4 ms·
You would point the application at the local port. It operates very similarly to SSH port forwarding. No fancy magic to intercept all traffic.
by armon 6y ago
You would point the application at the local port. It operates very similarly to SSH port forwarding. No fancy magic to intercept all traffic.
- philsnow 6y agomostly copy-pasta from an earlier comment[0] of mine: https://github.com/99designs/aws-vault/issues/578 https://github.com/99designs/aws-vault/issues/578 was for an issue with remote servers accessing the localhost ec2 metadata service that aws-vault can run, that worked exactly by using DNS rebinding. It was fixed only months ago, so it seems like this is a developing area and if I were on a red team or pen testing, I would play around with more. I visualize the "localhost hole" problem of blindly trusting localhost as an air gap in a pipe (like [0]); anybody could come along and either drop poison in the pipe, or redirect the water coming from the top to their own bucket, or both. I appreciate that Boundary gives completely generic identity-aware-authenticated TCP sockets, but I don't know of a way, today, to make those not accessible to browsers through dns rebinding attacks. This is probably much much too far in the weeds and this is unlikely to contribute to a major breach (unlike the aws-vault one where of course attackers would try to access the fake metadata service on the default port, because it's high-value and on a well-known port), but I'm interested in the space. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23265509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23265509 [1] https://districtsales.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/tru-gap-2.jpg https://districtsales.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/tru-gap-...