Live data from Hacker News

Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

twitter.com

81–90 of 322 posts

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should have added a /s tag... some people don't get jokes unless you hit them over the head with it.

I will never stoop so low as to telegraph my own joke.

In textualform, sarcasm and ignorance look the same. otoh, it can sometime be quite funny to see responses from people that take it seriously...

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#82

User agents shouldn't exist any more. They serve only to help unsuspecting users be fingerprinted.

Rubbish. They are incredibly useful for debugging.

They would be a lot more useful if they were more straighforward and honest.

Just give me "Chrome 68" instead of "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36"

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#83
post #3

I don't see what the fuss is about. This is an effective mitigation, given that software can't just arbitrarily lie about its user agent.

I guess the biggest problem is that the mitigation isn't future-proof. Someday, there might be other command-line tools besides cURL that can be used for this kind of attack. A better fix would be to just drop all incoming IPv4 packets that have the "evil" bit set. ( https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt ) Extending this protection to IPv6 is left as an exercise for the reader.

It's not like curl can't easily spoof a user agent either.

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#84
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been involved in meetings where "stop ship" was the phrase of the day, I'd bet money that the following at least vaguely resembles a real conversation: Engineer Alice: We should really fix this properly. Manager: How sure are you that the proper fix won't break something else for $BIG_CUSTOMERS who are responsible for $OBSCENE percent of this product line's revenue? Engineer Bob: Uh, ten percent on a good day?…

I've been Engineer Alice before (not with a security issue, but a pretty bad systems issue). In case anyone is ever in that situation, here are some more productive replacements for that existential sigh (in that they sometimes work). Choose the one most suited to manager's biases. The cliches are important: think of it as giving manager an easy way to explain it to their manager. > Yes, but that would only help with…

No! The answer is an unequivocal “No“, without any „but“s or anything like that. The fix does not fix the problem, it is not even a fix, just a wrong code change that sets out to do something but does not achieve it.

Answering „yes“ is a lie here. This is different from a fix that fixes the problem in an ugly way, where „yes, but...“ is applicable.

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#85
post #7

Source says they also did some input sanitizing along with blocking curl, and they had to make a new PoC to get around that. If I'm reading that right then this isn't really an issue, nothing wrong with defense in depth. Edit: >The update adds several filters to handle single quotes in user input. However, these filters can be evaded by specially crafted inputs. By providing the following string for the certificate's…

Your humor is too sophisticated for us...

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, this sort of superficial fix can be a result of (overzealous) TDD.

Tests must not be robust enough, then.

yes, they need to add a test for wget (and a comparable fix) - that will teach them how to do tdd right.

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#87
post #8

Of all the security post-mortems I’ve ever wanted to read, it’s sad I’ll probably never get to read this one and its tale of how a team of well-paid comfortable engineers got together and decided this patch was a good idea.

Having been involved in meetings where "stop ship" was the phrase of the day, I'd bet money that the following at least vaguely resembles a real conversation: Engineer Alice: We should really fix this properly. Manager: How sure are you that the proper fix won't break something else for $BIG_CUSTOMERS who are responsible for $OBSCENE percent of this product line's revenue? Engineer Bob: Uh, ten percent on a good day?…

Ouch, that hits close to home. It's like you've sat in on all the same meetings I have, word for word.

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#88
I posted something related to this a couple weeks ago. Chase banned my web client because its not Windows/OSX. It works fine if I change my user agent... FWIW the RV series is the ex-linksys stuff so it should all be thrown in the trash anyways.

Re: Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” in User-Agent

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should have added a /s tag... some people don't get jokes unless you hit them over the head with it.

I will never stoop so low as to telegraph my own joke.

I couldn't agree more. The joke construction was a bit weak though, when you miss a good part of the audience. Add something like, "I mean, could you imagine the chaos it would cause if IE told websites it was really Mozilla?" and you demonstrate mastery of the subject matter, which should be enough to let other experts know you were facetious rather than ignorant. Unless you have timing issues... or need the comedian's plausible deniability.
Post reply on HN