←back to thread

287 points govideo | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.463s | source

I have a domain that is not live. As expected, loading the domain returns: Error 1016.

However...I have a subdomain with a not obvious name, like: userfileupload.sampledomain.com

This subdomain IS LIVE but has NOT been publicized/posted anywhere. It's a custom URL for authenticated users to upload media with presigned url to my Cloudflare r2 bucket.

I am using CloudFlare for my DNS.

How did the internet find my subdomain? Some sample user agents are: "Expanse, a Palo Alto Networks company, searches across the global IPv4 space multiple times per day to identify customers' presences on the Internet. If you would like to be excluded from our scans, please send IP addresses/domains to: scaninfo@paloaltonetworks.com", "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_7; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.20.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Safari/534.20.8", "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; Redmi Note 5 Pro) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.89 Mobile Safari/537.36",

The bots are GET requests which are failing, as designed, but I'm wondering how the bots even knew the subdomain existed?!

Show context
thedougd ◴[] No.43287552[source]
Some CAs (Amazon) allow not publishing to the Certificate Transparency Log. But if you do this, browsers will block the connection by default. Chromium browsers have a policy option to skip this check for selected URLs. See: CertificateTransparencyEnforcementDisabledForURLs.

Some may find this more desirable than wildcard certificates and their drawbacks.

replies(3): >>43287622 #>>43287653 #>>43287677 #
snailmailman ◴[] No.43287677[source]
Firefox is currently rolling out the same thing. They will treat any non-publicly-logged certificate as insecure.

I’m surprised amazon offers the option to not log certificates. The whole idea is that every issued cert should get logged. That way, fraudulently-issued certs are either well documented in public logs- or at least not trusted by the browser.

replies(1): >>43288194 #
1. fc417fc802 ◴[] No.43288194[source]
It doesn't seem like the choice has any impact on that. It just protects user privacy if that's what they want to prioritize.

Depending on the issuer logging all certs would never work. You can't rely on the untrusted entity to out themselves for you.

The security comes from the browser querying the log and warning you if the entry is missing. In that sense declining to log a cert is similar to self signing one. The browser will warn and users will need to accept. As long as the vast majority of sites don't do that then we maintain a sort of herd immunity because the warnings are unexpected by the end user.

replies(1): >>43289869 #
2. thedougd ◴[] No.43289869[source]
I should have included in my post, this technique only makes sense in the context of private or internal endpoints.