←back to thread

Writing "/etc/hosts" breaks the Substack editor

(scalewithlee.substack.com)
601 points scalewithlee | 7 comments | 25 Apr 25 13:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.881s | source | bottom
Show context
Y_Y ◴[25 Apr 25 14:13 UTC] No.43793778[source]▶
Does it block `/etc//hosts` or `/etc/./hosts`? This is a ridiculous kind of whack-a-mole that's doomed to failure. The people who wrote these should realize that hackers are smarter and more determined than they are and you should only rely on proven security, like not executing untrusted input.
replies(6): >>43793862 #>>43793868 #>>43793954 #>>43794072 #>>43794473 #>>43802345 #
1. eli ◴[25 Apr 25 14:28 UTC] No.43793954[source]▶
Is a security solution worthless if it can't stop a dedicated attacker? A lot of WAF rules are blocking probes from off-the-shelf vulnerability scanners.
replies(4): >>43794116 #>>43794355 #>>43795518 #>>43796747 #
2. da_chicken ◴[25 Apr 25 14:43 UTC] No.43794116[source]▶
"It's technically better than nothing," is kind of a bizarre metric.

It's like not allowing the filesystem to use the word "virus" in a file name. Yes, it technically protects against some viruses, but it's really not very difficult to avoid while being a significant problem to a fair number of users with a legitimate use case.

It's not that it's useless. It's that it's stupid.

3. ndsipa_pomu ◴[25 Apr 25 15:08 UTC] No.43794355[source]▶
It's merely security theater.

It reminds me of when airports started scanning people's shoes because an attacker had used a shoe bomb. Yes, that'll stop an attacker trying a shoe bomb again, but it disadvantages every traveller and attackers know to put explosives elsewhere.

replies(1): >>43795550 #
4. richardwhiuk ◴[25 Apr 25 16:27 UTC] No.43795518[source]▶
Every security solution can only stop a certain fraction of attacks.
5. geoffpado ◴[25 Apr 25 16:28 UTC] No.43795550[source]▶
“attacker had used a shoe bomb”

It’s even dumber than that. An attacker tried and failed to use a shoe bomb, and yet his failure has caused untold hours of useless delay for over 13 years now.

replies(1): >>43796609 #
6. kevin_thibedeau ◴[25 Apr 25 17:52 UTC] No.43796609{3}[source]▶
Now you have to buy your liberty with pre-check.
7. kevincox ◴[25 Apr 25 18:05 UTC] No.43796747[source]▶
IMHO the primary value for WAFs is for quickly blocking known vulnerabilities with specific rules to mitigate vulnerabilities while they are being properly patched. Ideally the WAF knows what software is behind it (example WordPress, Java app, ...) and can apply filters that may be relevant.

Anything else is just a fuzzy bug injector that will only stop the simplest scanners and script kiddies if you are lucky.