• Randyd (unregistered)

    And how did that declaration to the users work out?

    Or did they just restore a backup copy every night when it got overwritten yet again?

  • snoofle (cs)

    10:30AM (at least here in New York)???? You are going to spoil us!

    Happy Holidays To All

    BTW: You can grab any image (CodeThulu, ...), upload to zazzle.com and make a custom mug for ~$20 (including shipping)!

  • KattMan (cs)

    Ok, this is great!

    Imagine one little change could have fixed a lot of this, instead of looking for IsLoggedOn = False to deny access, simply look for IsLoggedOn = True to allow it.

    This is a perfect example of why you always default to deny access rather than grant.

  • AbbydonKrafts (cs)

    LMFAO!!! That is hilarious! The fact that merely visiting those links caused it all to disappear. They've obviously never heard of server-side validation. It's an insult to my meager wages (compared to all these "consultants") that they are hired to perform stupidity like this. Even when I was new to ASP, I never was that stupid.. geez.

  • Boots (unregistered) in reply to KattMan

    My thoughts exactly. Somebody doesn't know how to do authentication here. I would place the blame on the developer(s), not Googlebot.

  • topazg (unregistered) in reply to Boots

    It would be somehow amusing if they subsequently tried to sue Google for unauthorised tampering on their systems. It would be less amusing if they won of course.

     

  • Shii (unregistered) in reply to KattMan
    KattMan:

    Ok, this is great!

    Imagine one little change could have fixed a lot of this, instead of looking for IsLoggedOn = False to deny access, simply look for IsLoggedOn = True to allow it.

    This is a perfect example of why you always default to deny access rather than grant.

    Somehow I get the impression that the problem is a little larger than that.
  • grumpy (unregistered) in reply to Shii

    Kinda. The suggested change would fix the problem with Google deleting their pages. Of course it wouldn't make their website secure. But it would prevent search engines from randomly deleting content... ;)

  • Greg (unregistered) in reply to Boots

    Ummm, guys...  Basic security lesson here is that you can't do ANY client-side security and cookies are most definitely client-side.  Anyone with the tiniest bit of hacking skills can go to this site and add a cookie called isLoggedOn and set it to true and poof, they're logged in without entering any credentials.

    You need to use a secure, unique (i.e. non-guessable) session cookie, put a token into the HTTP session on the server side indicating that they've logged in and check it on every request. (Except for the login request of course!)
     

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to Greg
    Anonymous:

    Ummm, guys...  Basic security lesson here is that you can't do ANY client-side security and cookies are most definitely client-side.  Anyone with the tiniest bit of hacking skills can go to this site and add a cookie called isLoggedOn and set it to true and poof, they're logged in without entering any credentials.

    You need to use a secure, unique (i.e. non-guessable) session cookie, put a token into the HTTP session on the server side indicating that they've logged in and check it on every request. (Except for the login request of course!)

    Sir, you offer a proper, reasonable, well thought out solution to a common problem. If everyone took suggestions like yours, this forum would have nothing to post. We'll have none of that! </smirk>

  • KattMan (cs) in reply to Greg
    Anonymous:

    Ummm, guys...  Basic security lesson here is that you can't do ANY client-side security and cookies are most definitely client-side.  Anyone with the tiniest bit of hacking skills can go to this site and add a cookie called isLoggedOn and set it to true and poof, they're logged in without entering any credentials.

    You need to use a secure, unique (i.e. non-guessable) session cookie, put a token into the HTTP session on the server side indicating that they've logged in and check it on every request. (Except for the login request of course!)
     

    I know that, but as for a quick fix with a very low cost my sugegstion works.  Then comesthe major overhaul of the security system afterwards.  You have to buy some time somewhere.

  • Pool's Closed (unregistered)

    WALL STREET FGT, UR WORK USES MIRRORS AND BUTTER

  • phuture (unregistered)

    The "real" workaround would be to use a automatically generated robots.txt file. This is real enterprisely!

     

    PH 

  • KattMan (cs) in reply to Pool's Closed

    Anonymous:
    WALL STREET FGT, UR WORK USES MIRRORS AND BUTTER

    Wow, buttered mirrors.  Is this to assure that our reflections have a slick appearance.

  • tiro (cs) in reply to KattMan
    KattMan:

    Ok, this is great!

    Imagine one little change could have fixed a lot of this, instead of looking for IsLoggedOn = False to deny access, simply look for IsLoggedOn = True to allow it.

    This is a perfect example of why you always default to deny access rather than grant.

    You should also probably not implement your entire security layer on the client side and not use GET to perform horribly, horribly non-idempotent operations.

    But hey, that's a start :-)
     

  • Jason (unregistered) in reply to topazg

    It would be less amusing if they had purposely set up Google. The fact is that Google caused them material damage. I think this would be a valid suit. Lets take a more mundane example. You remove the rear bumper of truck and replace it with an attractive facia. Someone rear-ends you and does much more damage than if you had a bumper present. They are still responsible for the damage even though you did something dumb.

  • Alan Dean (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Spurgle Rocklefink (unregistered) in reply to KattMan

    Isn't the point is that googlebot isn't paying attention to any client side code? You can use a client side check like IsLoggedOn, isLoggedOff or IsCarryingCodFish, but googlebot doesn't care. Once it GETs the page it sees the links regardless and merrily chews right through them while the client code looks on like an ineffective bouncer.

  • Scet (unregistered)

    Going by the title I thought this was going to be about E3M8 of DOOM, how disappointing.

  • lackluster (unregistered)

    Can't tell you how many times I've found server-side auth implemented only on the index file, leaving the rest wide open. But besides the WTF by the developers, who doesn't keep current database backups and transaction logs, or store them in such a manner than they become corrupt within a day. Apparently disaster recovery isn't that big of a deal for a government agency.

  • snoofle (unregistered) in reply to lackluster

    Anonymous:
    <snip>

    Apparently disaster recovery isn't that big of a deal for a government agency.

    I work for a place that is militant on having full SDLC - everything thoroughly documented, signed off on by all relevent departments, and a central SDLC-group that makes sure enough people looked at and approved it. One thing in particular is redundancy, failover and backup. They buy active/standby local server pairs in production, duplicate the pair in the disaster recovery location, striped raid hit-it-with-a-bazooka-and-no-data-is-lost disk arrays, fully backed up databases; the works.

    Sounds good, right?

    Except that many of the folks doing it have become so dependent on following the checklist of signoffs that they only look for the signatures without verifying that what they are approving makes any sense.

    Someone recently ''architected' something that included staged incremental backups to be taken every 15 minutes. That essentially means duplicate the DB daily, snag the incremental backups every 15 minutes, and apply offline to backup system periodically to keep it close to, if not, current. The incremental backups are relatively small and quick to make, so in case of disaster, we're covered, right?

    Except that the procedure put the incremental backups on the same physical disk platters as the stuff being backed up, under the same physical database servers.

    It's like backing up C: to D: in another partition on the same physical disk. Sheesh!

    Even when it's a big deal it's not a big deal.

    *sighs*

  • Anonymous Pedant (unregistered) in reply to tiro

    Delete is idempotent.  Doing it twice is the same as doing it once.

  • themagni (cs) in reply to Spurgle Rocklefink

    Anonymous:
    Isn't the point is that googlebot isn't paying attention to any client side code? You can use a client side check like IsLoggedOn, isLoggedOff or IsCarryingCodFish, but googlebot doesn't care. Once it GETs the page it sees the links regardless and merrily chews right through them while the client code looks on like an ineffective bouncer.

    The point is nothing to do with googlebot.

    I use Firefox with NoScript and CookieSafe. I could easily surf to that page and just delete everything. Hell, I could also use Lynx and just delete the content in a few minutes. Alternatively, I could change the pages to reflect arbitrary content. I could change safety tips to be dangerous, put ad banners for arbitrary sites, a m@|) $|-|0\/t 0\/+ +0 |\/|y |-|0|\/|13z, or whatever.

    But even that's not the point.

    This is the point:

    Your user is an idiot. If you trust them with any data, whether it is formatting, security, or tracking, you are an idiot too. Idiots using an idiot-designed system = failure. This is because at least one of your users is going to enter something wrong. It will be by accident or by design, but something wrong will be entered. When that happens, your design will let you take one of two actions:

    1. Ignore the erroneous data.
    2. Take it up your bus.

    You should design so that Option 1 is what you always, always, choose. It's harder to implement, since you have to restrict ranges, validate users, and do a lot more work on your end. It's a lot easier to just say, "Hey, just make sure you only enter numbers. Oh, and don't enter too many or you'll overwrite the program." Otherwise, your bus is going to hurt all day, and nobody wants that.

    That's the point. The guy who wrote that website didn't have the slightest idea that the Internet has malicious users, and the managers didn't CARE that their website would be arbitrarily destroyed by spiders, spam crawlers, Lynx users, and cookie haters. Even after the site was destroyed, they didn't care enough to change it. Seriously. It's a complete CF.

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition. Someone drove off with my car. Oh well, I'll get another one." 

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, again. Someone drove off with my car, again. Oh well, I'll get another one, again."

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, again. Someone drove off with my car, again. Oh well, I'll get another one, again." 

    The problem is not car thieves. 

  • LRB (unregistered) in reply to Jason

    Anonymous:
    It would be less amusing if they had purposely set up Google. The fact is that Google caused them material damage. I think this would be a valid suit. Lets take a more mundane example. You remove the rear bumper of truck and replace it with an attractive facia. Someone rear-ends you and does much more damage than if you had a bumper present. They are still responsible for the damage even though you did something dumb.

     I think that there is a key flaw in you anology.  It is illegal in most cases to read-end someone.  Now say that you take out the bulbs of your tail lights and your headlights and decide to drive your car around at night.  You come to a sudden stop in the midedle of the road because you just remembered something that you wanted to write down on your grocery list.  Now the Google truck behind you doesn't realize that you're coming to a sudden stop because like a total dumbass you are driving your car without lights at night and your stop lights are disabled.  Google would actually have a good case to sue you for causing the accident.  But since Google wasn't damaged in the original scenario that analogy fails as well.

     How about this one.  I put a pan of grease on the stove in my house and turn the stove on high.  I then tie a one end of a string on to the pan and take the string out the front door and tie the other end onto a stake end the ground on the other side of the sidewalk from my house.  Google comes walking down the public sidewalk and doesn't notice the hard to see string and catches it on their foot pulling the pan of by now burning grease off the stove and onto my wood floor.  This starts a fire in my house costing several thousands of dollars of damage.  Now I want to sue Google for "causing" this disaster. 

     

  • GrandmasterB (cs)

    This is one of my favorite wtf's evar.

     

     

     

  • doc0tis (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    themagni:

    That's the point. The guy who wrote that website didn't have the slightest idea that the Internet has malicious users, and the managers didn't CARE that their website would be arbitrarily destroyed by spiders, spam crawlers, Lynx users, and cookie haters. Even after the site was destroyed, they didn't care enough to change it. Seriously. It's a complete CF.

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition. Someone drove off with my car. Oh well, I'll get another one." 

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, again. Someone drove off with my car, again. Oh well, I'll get another one, again."

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, again. Someone drove off with my car, again. Oh well, I'll get another one, again." 

    The problem is not car thieves. 

    I don't think this is an accurate analogy. I think it's more along these lines:

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, my doors unlocked and the car running. Someone drove off with my car. Oh well, I'll get another one." 

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, my doors unlocked and the car running, again. Someone drove off with my car, again. Oh well, I'll get another one, again."

    "Hey, I left my keys in the ignition, my doors unlocked and the car running, again. Someone drove off with my car, again. Oh well, I'll get another one, again." 

     

    Pretty close though.

     

    --doc0tis 

  • OneFactor (cs)

    Gollum: Web-Masssster is falsssse and trickssssey! Filthy javassssscriptsssesss.
    Smeagol: No, Maaaahster takes caaaaaare of us, and giiiiives us cooookies.
    Gollum: We will remove preciousssss content from Massster's Webssssite. Then we will haves preciousssss content for ourssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Noooo, it is tooooo riiiisky.
    Gollum: We could let HER do it! She will remove precioussss content from webssssite, and ssssince she doessss not want precioussss, then we will haves our birthday pressssent to oursssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Yeeees, feeeed websiiiiite to the spiiiiider!

  • Giovans (unregistered)

    "After all was said and done, Josh was able to restore a fairly older version of the site from backups. "

    But the original content was not lost. It has been assimilated by googleborg.
    *oogling after the evil <editing tags> can fetch back the site's undamaged content, or can have the effect of deleting Google itself, I suppose.

  • nop (unregistered) in reply to OneFactor
    OneFactor:

    Gollum: Web-Masssster is falsssse and trickssssey! Filthy javassssscriptsssesss.
    Smeagol: No, Maaaahster takes caaaaaare of us, and giiiiives us cooookies.
    Gollum: We will remove preciousssss content from Massster's Webssssite. Then we will haves preciousssss content for ourssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Noooo, it is tooooo riiiisky.
    Gollum: We could let HER do it! She will remove precioussss content from webssssite, and ssssince she doessss not want precioussss, then we will haves our birthday pressssent to oursssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Yeeees, feeeed websiiiiite to the spiiiiider!

    Wow. Funniest thing I've seen all week!
     

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Jason

    Anonymous:
    It would be less amusing if they had purposely set up Google. The fact is that Google caused them material damage. I think this would be a valid suit. Lets take a more mundane example. You remove the rear bumper of truck and replace it with an attractive facia. Someone rear-ends you and does much more damage than if you had a bumper present. They are still responsible for the damage even though you did something dumb.

    Yeah, good luck with that. This is like storing your valuables in your front yard with a luggage cart next to them. Sure, people aren't supposed to steal, but you haven't taken the least precaution to protect your stuff.

  • Tachyon (cs) in reply to OneFactor

    Don't Google will cache results too, so even if you did delete the links, it would still try to delete them again. I wonder if a certain variant of this will let Google post anonymous comments to a website, with or without quoting someone...

  • Ghost Ware Wizard (cs)

    oops!

    c:\del *.* -r -s

    < captcha: why not?? />

  • Kevin (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    themagni:

    Your user is an idiot. If you trust them with any data, whether it is formatting, security, or tracking, you are an idiot too. Idiots using an idiot-designed system = failure.

    Sounds like Wikipedia. :-P
     

  • cheesy (cs) in reply to Spurgle Rocklefink
    1) You shouldn't rely on client side scripting for any major functionality of your site, ESPECIALLY security. Client side security = oxymoron.

    2) GET requests shouldn't modify anything on the server, that's the job of POSTs.

    Say you have a poll on your page that uses GETs to submit the votes. Each time a bot visits your page and tried to follow a vote link it will count as a vote. Definitely not as bad as deleting content but still not so great.


    Even if you do use POSTs, don't rely on cookies to keep track of who's voted. Take this for example:

    http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Student_hurt_by_cannon_blast_at_football_game_Receives_numerous_threats

    Some football team's site got Dugg and someone wrote a quick little script to pound the site with tens of thousands of votes for "None" in the "How many games will you be attending this season" poll...

    while true; do curl -s -S -d mode=voteme -d id=4 -d vote=q5 http://www.snohomishfootball.com/index.php > /dev/null; date; done
  • Olddog (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    Your user is an idiot. If you trust them with any data, whether it is formatting, security, or tracking, you are an idiot too. Idiots using an idiot-designed system = failure. .....

    The guy who wrote that website didn't have the slightest idea that the Internet has malicious users, and the managers didn't CARE that their website would be arbitrarily destroyed by spiders, spam crawlers, Lynx users, and cookie haters. Even after the site was destroyed, they didn't care enough to change it. Seriously. It's a complete CF.

    Words... I can see you feel strongly about this. I agree. This was not a malicious user attack. This was a technology attack. A backdoor (programmer's short-cut) was left exposed, and a technology found it. Imagine that.

    The WTF is that the short-cut was a link or a web page itself. How lazy is that?.  - "let's build a web site with a Start Over button on it". Probably got cached. There was probably no worthy server side challenge, so the obient server did it's job.
     
    At first I was thinking that your response was a bit over the top (perhaps you needed a nap), But the more I digest it, the more I'm inclinded to think - the idiot was in fact just that.

    Perhaps this is simply technology's method of natural selection.

  • utu (cs) in reply to tiro
    tiro:

    You should also probably not implement your entire security layer on the client side and not use GET to perform horribly, horribly non-idempotent operations

    I hope you're not suggesting that GooogleBot can't do POST, since... believe it or not, it can.

    Of course, initially you're totally right - the client should never be trusted. Not on the Internet, and in the "real life" - even less so :)

  • Xandax (cs) in reply to utu

    It is unfortunate when it happens, but it does. All it takes is some seconds of confusion to ignore such a problem with a spider visiting the delete links.

  • Einsidler (cs) in reply to utu
    utu:

    I hope you're not suggesting that GooogleBot can't do POST, since... believe it or not, it can.

    Of course, initially you're totally right - the client should never be trusted. Not on the Internet, and in the "real life" - even less so :)

     IIRC, GoogleBot only follows hyperlinks but does not press buttons, and since POST is generally done with buttons in forms, Google won't delete the internet.

  • Wierenfest (cs) in reply to OneFactor
    OneFactor:

    Gollum: Web-Masssster is falsssse and trickssssey! Filthy javassssscriptsssesss.
    Smeagol: No, Maaaahster takes caaaaaare of us, and giiiiives us cooookies.
    Gollum: We will remove preciousssss content from Massster's Webssssite. Then we will haves preciousssss content for ourssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Noooo, it is tooooo riiiisky.
    Gollum: We could let HER do it! She will remove precioussss content from webssssite, and ssssince she doessss not want precioussss, then we will haves our birthday pressssent to oursssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Yeeees, feeeed websiiiiite to the spiiiiider!

     ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ...
     

  • channelspace (unregistered) in reply to Einsidler

    I think that's what has caused the issue here - with the website implementing change functionality (which included
    the option to delete pages altogether unfortunately) as part of GET requests which in turn led to the eventual
    disaster when the google master attempted an evening walk ;)

  • foxyshadis (cs) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    Your user is an idiot. If you trust them with any data, whether it is formatting, security, or tracking, you are an idiot too. Idiots using an idiot-designed system = failure. This is because at least one of your users is going to enter something wrong. It will be by accident or by design, but something wrong will be entered. When that happens, your design will let you take one of two actions:

    1. Ignore the erroneous data.
    2. Take it up your bus.

    I suppose Alex won't be amused that my first thought on reading this, is that it applies so well to tdwtf and community server. :p
     

  • Arancaytar (cs) in reply to utu

     

    I hope you're not suggesting that GooogleBot can't do POST, since... believe it or not, it can.

     

    I'll call it. Examples?

    There is no way any non-malicious spider uses POST, precisely to avoid this happening to sites that are coded *properly*. Only spambots use POST. 

     

  • AWKScooby (cs) in reply to channelspace
    Anonymous:

    I think that's what has caused the issue here - with the website implementing change functionality (which included
    the option to delete pages altogether unfortunately) as part of GET requests which in turn led to the eventual
    disaster when the google master attempted an evening walk ;)

    No, the huge problem here is that the site by default allows all actions, unless the person has been identified as not allowed, and they ask the untrusted client to remember that fact for them!  That's the WTF.  It's like a bank allowing anyone to walk into the vault, unless they have a name tag that says, "Not an Employee".  Sure, the guard at the front door (initial login page) is diligent about handing out name tags, but robbers are free to throw the tags away, or enter the building via an open window, or back door, etc...  Anyone who doesn't wear name tags due to religious beliefs (cookies disabled) also will not have such a name tag, and is free to roam the bank.

  • Zorawar Rai (unregistered) in reply to nop
    Anonymous:
    OneFactor:

    Gollum: Web-Masssster is falsssse and trickssssey! Filthy javassssscriptsssesss.
    Smeagol: No, Maaaahster takes caaaaaare of us, and giiiiives us cooookies.
    Gollum: We will remove preciousssss content from Massster's Webssssite. Then we will haves preciousssss content for ourssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Noooo, it is tooooo riiiisky.
    Gollum: We could let HER do it! She will remove precioussss content from webssssite, and ssssince she doessss not want precioussss, then we will haves our birthday pressssent to oursssselvessss.
    Smeagol: Yeeees, feeeed websiiiiite to the spiiiiider!

    Wow. Funniest thing I've seen all week!
     

     

    X2 mate! That was bloody hillarious. I almost spat out my breakfast as I was reading it. 

  • Benjamin Smith (unregistered)

    One more WTF: Why weren't there more current backups?

     

    What kind of retarded moron does MONTHS of work without backing it up, especially before going live?

     

    I have backups of my backups backed up, thank you. It'd take annhilation of four major US cities (or a very, very carefully coordinated "surgical strike") to leave me with backups more than a day or two old...
     

  • Keith Gaughan (can't be bothered to log in) (unregistered) in reply to tiro

    tiro:
    You should also probably not implement your entire security layer on the client side and not use GET to perform horribly, horribly non-idempotent operations.

    +1! Almost.

    What you really mean is that GET shouldn't be used for destructive operations. Deletes are idempotent but unsafe.

  • Keith Gaughan (can't be bothered to log in) (unregistered) in reply to AWKScooby
    AWKScooby:
    Anonymous:
    I think that's what has caused the issue here - with the website implementing change functionality (which included the option to delete pages altogether unfortunately) as part of GET requests which in turn led to the eventual disaster when the google master attempted an evening walk ;)
    No, the huge problem here is that the site by default allows all actions, unless the person has been identified as not allowed, and they ask the untrusted client to remember that fact for them!  That's the WTF.  It's like a bank allowing anyone to walk into the vault, unless they have a name tag that says, "Not an Employee".  Sure, the guard at the front door (initial login page) is diligent about handing out name tags, but robbers are free to throw the tags away, or enter the building via an open window, or back door, etc...  Anyone who doesn't wear name tags due to religious beliefs (cookies disabled) also will not have such a name tag, and is free to roam the bank.
    Actually, you're both right. There are two WTFs in this, namely that (a) they implemented unsafe operations using a HTTP method that's supposed to be safe, and that (b) the application was not built to be secure by default.
  • gwenhwyfaer (cs) in reply to Jason

    'Jason':
    The fact is that Google caused them material damage. I think this would be a valid suit.

    You've just given out legal advice, 'Jason'. I do hope you're a lawyer.

    Of course, since you're building an argument from an analogy with an obvious flaw, and not supporting your legal advice with case or statutory support, you're clearly not a very good lawyer.

  • Olddog (unregistered) in reply to gwenhwyfaer
    gwenhwyfaer:

    'Jason':
    The fact is that Google caused them material damage. I think this would be a valid suit.

    You've just given out legal advice, 'Jason'. I do hope you're a lawyer.

    Of course, since you're building an argument from an analogy with an obvious flaw, and not supporting your legal advice with case or statutory support, you're clearly not a very good lawyer.

    You might be a Lawyer? The fact remains. The bot did the damage (as proven).  Where else, but the courts should this be argued? 

    If my robotic lawn-mower ( on it's own ) somehow finds it's way into my neighbors fence-less garden, I'm safe... right? It's a robot. Or... am I responsible for it's actions?

  • newfweiler (cs) in reply to gwenhwyfaer
    gwenhwyfaer:

    'Jason':
    The fact is that Google caused them material damage. I think this would be a valid suit.

    You've just given out legal advice, 'Jason'. I do hope you're a lawyer.

    Of course, since you're building an argument from an analogy with an obvious flaw, and not supporting your legal advice with case or statutory support, you're clearly not a very good lawyer.

    Of course he's not a lawyer!  Since when does a lawyer give out legal advice for free?

     

Leave a comment on “Best of 2006: The Spider of Doom”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article