What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidently or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(most embarassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that: this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url historical
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidently or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(most embarassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that: this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url historical
New contributor
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
1 hour ago
"my little pony" Since it's not capitalized, are you literally referring to your little pony?
– Acccumulation
6 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidently or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(most embarassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that: this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url historical
New contributor
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidently or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(most embarassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that: this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url historical
web-browser url historical
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
Joe
1164
1164
New contributor
New contributor
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
1 hour ago
"my little pony" Since it's not capitalized, are you literally referring to your little pony?
– Acccumulation
6 mins ago
add a comment |
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
1 hour ago
"my little pony" Since it's not capitalized, are you literally referring to your little pony?
– Acccumulation
6 mins ago
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
1 hour ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
1 hour ago
"my little pony" Since it's not capitalized, are you literally referring to your little pony?
– Acccumulation
6 mins ago
"my little pony" Since it's not capitalized, are you literally referring to your little pony?
– Acccumulation
6 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
2
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
2
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
7
down vote
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
edited 26 mins ago
answered 3 hours ago
schroeder♦
72.2k29157192
72.2k29157192
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
2
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
1 hour ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@schroeder - I think you probably have the key point - what would make this a really great answer for me is a couple of examples of like 'news story were site was critised for leakage' or 'famous site has this url flaw briefly'
– Joe
58 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@Joe OWASP has an official page for this (added to my answer) and the use of URL parameters was so widespread that I'm not even sure that it would be "newsworthy". It's just considered really poor practice.
– schroeder♦
25 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
@thepip3r added a note, thanks!
– schroeder♦
23 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
answered 2 hours ago
McMatty
2,4851213
2,4851213
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
2
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
2
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
2
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
2
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
edited 2 hours ago
AndrolGenhald
8,98241831
8,98241831
answered 2 hours ago
Vini7
543412
543412
2
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
2
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
2
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
2
2
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
2 hours ago
2
2
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
bashCypher
662111
662111
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
add a comment |
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
22 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
2 mins ago
add a comment |
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199557%2fwhat-attacks-are-made-possible-by-public-release-of-my-web-history%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
2 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
1 hour ago
"my little pony" Since it's not capitalized, are you literally referring to your little pony?
– Acccumulation
6 mins ago