[gofetch.git] / test / expected / SLASHDOT / 0102639752

    400,000 WEBSITES VULNERABLE THROUGH EXPOSED .GIT DIRECTORIES   \r
                          (SCMAGAZINE.COM)                         \r
\r
  Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (msmash)\r
  from the security-woes dept.\r
\r
  o Reference: 0102639752\r
  o News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1954253/400000-websites-vulnerable-through-exposed-git-directories\r
  o Source link: https://www.scmagazine.com/home/news/400000-websites-vulnerable-through-exposed-git-directories/\r
\r
\r
    Open  .git  directories are a bigger cybersecurity problem than\r
    many  might  imagine,  at  least  according to a Czech security\r
    researcher  who  discovered  almost  400,000  web pages with an\r
    open  .git  directory possibly exposing a wide variety of data.\r
    From  a  report:  Vladimir  Smitka  began  his  .git  directory\r
    odyssey  in  July  when  he  began looking at Czech websites to\r
    find  how  many  were improperly configured and allow access to\r
    their  .git  folders  within the file versions repository. Open\r
    .git  directories  are a particularly dangerous issue, he said,\r
    because   they   can   contain   a   great  deal  of  sensitive\r
    information.  "Information  about  the website's structure, and\r
    sometimes  you  can  get  very  sensitive data such as database\r
    passwords,  API  keys,  development  IDE  settings,  and so on.\r
    However,  this  data shouldn't be stored in the repository, but\r
    in  previous  scans  of  various  security issues, I have found\r
    many  developers  that  do  not  follow  these best practices,"\r
    Smitka  wrote.  Smitka queried 230 million websites to discover\r
    the  390,000  allowing  access  to  their .git directories. The\r
    vast  majority of the websites with open directories had a .com\r
    TLD with .net, .de, .org and uk comprising most of the others.\r
\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2, Informative)\r
        (by MidSpeck ( 1516577 ))\r
\r
        \r
        ^/.*/\.git/\r
        Protect git repositories in all subdirectories as well.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by jrumney ( 197329 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Why stop there? Are there any dot files/directories that need\r
        to be served over HTTP?\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: .htaccess (Score:3)\r
        (by spongman ( 182339 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Why doesn't Apache block all '.'-prefixed directories by\r
        default?\r
\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** Re:https://slashdot.org/.git (Score:4, Informative)\r
        (by ls671 ( 1122017 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Slashdot is still using CVS try [1]https://slashdot.org/CVS/\r
        [slashdot.org]\r
        you will see, it works!  :)\r
        \r
        \r
        \r
        \r
        [1] https://slashdot.org/CVS/\r
\r
\r
  ** Your central git repo ... (Score:1)\r
     (by Qbertino ( 265505 ))\r
\r
     \r
     ... belongs behind ssh or, at least, behind http access and SSL.\r
     If I catch you doing otherwise for anything other than FOSS\r
     software I'll smack you. Hard.\r
\r
     ** Re:Your central git repo ... (Score:4, Informative)\r
        (by tlhIngan ( 30335 ))\r
\r
        \r
        > ... belongs behind ssh or, at least, behind http access and\r
        > SSL.\r
        > If I catch you doing otherwise for anything other than FOSS\r
        > software I'll smack you. Hard.\r
        And it probably is. The thing is, the website owners are\r
        using git to version control and deploy their website (not a\r
        bad idea). So they develop their web site, push it to the\r
        central git repo, and whenever they need to go live, they\r
        just do a "git pull" on the webserver and it'll pull down the\r
        latest version of the website.\r
        Problem is, they forget about the hidden  .git directory git\r
        makes that stores all sorts of useful information and with a\r
        little persistence, allow you access to the raw source code\r
        since you can access the individual git objects. (Or maybe\r
        even clone it using git).\r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:2)\r
           (by jrumney ( 197329 ))\r
\r
           \r
           I do this, it is very convenient for deploying updates to\r
           the site. But I always put the web interface into a\r
           subdirectory, and only configure the web server to see\r
           that so the  .git directory is not visible over HTTP. And\r
           dotfiles and directories are blocked in the webserver\r
           config for extra protection against accidental inclusion\r
           of invisible files.\r
\r
\r
\r
  ** reheating yesterday's food (Score:3)\r
     (by Tsolias ( 2813011 ))\r
\r
     \r
     just an article from 2015 [1]https://en.internetwache.org/d...\r
     [internetwache.org]\r
     I can give you also next year's article about  .file\r
     vulnerabilities. (spoiler alert)\r
     [2]https://en.internetwache.org/s... [internetwache.org]\r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     [1]\r
     https://en.internetwache.org/dont-publicly-expose-git-or-how-we-\r
     downloaded-your-websites-sourcecode-an-analysis-of-alexas-1m-28-\r
     07-2015/\r
     [2]\r
     https://en.internetwache.org/scanning-the-alexa-top-1m-for-ds-st-\r
     ore-files-12-03-2018/\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** KKK (Score:2)\r
        (by Tsolias ( 2813011 ))\r
\r
        \r
        > Thats what you get on hiring those bootcamp "graduates"\r
        Kode w/ Karlie Kloss, like it or not.\r
\r
\r
  ** Alternate headline: 99.8% websites are OK (Score:2)\r
     (by jmichaelg ( 148257 ))\r
\r
     \r
     230 million websites. 400k poorly configured. 4*10^5/2.3*10^8 is\r
     less than 0.2% of websites surveyed screwed this up.\r
     400k is a big number but it's good to know most developers\r
     aren't that stupid on this issue.\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** Re: yarn dist (Score:2)\r
        (by TimMD909 ( 260285 ))\r
\r
        \r
        ... Equifax types for free security tests from 3rd parties\r
        and press coverage, presumably...\r
\r
\r
  ** So? (Score:2)\r
     (by cshark ( 673578 ))\r
\r
     \r
     An open git directory will be everything you need to reconstruct\r
     the site, more often than not from the same server you're\r
     targeting. Scary. Database servers are rarely open. Short of\r
     some serious hacking, there isn't a lot you're going to be able\r
     to do with this stuff once you've obtained the information\r
     you're waving around here.\r
     Until such time as I see hackers actually logging in with this\r
     information and defacing github, I'm going to remain unconvinced\r
     of the severity of this one.\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by OrangeTide ( 124937 ))\r
\r
        \r
        My website's  .git directories are open intentionally. Makes\r
        for convenient mirroring and viewing of archives without\r
        having to hope and pray wayback machine picked up my obscure\r
        website.\r
        I'm not too worried. It's just data on the filesystem, it's\r
        not executing programs. And the data is not supposed to\r
        contain any secrets. If it ever does then I better rewrite my\r
        git history.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:1)\r
        (by Anonymous Coward)\r
\r
        \r
        The most likely actual security implication is hard coded\r
        keys to 3rd party APIs.\r
        Not that this is an inevitable threat, itâ(TM)s just\r
        something I could see being inadvertently exposed and useful\r
        without much additional effort.\r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:1)\r
           (by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ))\r
\r
           \r
           > itâ(TM)s\r
           Clear something up, are you typing curly\r
           quotes/apostrophes on purpose or do you have your browser\r
           configured to automatically do that.\r
\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by jonwil ( 467024 ))\r
\r
        \r
        What about if that  .git folder (and the website's source\r
        code) included private keys for stuff. Or credentials/API\r
        keys for 3rd party services. Or credentials for database and\r
        other servers.\r
\r
\r
\r
Commit	Line	Data
299a08f3 NR	1	400,000 WEBSITES VULNERABLE THROUGH EXPOSED .GIT DIRECTORIES \r
	2	(SCMAGAZINE.COM) \r
	3	\r
	4	Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (msmash)\r
	5	from the security-woes dept.\r
	6	\r
c715ea02	7	o Reference: 0102639752\r
299a08f3 NR	8	o News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1954253/400000-websites-vulnerable-through-exposed-git-directories\r
	9	o Source link: https://www.scmagazine.com/home/news/400000-websites-vulnerable-through-exposed-git-directories/\r
	10	\r
	11	\r
	12	Open .git directories are a bigger cybersecurity problem than\r
	13	many might imagine, at least according to a Czech security\r
	14	researcher who discovered almost 400,000 web pages with an\r
	15	open .git directory possibly exposing a wide variety of data.\r
	16	From a report: Vladimir Smitka began his .git directory\r
	17	odyssey in July when he began looking at Czech websites to\r
	18	find how many were improperly configured and allow access to\r
	19	their .git folders within the file versions repository. Open\r
	20	.git directories are a particularly dangerous issue, he said,\r
	21	because they can contain a great deal of sensitive\r
	22	information. "Information about the website's structure, and\r
	23	sometimes you can get very sensitive data such as database\r
	24	passwords, API keys, development IDE settings, and so on.\r
	25	However, this data shouldn't be stored in the repository, but\r
	26	in previous scans of various security issues, I have found\r
	27	many developers that do not follow these best practices,"\r
	28	Smitka wrote. Smitka queried 230 million websites to discover\r
	29	the 390,000 allowing access to their .git directories. The\r
	30	vast majority of the websites with open directories had a .com\r
	31	TLD with .net, .de, .org and uk comprising most of the others.\r
	32	\r
	33	\r
	34	** \r
	35	\r
	36	** Re: (Score:2, Informative)\r
	37	(by MidSpeck ( 1516577 ))\r
	38	\r
	39	\r
	40	^/.*/\.git/\r
	41	Protect git repositories in all subdirectories as well.\r
	42	\r
	43	\r
	44	** Re: (Score:2)\r
	45	(by jrumney ( 197329 ))\r
	46	\r
	47	\r
	48	Why stop there? Are there any dot files/directories that need\r
	49	to be served over HTTP?\r
	50	\r
	51	\r
	52	** Re: .htaccess (Score:3)\r
	53	(by spongman ( 182339 ))\r
	54	\r
	55	\r
	56	Why doesn't Apache block all '.'-prefixed directories by\r
	57	default?\r
	58	\r
	59	\r
	60	** \r
	61	\r
	62	** Re:https://slashdot.org/.git (Score:4, Informative)\r
	63	(by ls671 ( 1122017 ))\r
	64	\r
	65	\r
	66	Slashdot is still using CVS try [1]https://slashdot.org/CVS/\r
	67	[slashdot.org]\r
	68	you will see, it works! :)\r
	69	\r
	70	\r
	71	\r
72	\r
73	[1] https://slashdot.org/CVS/\r
74	\r
75	\r
76	** Your central git repo ... (Score:1)\r
77	(by Qbertino ( 265505 ))\r
78	\r
79	\r
80	... belongs behind ssh or, at least, behind http access and SSL.\r
81	If I catch you doing otherwise for anything other than FOSS\r
82	software I'll smack you. Hard.\r
83	\r
84	** Re:Your central git repo ... (Score:4, Informative)\r
85	(by tlhIngan ( 30335 ))\r
86	\r
87	\r
88	> ... belongs behind ssh or, at least, behind http access and\r
89	> SSL.\r
90	> If I catch you doing otherwise for anything other than FOSS\r
91	> software I'll smack you. Hard.\r
92	And it probably is. The thing is, the website owners are\r
93	using git to version control and deploy their website (not a\r
94	bad idea). So they develop their web site, push it to the\r
95	central git repo, and whenever they need to go live, they\r
96	just do a "git pull" on the webserver and it'll pull down the\r
97	latest version of the website.\r
98	Problem is, they forget about the hidden .git directory git\r
99	makes that stores all sorts of useful information and with a\r
100	little persistence, allow you access to the raw source code\r
101	since you can access the individual git objects. (Or maybe\r
102	even clone it using git).\r
103	\r
104	** Re: (Score:2)\r
105	(by jrumney ( 197329 ))\r
106	\r
107	\r
108	I do this, it is very convenient for deploying updates to\r
109	the site. But I always put the web interface into a\r
110	subdirectory, and only configure the web server to see\r
111	that so the .git directory is not visible over HTTP. And\r
112	dotfiles and directories are blocked in the webserver\r
113	config for extra protection against accidental inclusion\r
114	of invisible files.\r
115	\r
116	\r
117	\r
118	** reheating yesterday's food (Score:3)\r
119	(by Tsolias ( 2813011 ))\r
120	\r
121	\r
122	just an article from 2015 [1]https://en.internetwache.org/d...\r
123	[internetwache.org]\r
124	I can give you also next year's article about .file\r
125	vulnerabilities. (spoiler alert)\r
126	[2]https://en.internetwache.org/s... [internetwache.org]\r
127	\r
128	\r
129	\r
130	\r
131	[1]\r
132	https://en.internetwache.org/dont-publicly-expose-git-or-how-we-\r
133	downloaded-your-websites-sourcecode-an-analysis-of-alexas-1m-28-\r
134	07-2015/\r
135	[2]\r
136	https://en.internetwache.org/scanning-the-alexa-top-1m-for-ds-st-\r
137	ore-files-12-03-2018/\r
138	\r
139	** \r
140	\r
141	** KKK (Score:2)\r
142	(by Tsolias ( 2813011 ))\r
143	\r
144	\r
145	> Thats what you get on hiring those bootcamp "graduates"\r
146	Kode w/ Karlie Kloss, like it or not.\r
147	\r
148	\r
149	** Alternate headline: 99.8% websites are OK (Score:2)\r
150	(by jmichaelg ( 148257 ))\r
151	\r
152	\r
153	230 million websites. 400k poorly configured. 410^5/2.310^8 is\r
154	less than 0.2% of websites surveyed screwed this up.\r
155	400k is a big number but it's good to know most developers\r
156	aren't that stupid on this issue.\r
157	\r
158	** \r
159	\r
160	** Re: yarn dist (Score:2)\r
161	(by TimMD909 ( 260285 ))\r
162	\r
163	\r
164	... Equifax types for free security tests from 3rd parties\r
165	and press coverage, presumably...\r
166	\r
167	\r
168	** So? (Score:2)\r
169	(by cshark ( 673578 ))\r
170	\r
171	\r
172	An open git directory will be everything you need to reconstruct\r
173	the site, more often than not from the same server you're\r
174	targeting. Scary. Database servers are rarely open. Short of\r
175	some serious hacking, there isn't a lot you're going to be able\r
176	to do with this stuff once you've obtained the information\r
177	you're waving around here.\r
178	Until such time as I see hackers actually logging in with this\r
179	information and defacing github, I'm going to remain unconvinced\r
180	of the severity of this one.\r
181	\r
182	** Re: (Score:2)\r
183	(by OrangeTide ( 124937 ))\r
184	\r
185	\r
186	My website's .git directories are open intentionally. Makes\r
187	for convenient mirroring and viewing of archives without\r
188	having to hope and pray wayback machine picked up my obscure\r
189	website.\r
190	I'm not too worried. It's just data on the filesystem, it's\r
191	not executing programs. And the data is not supposed to\r
192	contain any secrets. If it ever does then I better rewrite my\r
193	git history.\r
194	\r
195	\r
196	** Re: (Score:1)\r
197	(by Anonymous Coward)\r
198	\r
199	\r
200	The most likely actual security implication is hard coded\r
201	keys to 3rd party APIs.\r
202	Not that this is an inevitable threat, itâ(TM)s just\r
203	something I could see being inadvertently exposed and useful\r
204	without much additional effort.\r
205	\r
206	** Re: (Score:1)\r
207	(by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ))\r
208	\r
209	\r
210	> itâ(TM)s\r
211	Clear something up, are you typing curly\r
212	quotes/apostrophes on purpose or do you have your browser\r
213	configured to automatically do that.\r
214	\r
215	\r
216	\r
217	** Re: (Score:2)\r
218	(by jonwil ( 467024 ))\r
219	\r
220	\r
221	What about if that .git folder (and the website's source\r
222	code) included private keys for stuff. Or credentials/API\r
223	keys for 3rd party services. Or credentials for database and\r
224	other servers.\r
225	\r
226	\r
227	\r