We shouldn't throw annoying text/graphics at people who
probably *cant* upgrade.

-Chad
On Jun 3, 2011 4:27 PM, "Mono mium" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why not?
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Huib Laurens <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thats completly not the point.
>>
>> 2011/6/3, Mono mium <[email protected]>:
>>> 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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]
>>>> >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
>>>> > [email protected]
>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to