Live data from Hacker News

You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

vin01.github.io

11–20 of 226 posts

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#11

Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?

[deleted]

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#12

Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?

Two things:

1. "Password" is a magic word that makes people less likely to just paste it into anything.

2. Username + passwords are two separate pieces of information that are not normally copy-pasted at the same time or have a canonical way of being stored next to each other.

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#14
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is links leak. In theory a 256 hex-character link (so 1024 bits) is near infinitely more secure than a 32 character username and 32 character password, as to guess it https://site.com/[256chars] As there's 2^1024 combinations. You'd never brute force it vs https://site,com/[32chars] with a password of [32chars] As there's 2^256 combinations. Again you can't brute force it, but it's more likely than the 2^…

Dorking is the technique of using public search engine indexes to uncover information that is presumed to be private. It has been used to uncover webcams, credit card numbers, confidential documents, and even spies. The problem is the website administers who are encoding authentication tokens into URL state, not the naive crawlers that find them.

It can be OK to put authentication tokens in urls, but those tokens need to (at a bare minimum) have short expirations.

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#15

Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?

Assuming that 5 char password is done in a reasonable way then that data is not part of the publicly visible portion of the request that anyone along the chain of the communication can trivially eavesdrop. In a lot of cases that password even existing (even if there's no significant data there) will transform a request from a cacheable request into an uncacheable request so intermediate servers won't keep a copy of the response in case anyone else wants the document (there are other ways to do this but this will also force it to be the case).

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#16

Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?

Two things: 1. "Password" is a magic word that makes people less likely to just paste it into anything. 2. Username + passwords are two separate pieces of information that are not normally copy-pasted at the same time or have a canonical way of being stored next to each other.

1) Make sense. 2) Not sure about that. If someone shares their password with someone else they probably share both the username/email and the password

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#19
I've always been a bit suspicious of infinite-use "private" links. It's just security thru obscurity. At least when you share a Google doc or something there's an option that explicitly says "anyone with the URL can access this".

Any systems I've built that need this type of thing have used Signed URLs with a short lifetime - usually only a few minutes. And the URLs are generally an implementation detail that's not directly shown to the user (although they can probably see them in the browser debug view).

Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: 1. "Password" is a magic word that makes people less likely to just paste it into anything. 2. Username + passwords are two separate pieces of information that are not normally copy-pasted at the same time or have a canonical way of being stored next to each other.

1) Make sense. 2) Not sure about that. If someone shares their password with someone else they probably share both the username/email and the password

Yes, people share usernames and passwords, but there's no single canonical string, like "username=amanda99&password=hithere". For example most of the time when I share user/pass combos, they are in separate messages on Signal. You type them into two different boxes, so you normally copy the username, then the password in separate actions.
Post reply on HN