Ticket #133 (new defect)

Opened 6 months ago

Last modified 6 months ago

Security Through Obscurity

Reported by: John Assigned to:
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: web - Photos Version: Zooomr 2008 (Mark IV)
Keywords: URL hack security obscurity permissions all sizes private Cc:

Description

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


There's a glaring security hole in the way permissions are done with photos. 
If I have a photo locked down so only I can see it, that means only I should
be able to see it.  Not me and whoever else has the URL to the photo.
Flickr actually handles this very well, with guest passes and things like
that to allow specific non-users to see images people would otherwise not
want the general public to see.  Another part to this is the sizes.  I don't
want anything higher than the medium size available, but as it is now,
providing people with a link to the medium size might as well be providing
them with the links to all sizes, as all they need to do is append letters
to the end and they get what they want.  This wouldn't matter if I could set
up an option to not allow people to access those sizes, and have them
blocked even if they get the URL right.  I realize that I can limit the
damage by not giving out URLs to private images and only uploading a maximum
height or width of 500px, but that doesn't change the fact that the way it's
done now is wrong, and needs to be fixed.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH0g5MR+qfHKe01Q4RAsbiAKCuKl+0ApZHOo06q+Iwcq6U/zT1cwCfbrZV
wFc+YURYU6dRPkEVc4ob8QI=
=CGYu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Attachments

Change History

03/08/08 20:19:43 changed by Overkill

As far as I can see, this is true for the large version (1024x768) of a photo. However the URL of the photo's original version (whatever size you uploaded) cannot be deduced from the URLs of smaller versions since the second part of the filename (the string after the first underscore) is different.

Nonetheless I agree with you that private photos should be protected by other means than an unknown URL.

03/09/08 07:14:19 changed by ignorant

Since when has Flickr access control at the file level? Honest question. Agree though that it has to be desired.


Add/Change #133 (Security Through Obscurity)




Change Properties
Action