I have a stylesheet that loads images from an external domain and I need it to load from https:// from secure order pages and http:// from other pages, based on the current URL. I found that starting the URL with a double slash inherits the current protocol. Do all browsers support this technique?
HTML ex:
<img src="//cdn.domain.example/logo.png" />
CSS ex:
.class { background: url(//cdn.domain.example/logo.png); }
If the browser supports RFC 1808 Section 4, RFC 2396 Section 5.2, or RFC 3986 Section 5.2, then it will indeed use the page URL's scheme for references that begin with "//".
When used on a link or #import, IE7/IE8 will download the file twice per http://paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/
Update from 2014:
Now that SSL is encouraged for everyone and doesn’t have performance concerns, this technique is now an anti-pattern. If the asset you need is available on SSL, then always use the https:// asset.
One downside occurs if your URLs are viewed outside the context of a web page. For example, an email message sitting in an email client (say, Outlook) effectively has no URL, and when you're viewing a message containing a protocol-relative URL, there is no obvious protocol context at all (the message itself is independent of the protocol used to fetch it, whether it's POP3, IMAP, Exchange, uucp or whatever) so the URL has no protocol to be relative to. I've not investigated compatibility with email clients to see what they do when presented with a missing protocol handler - I'm guessing that most will take a guess at http. Apple Mail refuses to let you enter a URL without a protocol. It's analogous to the way that relative URLs do not work in email because of a similarly missing context.
Similar problems could occur in other non-HTTP contexts such as in tweets, SMS messages, Word documents etc.
The more general explanation is that anonymous protocol URLs cannot work in isolation; there must be a relevant context. In a typical web page it's thus fine to pull in a script library that way, but any external links should always specify a protocol. I did try one simple test: //stackoverflow.com maps to file:///stackoverflow.com in all browsers I tried it in, so they really don't work by themselves.
The reason could be to provide portable web pages. If the outer page is not transported encrypted (http), why should the linked scripts be encrypted? This seems to be an unnecessary performance loss. In case, the outer page is securely transported encrypted (https), then the linked content should be encrypted, too. If the page is encrypted, the linked content not, IE seems to issue a Mixed Content warning. The reason is that an attacker can manipulate the scripts on the way. See http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/MixedContent/Default.html?o=1 for a longer discussion.
The HTTPS Everywhere campaign from the EFF suggests to use https whenever possible. We have the server capacity these days to serve web pages always encrypted.
Just for completeness. This was mentioned in another thread:
The "two forward slashes" are a common shorthand for "whatever protocol is being used right now"
if (plain http environment) {
use 'http://example.com/my-resource.js'
} else {
use 'https://example.com/my-resource.js'
}
Please check the full thread.
It seems to be a pretty common technique now. There is no downside, it only helps to unify the protocol for all assets on the page so should be used wherever possible.
Related
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).
Let's say that a page is just printing the value of the HTTP 'referer' header with no escaping. So the page is vulnerable to an XSS attack, i.e. an attacker can craft a GET request with a referer header containing something like <script>alert('xss');</script>.
But how can you actually use this to attack a target? How can the attacker make the target issue that specific request with that specific header?
This sounds like a standard reflected XSS attack.
In reflected XSS attacks, the attacker needs the victim to visit some site which in some way is under the attacker's control. Even if this is just a forum where an attacker can post a link in the hope somebody will follow it.
In the case of a reflected XSS attack with the referer header, then the attacker could redirect the user from the forum to a page on the attacker's domain.
e.g.
http://evil.example.com/?<script>alert(123)>
This page in turn redirects to the following target page in a way that preserves referer.
http://victim.example.org/vulnerable_xss_page.php
Because it is showing the referer header on this page without the proper escaping, http://evil.example.com/?<script>alert(123)> gets output within the HTML source, executing the alert. Note this works in Internet Explorer only.
Other browsers will automatically encode the URL rendering
%3cscript%3ealert%28123%29%3c/script%3e
instead which is safe.
I can think of a few different attacks, maybe there are more which then others will hopefully add. :)
If your XSS is just some header value reflected in the response unencoded, I would say that's less of a risk compared to stored. There may be factors to consider though. For example if it's a header that the browser adds and can be set in the browser (like the user agent), an attacker may get access to a client computer, change the user agent, and then let a normal user use the website, now with the attacker's javascript injected. Another example that comes to mind is a website may display the url that redirected you there (referer) - in this case the attacker only has to link to the vulnerable application from his carefully crafted url. These are kind of edge cases though.
If it's stored, that's more straightforward. Consider an application that logs user access with all request headers, and let's suppose there is an internal application for admins that they use to inspect logs. If this log viewer application is web based and vulnerable, any javascript from any request header could be run in the admin context. Obviously this is just one example, it doesn't need to be blind of course.
Cache poisoning may also help with exploiting a header XSS.
Another thing I can think of is browser plugins. Flash is less prevalent now (thankfully), but with different versions of Flash you could set different request headers on your requests. What exactly you can and cannot set is a mess and very confusing across Flash plugin versions.
So there are several attacks, and it is necessary to treat all headers as user input and encode them accordingly.
Exploitation of xss at referrer header is almost like a traditional reflected xss, Just an additional point to make is "Attacker's website redirects to victim website and hence referrer header with required javascript will be appended to the victim website request".
Here One essential point that needs to be discussed is Why only with IE one can exploit this vulnerability why not with other browsers?
Traditional answer for this question is 'Chrome and firefox automatically encodes URL parameters and hence XSS is not possible..' But interesting thing here is when we have n number of bypasses for traditional xss bypasses. why can't we have bypasses for this scenario.
Yes.. We can bypass with following payload which is same way to bypass HTML validation in traditional payload.
http://evil.example.com/?alert(1)//cctixn1f .
Here the response could be something like this:
The link on the
referring
page seems to be wrong or outdated.
Response End
If victim clicks on referring page, alert will be generated..
Bottomline: Not just only IE, XSS can be possible even in Mozilla and Firefox when referrer is being used as part of href tag..
Scenario goes like this:
Main parts of web site is on one server. All traffic goes over https. I have no control ovet this server.
Themes use css files and images from another server. Also over https. I have full control over this server.
How vulnerable is the main site (how and why) if css files and images would go over http? I am asking only about css and images.
I don't know how relevant is, but server is Apache and language is PHP.
---------------- edit ------------
So far, there is 'a man in the middle' attack who can change css and thus hide my content, introduce new images and add more text.
But can not create live links, or add js...
Here is a good discussion about this topic started by symcbean.
Any unencrypted HTTP connection can potentially be intercepted and modified by men-in-the-middle. That means, any resource you're retrieving via an HTTP connection is untrustworthy; it cannot be confirmed whether it's the original resource as intended. That means an attacker may be able to include resources in your page which you did not intend to include.
In the case of CSS files content can be altered on your site (display: none, content: "Please go to example.com and enter your password"), in the case of images exploits may be introduced (through buggy image decoding client-side), in the case of Javascript entirely arbitrary behaviour may be injected (e.g. sending all key-strokes to a 3rd party server).
A third party may modify those CSS or images to convey different things, either by tampering that data on the fly, or by spoofing the target. The browser would not know if is getting those from a reliable source, and probably would complain about mixed content issues. CSS3 has many features that may bring pictures from another domain or include unintended content.
I do not believe this is possible, but I figure there are people out there way smarter than me, so why not check ..
I would like to have an HTTP image that is viewable from within a page when used w/in an img tag, but NOT visible if the img src link is called directly. Does that make sense? Viewable in page, but not if called directly.
Quick edit .. acceptable alternative is to embed image in page in such a way as url is not human readable / able to be extracted and typed into browser.
Update 2 ... .NET IIS7 env.
Note that "security" products such as Norton Internet Security and Norton Personal Firewall prevent the HTTP Referer: (TBL's spelling mistake, not mine) header being sent by default. As these products are widely used, referrer blocking will break things for an awful lot of people.
FWIW, if I was keen to get your image other than by viewing your page (although I can't imagine why I should be) I would just grab the bits as they came over the network when I viewed your page, using something like Charles or Fiddler. It's completely impossible to make content available over the web but prevent people from making a copy.
I believe that you can achieve something like this by relying on the referrer header supplied by the browser - when the referrer is a web page on your own site, you serve up the image, but not otherwise.
It's not 100% reliable (as passing the referrer isn't mandatory in the HTTP spec) but works well enough for some sites.
This is achieved through configuration of your webserver; you therefore might have more luck asking this on ServerFault.
Yes, there are lots of articles on how to setup mod_rewrite rules in apache to try and prevent direct access to files.
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/apache-mod_rewrite-hot-linking-images-leeching-howto/
It depends on how it gets built. You can always make sure your referrer is the page that you expect it to be hosted from and lock down requests there.
If you have some notion of authentication, you could bury the image under some type of php/ruby script or asp.net http handler that requests the image from the server or database (in a place that is not publicly viewable but is reachable by your server-side code) and that handler could check for your authentication status before returning it.
Frankly, I re-worked my solution so I didn't really have to worry bout it ... know that's a cop out, as it doesn't REALLY answer the question, but there it is. My concern that users would be able to defraud the "game" I was creating if they could figure out the sequence that was being used to name the images. Quick and dirty solution .... don't make image file names sequential / predictable.
I'm working on a web site which contains sections that need to be secured by SSL.
I have the site configured so that it runs fine when it's always in SSL, I see the SSL padlock in IE7/IE8/FireFox/Safari/Chrome
To implement the SSL switching, I created a class that implemented IHTTPModule and wired up HTTPApplication.PreRequestHandlerExecute.
I go through some custom logic to determine whether or not my request should use SSL, and then I redirect. I have to deal with two scenarios:
Currently in SSL and request doesn't require SSL
Currently not in SSL but request requires SSL
I end up doing the followng (where ctx is HttpContext.Current and pathAndQuery is ctx.Request.Url.PathAndQuery)
// SSL required and current connection is not SSL
if (requestRequiresSSL & !ctx.Request.IsSecureConnection)
ctx.Response.Redirect("https://www.myurl.com" + pathAndQuery);
// SSL not required but current connection is SSL
if (!requestRequiresSSL & ctx.Request.IsSecureConnection)
ctx.Response.Redirect("http://www.myurl.com" + pathAndQuery);
The switching back and forth now works fine. However, when I go into SSL mode, FireFox and IE8 warns me that my request isn't entirely encrypted.
It looks like my module is short circuiting my request somehow, would appreciate any thoughts.
I would suspect, that when you determine which resources require encryption, and which not, you do not include the images, or some header and footers as well, or even CSS files, if you use any.
As you always throw away SSL for such a content, it may happen that part of the page (main html) requires SSL, but the consequential request for an image on this page does not.
The browser is warning you, that some parts of the page were not delivered using SSL.
I will check if the request is for HTML, and only then drop the SSL if needed. Otherwise, keep it the way it is (most probably images and such are referenced with relative paths, than a full blown url).
I.e., if you have:
<html>
<body>
Some content...
<img src="images/someimage.jpg">
</body>
</html>
and you request this page using SSL, but your evaluation of requestRequiresSSL does not take into account the images as secured resources, it will form a http, not https request, and you will see the warning.
Make sure when you request a resource and evaluate requestRequiresSSL, to check the referrer and if this is an image:
// SSL not required but current connection is SSL
if (!requestRequiresSSL && ctx.Request.IsSecureConnection && !isHtmlContent)
ctx.Response.Redirect("http://www.myurl.com" + pathAndQuery);
Just figure out how to determine isHtmlContent (if you do not serve images from a database, etc., but from a disk location), just check the the resource filename (.aspx, .asmx, .ashx, .html, etc.).
That way, if the connection is encrypted, but the resource itself is not html, and no set for "encryption", you are not going to drop the encryption.
I highly recommend using this (free / open source) component to do what you're trying:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/web-security/WebPageSecurity_v2.aspx
Any content that is not normally handled by .Net (such as regular html and most graphic files) will not execute the httpmodule because it doesn't go through .net
Your best bet is to just handle this at the IIS level. See the following for info on how to configure your server.
http://www.jameskovacs.com/blog/HowToAutoRedirectToASSLsecuredSiteInIIS.aspx
I highly recommend you this product:
http://www.e2xpert.com/web/Http-Https-Switch.aspx
It is professional and easy to use. It comes with a powerful configuration tool, by which just one click can finish the entire configuration for you.
Just use SSL throughout your site, for all pages and for all images/scripts/stylesheets. That just makes everything oh-so-simple. IE and Firefox will no longer complain, you will no longer have crazy modules trying to guess whether any given request should be redirected, etc.
For the average user it's nearly impossible for them to make a informed decision when the only thing Firefox vaguely tells them is, "Parts of the page you are viewing were not encrypted before being transmitted over the Internet." This is about as helpful as the "somethings wrong" engine light and in fact is telling them after their information has been transferred.
The least this message should be accompanied with is a list providing the URL, type of content (images, javascript, css) and what it means to the user. BTW I get this message when using GMail.
Until that happens, as others stated your code should work once you determine the unsecured elements. Then you can use Firebug (http://getfirebug.com) to check the content being delivered over the connection.