Posted on
by

Net neutrality, the principle that all data flowing over the internet is treated equally, sounds like a rather dry and technical subject. But, it is important.

Net neutrality is the reason why the internet is such fertile ground for innovation – anyone with a good idea can compete, on merit, and overturn an established player. It lets little news outlets go toe to toe with the big boys, which is important for our democracy.

Ending net neutrality would mean that big companies and media organisations would be able to pay a fee in order to secure their dominant position and to squeeze out competition – meaning fewer voices, higher prices and worse services for you.

While this is ostensibly a US problem, when the US sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold, and the internet is global.

Write to the FCC

Posted on
by

Anyone who has done any development with PHP will be familiar with the infamous White Screen of Death; a blank browser window indicating that something horrible has gone wrong. A common cause, for me at least, is making a method call on a null object – easy to do in an object oriented architecture.

The exact reason as to why your script has gone splat will be reported in the log file, but from a UX standpoint, giving a blank screen to your customers is far from ideal. It is particularly problematic in complicated platforms like Elgg and Known, which use output buffering and have a plugin architecture.

Here’s a quick bit of code which can catch many (all?) of these fatal errors, and at least echo something. A variation of this is already in Known. Place the code somewhere towards the start of your script…

register_shutdown_function(function () {
        $error = error_get_last();
        if ($error["type"] == E_ERROR) {
            
            // If you use output buffering, chuck away any existing buffer
            ob_clean();

            // Set an appropriate HTTP error code
            http_response_code(500);

            // Construct your error message
            $error_message = "Fatal Error: {$error['file']}:{$error['line']} - \"{$error['message']}\", on page {$_SERVER['SERVER_NAME']}{$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']}";

            // Display a friendly message to your customers, giving them an option to email you about it!
            echo "
Sorry, FizzBuzz experienced a problem!
";
            echo "FizzBuzz experienced a problem with this page and couldn't continue. The technical details are as follows:
";
            echo "$error_message";
            echo "
If you like, you can email us for more information
.";

            // You'll also want to write the error to your log
            error_log($error_message);

            exit;
        }
});

Hope this is useful to you!

Posted on
by

In this post I’m going to discuss a potential attack, using a common method of implementing webmention comments on a site, that can allow an attacker to obtain visitor information from a third party site, and to possibly launch drive-by attacks.

This came about from a discussion related to retrieving non-TLS protected resources from a TLS protected site, and it got me thinking that the problem went a little deeper.

The Attack

A common way of handling webmentions on an Indieweb site, such as those powered by Known, is as follows:

  1. Alice writes an comment on her site, and references Bob’s post
  2. Alice sends a webmention to Bob’s site referencing the URL of her comment, and the post she’s referring to.
  3. Bob’s site retrieves Alice’s comment & parses it for Microformats markup
  4. If all things check out, Bob’s site then renders the comment using text, profile url and profile icon information obtained from Alice’s site.

It is step 4 that’s the problem here.

Typically, when the webmention is parsed and rendered by Bob, the site software will attempt to construct a nice looking comment. To do this, the site software will typically render an avatar icon, together with a user name, next to the comment. This information is obtained by parsing MF2 data from Alice’s site, and while the Webmention spec says that content should be sanitised for XSS etc, profile icons are often overlooked – a URL is fairly innocuous, so it’s generally just dropped into an img tag.

Now, if Alice was evil, she could, for example, configure her server to send “in the past” cache headers when her server served her avatar. This would mean that her server logs would then start collecting some detailed traffic information about the visitors of the page she webmentioned, since every visitor’s browser would retrieve a new copy of her profile icon.

She could, if she was very smart (or was a well funded government agency sitting on a whole bunch of zero day browser exploits) serve specially crafted content designed to trigger a buffer overflow in a specific visitor’s browser at this point.

Worse, she could do this even if the entire site was protected by TLS.

Mitigation

The simplest way to prevent this kind of exploit is not to render profile icons from webmentions. This is, however, a sub-optimal solution.

My current thinking is that Bob’s site (the site receiving and rendering the webmention) should, when receiving the webmention, fetch and cache the profile icon and serve it locally from his server.

This would prevent Alice from performing much in the way of traffic analysis since her server would only be hit for the original request. If you server re-samples the image as well (to enforce a specific size, for example) then the process would likely do much to strip any potential hidden nasties embedded in the file.

There is a DoS potential to this, but techniques for mitigating DoS for webmention/MF2 parsing have already been discussed in the Webmention spec.

Anyway… thoughts?