probably just catch any time you have a ".wo" in your URL and throw ... you could do it in the url rewriter or something. i don't think there's ever any reason to have a .wo reference in a normal app.
ms On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Patrick Robinson wrote: > Yeah, that _does_ sound rather annoying! :-P > > Is there a perhaps less-annoying way to approximate similar behavior? > > > On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: > >> I changed this in WO core, and unfortunately it's kind of annoying to fix >> without some hackery, but in WOComponentRequestHandler, there's a static >> method requestHandlerValuesForRequest ... That dictionary has a key named >> "wopage" in it. If you did some class rewriting (with like gluonj or >> something), you could change that static method to remove the wopage key ... >> That MIGHT be enough to do it. >> >> On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Patrick Robinson wrote: >> >>> I've stumbled across a wrinkle re: what I had assumed to be the >>> conventional wisdom for preventing direct access to component pages via >>> URLs like the following: >>> >>> http://myhost.mydomain/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MyApp.woa/-9876/wo/SecretPage.wo >>> >>> It's an old, old WO problem, and I'm wondering what other people do to >>> handle it. >>> >>> I've always figured the best idea is to just configure the web server to >>> catch WO URLs that end in /wo/(.+)\.wo and rewrite or redirect them. >>> Another potential approach is to try to recognize and catch such requests >>> in the app itself, somewhere like the Application class's pageWithName. >>> The problem is, these solutions don't catch all the sneaky ways of slipping >>> in a back door. >>> >>> Consider: >>> >>> http://myhost.mydomain/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MyApp.woa/-9876/wo/SecretPage.wo//1.2 >>> >>> This ends up with Application's pageWithName trying to create a page with >>> the name "SecretPage". A new session has already been created somewhere >>> down inside the component request handler, it'll have a WOContext with a >>> contextID of 0, and the senderID will be 2. You'd be hard-pressed to know >>> that you shouldn't allow the page creation to proceed. >>> >>> You could try to change the web server's search pattern to also catch a >>> slash followed by more characters after the ".wo", but you'd have to be >>> careful not to disallow sessionIDs that just happen to end in "wo". And >>> even if you could reliably block the above, the hacker could try this: >>> >>> http://myhost.mydomain/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MyApp.woa/-9876/wo/SecretPage.wox//1.2 >>> (that is, add more characters after the ".wo") >>> >>> Now that doesn't fit the pattern at all, and gets hung up in the >>> Application's pageWithName, where a way-too-informative >>> WOPageNotFoundException is thrown. Of course, you'd catch that somewhere >>> like handleException(). Doesn't quite seem like the right approach, either. >>> >>> My point here is, there are more ways of hacking a WebObjects URL than I >>> had previously considered. Does anyone have what they consider to be an >>> ironclad solution to this problem? >>> >>> (I hate it when I discover stuff I thought I had dealt with 10 years ago is >>> still biting me.) >>> >>> - Patrick >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>> Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) >>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40pobox.com >>> >>> This email sent to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
