71–80 of 448 posts
The greater issue is that browsers are allowing code executing from the public Internet scope (scope meaning security domain) network access to the localhost scope or the Intranet scope (RFC1918 addresses.) If anything, this should require very explicit permission granting from the user. I’d prefer it be something more like an undocumented toggle accessible solely to developer types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's Shodan.io's legitimate use? Sounds like the "torrents can be used for legitimate content" type argument where in reality you a rounding error the use is not lawful??
There are plenty of legitimate uses of port scanning, and specifically, a port scanning database like Shodan. For example: - Monitoring your own network or that of your clients for exposed ports - Researching Internet topology, or performing aggregate queries like “how many nginx servers are connected to the Internet” Can you use it maliciously? Yes. But, most of the time, if you have a target it would make more sens…
Any legitimate security service is going to be doing there own scans, surely.
Statistics, yes, but I can't see those stats being especially good. You could probably get equally good nGinx data from netcraft, who IIUC get the data from http responses banners on :80 :443.
I'm not sure I buy the "security posture" line, isn't it circular. Tools to help crack your site are good because it means to have to have counter-measures to combat tools for cracking your site?
Only legitimate use of port scanning for me has been testing access to my own/clients computers, I feel. That's not too say I've not used it for illegitimate things ...
From the title I assumed this was going to be something else. I remember some sites used to port scan you on registration. This was to check if registrations were from an open proxy, which was a very strong bot indicator. I might be misremembering but I think Slashdot used to do it. There were also some plugins for phpBB forums that did it too. I used one back in the day and it helped quite a bit with spam registrati…
This raises the question: Is port scanning without consent a violation of the CFAA? Either it is legal, and researchers should face no repercussions for doing so, or it isn't and eBay is non-compliant with CFAA. I recall hearing about someone either being arrested or convicted due to port scanning a courthouse, but it was many years ago and I can't find the case with a cursory Google search. I have to wonder what val…
Criminal law is usually not this simple, as most criminal laws will take into account the mental state of the person performing the action.
1) Will I ever actually use this
2) How is this gonna screw me over
WebSockets, WebBluetooth, WebAssembly, Web-You-Can-Access-my-Accelerometer-and-Battery, haven't ever wanted to use those. Ever. For anything. For any reason. (Edit 3: Oh yeah, I forgot! WebRTC!)
Edit: Fantastic. You can't disable it in Firefox. So what, does Firefox need a freaking iptables implementation now? [1]
1 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1091016
"The only theoretical reason for the WebSocket pref these days is the possibility to disable it easily in case there is a security issue found in the protocol itself or so."
The protocol itself is the security issue. ALL OF IT.
Edit 2: So I don't have the time to investigate every new fad when it comes out. I originally thought WebSockets were raw sockets, but they aren't. Firefox blocks access to port 22 -- I was hoping all privileged ports, but it seems just those. Opening a WebSocket to netcat dumps out a HTTP request, so it seems unlikely that you'd be able to talk with anything that doesn't talk HTTP and WebSockets. Firefox also seemingly blocks access to 192.168/24 and 10/8.
This makes me less angry. But what STILL make me angry is that I have to sit and research about some stupid thing that I don't want and can't turn off. Sooner or later, some web dev is gonna argue that all sites should be loaded over WebSockets because his bloated javascript stack performs marginally better, and then WebSockets won't be something I can turn off. Websites will just whitepage.
Edit 4: Done researching this now. I went to ebay on Firefox, and wasn't getting websocket scans. But I've got a stack of uBlock and NoScript... maybe that's interfering with it some how? Opened up a stock config for google-chrome -- that's my browser for "some dumb new web tech that isn't working in Firefox" -- not seeing any scans when I open up inspector and click "WS".
Regardless, his point still stands. You can totally use WebSockets as a port scanner for localhost, assuming the Content Security Policy allows it. Now I gotta go update my nginx configs...
The greater issue is that browsers are allowing code executing from the public Internet scope (scope meaning security domain) network access to the localhost scope or the Intranet scope (RFC1918 addresses.) If anything, this should require very explicit permission granting from the user. I’d prefer it be something more like an undocumented toggle accessible solely to developer types.
This raises the question: Is port scanning without consent a violation of the CFAA? Either it is legal, and researchers should face no repercussions for doing so, or it isn't and eBay is non-compliant with CFAA. I recall hearing about someone either being arrested or convicted due to port scanning a courthouse, but it was many years ago and I can't find the case with a cursory Google search. I have to wonder what val…
As for the CFAA that's seemingly down to how aggressive the prosecutor is feeling about your case. I don't think it should be there's no real access happening and unless it's extremely aggressive and degrades network connectivity it's hard to argue there's any real damage done.
From the title I assumed this was going to be something else. I remember some sites used to port scan you on registration. This was to check if registrations were from an open proxy, which was a very strong bot indicator. I might be misremembering but I think Slashdot used to do it. There were also some plugins for phpBB forums that did it too. I used one back in the day and it helped quite a bit with spam registrati…
How did port scanning work back then before WebSockets?
The greater issue is that browsers are allowing code executing from the public Internet scope (scope meaning security domain) network access to the localhost scope or the Intranet scope (RFC1918 addresses.) If anything, this should require very explicit permission granting from the user. I’d prefer it be something more like an undocumented toggle accessible solely to developer types.
The company may be interested in whether they want to grant access to the user to access to their systems. Does the user shoulder any responsibility?
It shouldn't matter what malware is on a client device as long as the client has authenticated; the server/company/ebay should be protecting their API from abuse at the API layer, not the client layer.
The greater issue is that browsers are allowing code executing from the public Internet scope (scope meaning security domain) network access to the localhost scope or the Intranet scope (RFC1918 addresses.) If anything, this should require very explicit permission granting from the user. I’d prefer it be something more like an undocumented toggle accessible solely to developer types.