I suggest you implement proper authentication and authorization handling?
I agree that Referrer-Policy is your best first step, but as DaSourcerer notes, it is not universally implemented on browsers you may support.
A fully server-side solution is as follows:
User connects to .../<secret>
Server generates a one-time token and redirects to .../<token>
Server provides document and invalidate token
Now the referer will point to .../<token>, which is no longer valid. This has usability trade-offs, however:
Reloading the page will not work (though you may be able to address this with a cookie or session)
Users cannot share URL from URL bar, since it's technically invalid (in some cases that could be a minor benefit)
You may be able to get the same basic benefits without the usability trade-offs by doing the same thing with an IFRAME rather than redirecting. I'm not certain how IFRAME influences Referer.
This entire solution is basically just Referer masking done proactively. If you can rewrite the links in the document, then you could instead use Referer masking on the way out. (i.e. rewrite all the links so that they point to https://yoursite.com/redirect/....) Since you mention PDF, I'm assuming that this would be challenging (or that you otherwise do not want to rewrite the document).
Sometimes when I navigate to a website, the GET request is:
GET /se/ HTTP/1.1
How is the locale being added instead of just the root? From what I see it is the first request I send to the server. Is my browser adding this in? If so, how does it know to add it for some sites and not others?
I guess the server redirected your request to '/se/' based on the your preferred language that is detected from Accept-Language header in your request.
The server can have whatever rules it likes to do this. Generally, as #npcode mentioned, Accept-Language should be used, but it's possible that the website in question is directing you there based on ip geocoding rules. If you connect via a proxy in another country, does it still happen?
As of current, are there still any methods to spoof HTTP referer?
Yes.
The HTTP_REFERER is data passed by the client. Any data passed by the client can be spoofed/forged. This includes HTTP_USER_AGENT.
If you wrote the web browser, you're setting and sending the HTTP Referrer and User-Agent headers on the GET, POST, etc.
You can also use middleware such as a web proxy to alter these. Fiddler lets you control these values.
If you want to redirect a visitor to another website and set their browser's referrer to any value you desire, you'll need to develop a web browser-plugin or some other type of application that runs on their computer. Otherwise, you cannot set the referrer on the visitor's browser. It will show the page from your site that linked to it.
What might be a valid solution in your case would be for you to load the third party page on the visitor's behalf, using whatever referrer is necessary, then display the page to the user from your server.
Yes, the HTTP referer header can be spoofed.
A common way to play with HTTP headers is to use a tool like cURL:
Sending headers using cURL:
How to send a header using a HTTP request through a curl call?
or
The cURL docs:
http://curl.haxx.se/docs/
Yes of course. Browser can avoid to send it, and it can be also "spoofed". There's an addon for firefox (I haven't tried it myself) and likely you can use also something like privoxy (but it is harder to make it dynamically changing). Using other tools like wget, is as easy as setting the proper option.
I am developing a web page that needs to display, in an iframe, a report served by another company's SharePoint server. They are fine with this.
The page we're trying to render in the iframe is giving us X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN which causes the browser (at least IE8) to refuse to render the content in a frame.
First, is this something they can control or is it something SharePoint just does by default? If I ask them to turn this off, could they even do it?
Second, can I do something to tell the browser to ignore this http header and just render the frame?
If the 2nd company is happy for you to access their content in an IFrame then they need to take the restriction off - they can do this fairly easily in the IIS config.
There's nothing you can do to circumvent it and anything that does work should get patched quickly in a security hotfix. You can't tell the browser to just render the frame if the source content header says not allowed in frames. That would make it easier for session hijacking.
If the content is GET only you don't post data back then you could get the page server side and proxy the content without the header, but then any post back should get invalidated.
UPDATE: 2019-12-30
It seem that this tool is no longer working! [Request for update!]
UPDATE 2019-01-06: You can bypass X-Frame-Options in an <iframe> using my X-Frame-Bypass Web Component. It extends the IFrame element by using multiple CORS proxies and it was tested in the latest Firefox and Chrome.
You can use it as follows:
(Optional) Include the Custom Elements with Built-in Extends polyfill for Safari:
<script src="https://unpkg.com/#ungap/custom-elements-builtin"></script>
Include the X-Frame-Bypass JS module:
<script type="module" src="x-frame-bypass.js"></script>
Insert the X-Frame-Bypass Custom Element:
<iframe is="x-frame-bypass" src="https://example.org/"></iframe>
The X-Frame-Options header is a security feature enforced at the browser level.
If you have control over your user base (IT dept for corp app), you could try something like a greasemonkey script (if you can a) deploy greasemonkey across everyone and b) deploy your script in a shared way)...
Alternatively, you can proxy their result. Create an endpoint on your server, and have that endpoint open a connection to the target endpoint, and simply funnel traffic backwards.
Yes Fiddler is an option for me:
Open Fiddler menu > Rules > Customize Rules (this effectively edits CustomRules.js).
Find the function OnBeforeResponse
Add the following lines:
oSession.oResponse.headers.Remove("X-Frame-Options");
oSession.oResponse.headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "*");
Remember to save the script!
As for second question - you can use Fiddler filters to set response X-Frame-Options header manually to something like ALLOW-FROM *. But, of course, this trick will work only for you - other users still won't be able to see iframe content(if they not do the same).