Web Cache Deception Attack

在「How (Not) to Control Your CDN」這邊看到了「Web Cache Deception Attack」這個攻擊方式。

攻擊的手法是利用網站會把 /user/personal-info/foo.css/user/personal-info 視為一樣的內容時,配合 CDN 或是 reverse proxy server 會把 .css 設定無差異 cache 時,就可以在 cache server (cache edge) 取得使用者的敏感資料。

這主要是 url routing 的條件放太寬造成的。

另外 Mark Nottingham 還建議 cache 應該在 origin server 上控制,而非在 CDN 上設定。也就是說,在 origin server 上送出 Cache-Control,讓 CDN 或是 reverse proxy server 使用這個值來判斷 cache。

Facebook 與 Google Chrome 以及 Firefox 的人合作降低 Reload 使用的資源

Facebook 花了不少時間對付 reload 這件事情:「This browser tweak saved 60% of requests to Facebook」。

Facebook 的人發現有大量對靜態資源的 request 都是 304 (not modified) 回應:

In 2014 we found that 60% of requests for static resources resulted in a 304. Since content addressed URLs never change, this means there was an opportunity to optimize away 60% of static resource requests.

Google Chrome 很明顯偏高:

於是他們找出原因後,發現 Google Chrome 只要 POST 後的頁面都會 revalidate:

A piece of code in Chrome hinted at the answer to our question. This line of code listed a few reasons, including reload, for why Chrome might ask to revalidate resources on a page. For example, we found that Chrome would revalidate all resources on pages that were loaded from making a POST request.


We worked with Chrome product managers and engineers and determined that this behavior was unique to Chrome and unnecessary. After fixing this, Chrome went from having 63% of its requests being conditional to 24% of them being conditional.

但還是很明顯比起其他瀏覽器偏高不少,在追問題後發現當輸入同樣的 url 時 (像是 Ctrl-L 或是 Cmd-L 然後直接按 enter),Google Chrome 會當作 reload:

The fact that the percentage of conditional requests from Chrome was still higher than other browsers seemed to indicate that we still had some opportunity here. We started looking into reloads and discovered that Chrome was treating same URL navigations as reloads while other browsers weren't.

不過這次推出修正後發現沒有大改變:(拿 production 測試 XDDD)

Chrome fixed the same URL behavior, but we didn't see a huge metric change. We began to discuss changing the behavior of the reload button with the Chrome team.

後來是針對 reload button 的行為修改,max-age 很長的就不 reload,比較短的就 reload。算是一種 workaround:

There was some debate about what to do, and we proposed a compromise where resources with a long max-age would never get revalidated, but that for resources with a shorter max-age the old behavior would apply. The Chrome team thought about this and decided to apply the change for all cached resources, not just the long-lived ones.

Google 也發了一篇說明這個新功能:「Reload, reloaded: faster and leaner page reloads」。

當 Facebook 的人找 Firefox 的人時,Firefox 決定另外定義哪些東西在 reload 時不需要 revalidate,而不像 Google Chrome 的 workaround:

Firefox chose to implement this directive in the form of a cache-control: immutable header.

Firefox 的人也寫了一篇「Using Immutable Caching To Speed Up The Web」解釋這個新功能。


Google 研發出的 BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control

Google 針對 TCP 的 congestion control 研究出了新的方法,是個純 sender-side 的演匴法,可以讓現有的 internet 直接換上去使用:「[net-next,14/14] tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control」。

在 long-lived TCP connection 愈來愈普及後 (像是 HTTP/2),TCP 連線的最佳化可以用統計模型來計算,這也就是 BBR 的想法:

In a nutshell, BBR creates an explicit model of the network pipe by sequentially probing the bottleneck bandwidth and RTT. On the arrival of each ACK, BBR derives the current delivery rate of the last round trip, and feeds it through a windowed max-filter to estimate the bottleneck bandwidth. Conversely it uses a windowed min-filter to estimate the round trip propagation delay. The max-filtered bandwidth and min-filtered RTT estimates form BBR's model of the network pipe.

不過 QUIC 不是也開始有進展了嗎?(參考「Google Chrome 52 預設開啟了更快的 QUIC (被戲稱為 TCP/2)」這篇)

感覺 QUIC 解決的比較徹底,不過 443/udp 的 firewall 問題的確也是個需要時間解決的課題...

用 DNS 控制的後門

在「Wekby APT Gang Using DNS Tunneling for Command and Control」這邊看到用 DNS 做為控制的後門系統,原報導是「New Wekby Attacks Use DNS Requests As Command and Control Mechanism」。

用 DNS 控制的穿透性比 HTTPS 高不少,被拿來做為 APT 類的攻擊威脅高不少...


中國因為一年只讓國民帶五萬美金出國,於是中國的富豪就想到各種方法搬移財產,其中 Boing Boing 介紹的這個方法真的頗棒的 XDDD:「Chinese millionaire sues himself through an offshore shell company to beat currency export controls」。


But there's a better way: for a small sum, you can just set up an offshore shell company, direct it to sue a Chinese company you own, throw the lawsuit, and then, oh well, I guess there's nothing for it but to send a bunch of cash to your shell company, exempted from export controls, in the form of court-ordered damages.

這方法 XDDD

PuTTY 安全性問題 (CVE-2015-5309)

雖然很久沒用 PuTTY 了 (因為用 Ubuntu 很久了),不過很難得看到 PuTTY 有安全性問題。

PuTTY 官方發佈了安全性通報 CVE-2015-5309:「PuTTY vulnerability vuln-ech-overflow」:

Versions of PuTTY and pterm between 0.54 and 0.65 inclusive have a potentially memory-corrupting integer overflow in the handling of the ECH (erase characters) control sequence in the terminal emulator.

不過老問題還是沒解啊,透過 HTTPS (i.e. Certificate authority 架構) 雖然有很多問題,但至少還是個靠稽核制度而建立的安全信任機制,在沒有任何可信任環境下可以當作起點下仍然是最好的方案:「如何安全下載軟體...」。

Facebook 的「Augmented Traffic Control」模擬網路環境

Facebook 推出 Augmented Traffic Control,模擬網路環境:「Augmented Traffic Control: A tool to simulate network conditions」。


  • bandwidth
  • latency
  • packet loss
  • corrupted packets
  • packets ordering

Facebook 的成果是 Python + Django 寫的前端管理界面,實際運作還是透過 Linuxiptables

也有提供 Vagrant 的操作方式讓人「試用」,主要是讓人在本機上就可以用吧?

128bytes 組合語言的 3D 綜合展示...

原始程式碼在「Wolf128.asm」這邊,依照說明,是跑在 Windows XP SP3 + DOSBox。在「Dissecting the 128-byte raycaster」這邊的「Assembly code analysis」這段有程式碼的解說。

如同引用的文章一開始說的,這結合了滑鼠控制、材質貼圖、Ray casting 以及動畫效果的程式,而只有 128bytes!

我上面這一段文字用 UTF-8 表示都已經超過 128bytes 了... ~_~