We shouldn't throw annoying text/graphics at people who
probably *cant* upgrade.
-Chad
On Jun 3, 2011 4:27 PM, "Mono mium" <monomium(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why not?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thats completly not the point.
>
> 2011/6/3, Mono mium <monomium(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> We don't want to use Microsoft's, whatever we do, because it promotes
their
>> own borked browser IE9.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mark Dilley <markwdilley(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> <aside from main conversation>
>>>
>>> Would it be a good community gesture to join Microsoft in trying to
>>> eradicate IE6?
>>>
>>>
http://TheIE6Countdown.com
>>>
>>> or to not join them and put up a more general banner
>>>
>>>
http://IE6NoMore.com
>>>
>>> and move on?
>>>
>>> </aside from main conversation>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03Jun2011, at 10:53 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Tim Starling
<tstarling(a)wikimedia.org
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 03/06/11 06:56, Brion Vibber wrote:
>>> >>> For 1) I'm honestly a bit willing to sacrifice a few IE 6
users at
>>> >>> this
>>> >>> point; the vendor's dropped support, shipped three major
versions,
and
>>> is
>>> >>> actively campaigning to get the remaining users to upgrade. :)
But
I
>>> get
>>> >>> protecting, so if we can find a workaround that's ok.
>>> >>
>>> >> We can't really do this without sending "Vary:
User-Agent", which
>>> >> would completely destroy our cache hit ratio. For people who use
Squid
>>> >> with our X-Vary-Options patch, it
would be possible to use a very
long
>>> >> X-Vary-Options header to single
out IE 6 requests, but not everyone
>>> >> has that patch.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I'm really thinking more along the lines of: if someone's an IE
>>> 6-or-below
>>> > user they have hundreds of other exploit vectors staring them in the
>>> > face
>>> > too, and we can't protect them against many of them -- or ANY of
them
if
>>> > they're visiting other sites than
just an up-to-date MediaWiki.
>>> >
>>> > The cost of this fix has been immense; several versions of the fix
with
>>> > varying levels of disruption on
production sites, both for IE 6 users
>>> > and
>>> > non-IE 6 users, and several weeks of delay on the 1.17.0 release.
>>> >
>>> > I'd be willing to accept a few drive-by downloads for IE 6 users;
it's
>>> not
>>> > ideal but it's something that their antivirus tools etc will already
be
>>> > watching out for, that end-users
already get trained to beware of,
and
>>> that
>>> > will probably *still* be exploitable on other web sites that they
visit
>>> > anyway.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The main issue here is that we don't a wide variety of web servers
set
>>> >> up for testing. We know that
Apache lets you detect %2E versus dot
via
>>> >> $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'],
but we don't know if any other web servers
do
>>> >> that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Note that checking for %2E alone is not sufficient, a lot of
>>> >> installations (including Wikimedia) have an alias /wiki ->
>>> >> /w/index.php which can be used to exploit action=raw.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Well that should be fine; as long as we can see the
"/wiki?/foo.bat"
>>> > then
>>> we
>>> > can identify that it doesn't contain an unencoded dot in the path.
>>> >
>>> > It sounds like simply checking REQUEST_URI when available would
>>> > eliminate
>>> a
>>> > huge portion of our false positives that affect real-world
situations.
>>> > Apache is still the default web
server in most situations for most
>>> > folks,
>>> > and of course runs our own production servers.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>> Are there any additional exploit vectors for API output other
than
>>> >>> HTML
>>> >> tags
>>> >>> mixed unescaped into JSON?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, all other content types, as I said above.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Only as drive-by downloads, or as things that execute without
>>> interaction?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> I think the current solution in trunk, plus the redirect idea that
>>> >> I've been discussing with Roan, is our best bet for now, unless
>>> >> someone wants to investigate $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'].
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > *nod* Checking REQUEST_URI is probably the first thing we should do
when
>>> > it's available.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> If there is an actual problem with ForeignAPIRepo then we can look
at
>>> >> server-side special cases for it.
But r89248 should allow all API
>>> >> requests that have a dotless value in their last GET parameter, and
a
>>> >> quick review of ForeignAPIRepo in
1.16 and trunk indicates that it
>>> >> always sends such requests.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Yay! That's one less thing to worry about. :D
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Since we're talking about discarded solutions for this, maybe
it's
>>> >> worth noting that I also investigated using a Content-Disposition
>>> >> header. The vulnerability involves an incorrect cache filename, and
>>> >> it's possible to override the cache filename using a
>>> >> Content-Disposition "filename" parameter. The reason I
gave up on it
>>> >> is because we already use Content-Disposition for wfStreamFile():
>>> >>
>>> >> header( "Content-Disposition:
>>> >> inline;filename*=utf-8'$wgLanguageCode'" . urlencode(
basename(
$fname
>> ) )
);
>>
>> IE 6 doesn't understand the charset specification, so it ignores the
>> header and goes back to detecting the extension.
>>
>
> Good to know.
>
> -- brion
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat
Kind regards,
Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl
Webhosting the wicked way.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l