From: ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA <AGRAPA@banamex.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: SSL weakness affecting links from pa
Message-ID: <c=MX%a=_%p=BANACCI%l=CENTRALES/BARRANCA24/0001600D@mex3976bcaop1.banamex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Tom Weinstein wrote:

>This particular feature (the HTTP referer header) has nothing to do with
>corporations "having their way" with users.  It was created so that web
>authors could put "back" buttons on their pages.  The security problem
>arises when stupid CGI authors use GET forms to transfer sensitive
>information.  This is a security hole in the web site, not in the
>browser.  The browser follows the HTTP specification.  If you have a
>problem with that, contact the author of that specification.  Or, better
>yet, contact the web site (as far as I know, there are none) that has
>this security hole.

Stupid programmers abound even in large corporations. Bugs, patches and
security holes are now normal everyday things. I agree with Toto.
Companies should take more responsability in the programs they produce.
Especially nowadays when a lot of people without any computer background
or insight into the dangers are accessing the Net. Why does Netscape
(and microsoft) warn users about secure and insecure forms? So they can
say "I told you so!" when you get screwed by someone. Same thing goes
for the GET method. Whatever a "stupid CGI author" does has little
bearing on the issue. It's like saying the tire fell off my car because
the person who built the road to spec ("GET" is allowed) is to blame not
the car maker. I should be warned about certain roads by the car maker.
If "GET" is allowed but unsecure YOU should warn me!

Admit it! It did not occur to your programmers to warn about access to
"GET" forms like it occurred to them to warn about http references
inside a https-accessed document. Now we have to live with it.

And you say "stupid CGI authors". What if they did it on purpose? Are
you going to say "then its stupid web users"? I'd really like to hear
you say that in public!

>In the eyes of some, the referer header is a privacy violation.  It
>allows a site to see what site you visited before coming there.  In the
>case of Navigator, we ONLY send the referer header when you click on a
>link.  Not when you select a bookmark.  Not when you type a URL into the
>location field.  This allows web sites to see who links to them.  I
>think that's something that a web author is entitled to know.

NO WAY! The web author is NOT entitled to know where I came from. So if
you go to Sears the saleperson is entitled to know you came from
JCPenney's? If so, then I am just as much entitled to not tell him or at
least entitled to know that there's a sign on my back that says where I
came from. How many web users are aware of the HTTP REFERRER header? Not
many, especially if they have not read the specs or looked at the logs
from a web server. As an adminsitrator I AM NOT ENTITLED to that info.

>So, you think we're doing something bad.  Why don't you tell me what
>you think we should do?

Accept responsibility?  Ok, that's wishful thinking. How about not
blaming others? How about warning your users? You didn't do it in this
case. If you do then you can say "I told you so!"

Art Grapa
agrapa@banamex.com