4 ms·
But that's all delicately balanced on trusting the Via headers. If you are under attack from someone malicious then that seems unwise. It's like relying on th
by dingaling 8y ago
But that's all delicately balanced on trusting the Via headers. If you are under attack from someone malicious then that seems unwise.
It's like relying on the From: header in an e-mail.
- AstralStorm 8y agoThe proper check is in routing tables and/or firewalls.
- parenthephobia 8y ago> If you are under attack If. Much, if not most, server software is written under the implicit assumption that it will not be under attack.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jessaustin 8y agoIf other CDNs are removing your Via header, then other CDNs are the adversary, but now we're in Crazy Town because in that case they are DOSing themselves as much as they are DOSing you. The threat discussed here is from malicious CDN customers.
- meowface 8y agoBut these particular Via headers are applied by the CDNs, not by an end user.
- zaarn 8y agoThat's not the point here. It's an adversary getting two CDNs to loop eachother and launching an attack that way. If CDN A proxies requests to CDN B and CDN B proxies requests to CDN A then those two will DoS eachother fairly quickly. There is no attacker inbetween to strip the Via, that would be counterproductive to the attack. Email has this too; the Received: header. If you manage to get a loop between two MTAs going they will detect it by seeing themselves in the Received: header list.