Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 11.03.2008, 11:43 +0100 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >  ... * Sling may therefore be used for attacks where the root of the attack
> >     is hidden
> >
> >   * We shift the cross-domain limitation from the client to the server
> >     and burden the server with protection against dangers....
> 
> Agreed - we could use a configurable list of URL prefixes (like
> www.somewhere.com/somepath) to which proxy requests are allowed, and
> set a very restrictive default value that would only allow our tests
> and demos to run.

Hmm, such a configuration could be an option. Limiting the defualt is
certainly a very good thing. Though having default configuration for
tests and demoes is problematic IMHO...


> 
> And maybe add a header to the proxied requests that shows that Sling
> was involved in it.

I would certainly opt for such a thing - Many proxies use the
X-Forwarded-For and Via headers for this information. I suggest that
besides of course forwarding all request headers, these two headers
should be added.

> 
> I think the problem is no different than people using mod_proxy to do
> that, our responsibility is IMHO limited to make people aware of the
> issues, which could be done in the description of the above "proxy
> requests patterns" configuration property.

Agreed - and we also have to describe this for administrators to limit
the functionality or to "switch it off" altogether.

Regards
Felix

Reply via email to