Skip to main content

Of Auto-Authenticating URLs, Shortlinks, and Danger

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say.

So, it was a good intention when someone (not me) decided to install a link shortener and send password reset links through it, before producing the printed newsletters that would be sent out to individual members. They would need to type the URLs in by hand, so a shorter URL was a good idea. At least, it must have seemed like it, at the time.

Today I took a look at this system, which I was asked to clean up before it gets used again after several months of being ignored. I admit it didn't click in my mind immediately, but after producing some newsletter content in our staging system and verifying the shortlinks were being recorded properly, it suddenly jumped out of the screen and bit me on the nose:

The shortener was producing sequential links for a bunch of password reset links.

What this meant in practical terms is that two newsletters sent out with password reset links for two different users would send them URLs like http://foo.com/z1 and http://foo.com/z2 and while these were very short for the user to type in they were not easy to type in, if you require "correctly" as part of the measurement of how easy it is. They are so short and the space so condensed that mistyping won't get you a 404, but someone else's entirely valid password reset link. This is terrible. There is a reason password resets give you links with long randomized sequences of characters, and all of those reasons were being thrown out the window.

Turns out, a shortened URL can be too short.

Comments

cool-RR said…
Nice observation!
ashwoods said…
Not only is a short url too easy too mistype, but it is also very easy to hack. Say you only use a link with 6 random characters, upper-lower case letters and numbers. Than it would take a botnet to test all combinations, with only 5000 requests per second:

((((26 + 26 + 10)^6) / 5 000) / 3 600) / 24 = 131.482027

131 days to go through all combinations. So if you have maybe 50 users at a given time resetting passwords, you'll be finding links every 2.6 days on average.
Anonymous said…
In the old days, we used check digits to catch the vast number of common typos. (The block mode terminals could validate the check digit without round tripping to the mainframe.)

While not addressing the predictability problem, it would address the "oops" problem.

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…