Technology

37720 readers

539 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

0.0.0.0 Day - 18 Yr Old Vulnerability Let Attackers Bypass All Browser Security (cybersecuritynews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

While I agree, it makes connecting to localhost as easy as http://0:8080/ (for port 8080, but omit for port 80).

I worry that changing this will cause more CVEs like the octal IP addresses incident.

Edit: looks like it's only being blocked for outgoing requests from websites, which seems like it'll have a much more reasonable impact.

Edit 2: skimming through these PRs, at least for WebKit, I don't see tests for shorthand IPs like 0 (and no Apple device to test with). What are the chances they missed those..?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

it makes connecting to localhost as easy as http://0:8080/ (for port 8080, but omit for port 80).

The thing is that it's not supposed to work, so it's essentially relying on undefined behaviour. Typing [::1]:8080 is nearly as easy.

skimming through these PRs, at least for WebKit, I don't see tests for shorthand IPs like 0 (and no Apple device to test with). What are the chances they missed those..?

I haven't seen the PRs, but IP comparison should really be using the binary form of the IPv4 address (a 32-bit number), not the human-friendly form.