4 ms·
This change can't come soon enough. My only objection is that the rollout is way too slow, and the first step is only a baby step. What we have now is essential
by _qulr 6y ago
This change can't come soon enough. My only objection is that the rollout is way too slow, and the first step is only a baby step. What we have now is essential a 0day situation.
Unfortunately a lot of commenters completely misunderstand the proposal, as well as the attacks it is designed to mitigate. Here's a good paper describing the issue, "Attacking the internal network from the public Internet using a browser as a proxy":
https://www.forcepoint.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/report-attacking-internal-network-en_0.pdf https://www.forcepoint.com/sites/default/files/resources/fil...
The "HTTPS" part of Google's proposal is a bit of a red herring, as I said, only a baby step. It does not mean that your local services have to be https. It just means that public http sites can't make requests to local IP addresses.
- duskwuff 6y ago> The "HTTPS" part of Google's proposal is a bit of a red herring, as I said, only a baby step. It's in there for the same reason that risky APIs like geolocation require HTTPS -- so that injecting content into an insecure HTTP transaction cannot allow an attacker to hijack a trusted HTTP site's permissions.
- _qulr 6y agoSure. But we've seen cases where so-called "trusted" https sites such as ebay are probing your LAN, so the fundamental problem remains. https://nullsweep.com/why-is-this-website-port-scanning-me/ https://nullsweep.com/why-is-this-website-port-scanning-me/