Re: Google's robot.txt handling

[Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Mario Vilas <mvilas () gmail com> wrote:
> I think we can all agree this is not a vulnerability. Still, I have yet to
> see an argument saying why what the OP is proposing is a bad idea. It may be
> a good idea to stop indexing robots.txt to mitigate the faults of lazy or
> incompetent admins (Google already does this for many specific search
> queries) and there's not much point in indexing the robots.txt file for
> legitimate uses anyway.
I kind of agree here. The information is valuable for the
reconnaissance phase of an attack, buts its not a vulnerability per
se. But what is to stop the attacker from fetching it himself/herself
since its at a known location for all sites? In this case, Google
would be removing aggregated search results (which means the attacker
would have to compile it himself/herself).

Google removed other interesting searches, such as social security
numbers and credit card numbers (or does not provide them to the
general public).

Jeff

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Scott Ferguson
> <scott.ferguson.it.consulting () gmail com> wrote:
> > > If I understand the OP correctly, he is not stating that listing
> > > something
> > > in robots.txt would make it inaccessible, but rather that Google indexes
> > > the robots.txt files themselves,
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > Well, um, yeah - I got that.
> >
> > So you are what, proposing that moving an open door back a few
> > centimetres solves the (non) problem?
> >
> > Take your proposal to it's logical extension and stop all search engines
> > (especially the ones that don't respect robots.txt) from indexing
> > robots.txt. Now what do you do about Nutch or even some perl script that
> > anyone can whip up in 2 minutes?
> >
> > Security through obscurity is fine when couple with actual security -
> > but relying on it alone is just daft.
> >
> > Expecting to world to change so bad habits have no consequence is
> > dangerously naive.
> >
> > I suspect you're looking to hard at finding fault with Google - who are
> > complying with the robots.txt. Read the spec. - it's about not following
> > the listed directories, not about not listing the robots.txt.  Next
> > you'll want laws against bad weather and furniture with sharp corners.
> >
> > Don't put things you don't want seen to see in places that can be seen.
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Scott Ferguson <
> > > scott.ferguson.it.consulting () gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >     /From/: Hurgel Bumpf <l0rd_lunatic () yahoo com>
> > >     /Date/: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:25:39 +0000 (GMT)
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >     Hi list,
> > >
> > >
> > >     i tried to contact google, but as they didn't answer my email,  i do
> > >
> > > forward this to FD.
> > >
> > >     This "security" feature is not cleary a google vulnerability, but
> > >
> > > exposes websites informations that are not really
> > >
> > >     intended to be public.
> > >
> > >     Conan the bavarian
> > >
> > > Your point eludes me - Google is indexing something which is publicly
> > > available. eg.:- curl http://somesite.tld/robots.txt
> > > So it seems the solution to the "question" your raise is, um,
> > > nonsensical.
> > >
> > > If you don't want something exposed on your web server *don't publish
> > > references to it*.
> > >
> > > The solution, which should be blindingly obvious,  is don't create the
> > > problem in the first place. Password sensitive directories (htpasswd) -
> > > then they don't have to be excluded from search engines (because listing
> > > the inaccessible in robots.txt is redundant).  You must of missed the
> > > first day of web school.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/