|
WinRT (JS and
C++)
|
JS Only
|
C++ Only
|
.NET Only
|
|
|
Parse
|
|
|||
|
Build
|
||||
|
Normalize
|
||||
|
Equality
|
|
|
||
|
Relative
resolution
|
||||
|
Encode data for
including in URI property
|
||||
|
Decode data extracted
from URI property
|
||||
|
Build Query
|
||||
|
Parse Query
|
In IE10 and other new browsers one may create MessageChannel objects that have two MessagePorts each connected (w3c spec calls it entangled) to one another such that postMessage on one port results in the message event firing on the other. You can pass an array of ports as the last parameter to postMessage and they show up in the ports property of the message event arg.
The postMessage here is like the worker postMessage and unlike the window and iframe postMessage in that it applies no origin checking:
Unfortunately the origin isn't an optional parameter at the end to make the two postMessages have the same signature.
On the event handler side, the event arg always has an origin property. But in the no origin case it is always the empty string.
There is also a source property on the message event arg which if set is an object that has a postMessage property allowing you to post back to your caller. It is set for the origin case, however, in the no origin case this property is null. This is somewhat reasonable because in the case of MessagePort and Workers there are only two endpoints so you always know the source of a message implicitly. Unlike the origin case in which any iframe or window can be calling postMessage on any other iframe or window and the caller is unknown. So not unreasonable but it would be nice if the source property was always set for consistency.
When a MessageChannel is created it has two MessagePorts, but until those ports are started they will queue up any messages they receive. Once started they will dispatch all queued messages. Ports don't have to be started to send messages.
A port may be started in two ways, either by explicitly calling the start method on the port, or by setting the onmessage callback property on the port. However, adding an event listener via addEventListener("message", does not start the port. It works this way in IE and Chrome and the spec states this as well.
The justification is that since you can have only one callback via onmessage that once set you must implicitly be ready to receive messages and its fine to start the port. As opposed to the addEventListener in which case the user agent cannot start implicitly because it doesn't know how many event listeners will be added. I found Hixie stating this justification in geoloc meeting notes.
Level 7 of the Stripe CTF involved running a length extension attack on the level 7 server's custom crypto code.
'Works "produced by nature, animals, or plants" cannot be granted copyright protection
the US Copyright Office said' @app.route('/logs/')
@require_authentication
def logs(id):
rows = get_logs(id)
return render_template('logs.html', logs=rows)
...
def verify_signature(user_id, sig, raw_params):
# get secret token for user_id
try:
row = g.db.select_one('users', {'id': user_id})
except db.NotFound:
raise BadSignature('no such user_id')
secret = str(row['secret'])
h = hashlib.sha1()
h.update(secret + raw_params)
print 'computed signature', h.hexdigest(), 'for body', repr(raw_params)
if h.hexdigest() != sig:
raise BadSignature('signature does not match')
return TrueThe level 7 web app is a web API in which clients submit signed RESTful requests and some actions are restricted to particular clients. The goal is to view the response to one of the restricted actions. The first issue is that there is a logs path to display the previous requests for a user and although the logs path requires the client to be authenticatd, it doesn't restrict the logs you view to be for the user for which you are authenticated. So you can manually change the number in the '/logs/[#]' to '/logs/1' to view the logs for the user ID 1 who can make restricted requests. The level 7 web app can be exploited with replay attacks but you won't find in the logs any of the restricted requests we need to run for our goal. And we can't just modify the requests because they are signed.
However they are signed using their own custom signing code which can be exploited by a length extension attack. All Merkle–Damgård hash algorithms (which includes MD5, and SHA) have the property that if you hash data of the form (secret + data) where data is known and the length but not content of secret is known you can construct the hash for a new message (secret + data + padding + newdata) where newdata is whatever you like and padding is determined using newdata, data, and the length of secret. You can find a sha-padding.py script on VNSecurity blog that will tell you the new hash and padding per the above. With that I produced my new restricted request based on another user's previous request. The original request was the following.
count=10&lat=37.351&user_id=1&long=%2D119.827&waffle=eggo|sig:8dbd9dfa60ef3964b1ee0785a68760af8658048ccount=10&lat=37.351&user_id=1&long=%2D119.827&waffle=eggo%80%02%28&waffle=liege|sig:8dbd9dfa60ef3964b1ee0785a68760af8658048cCode review red flags included custom crypto looking code. However I am not a crypto expert and it was difficult for me to find the solution to this level.
sequelguy posted a photo:
Immediately after Sarah took this photo, a truck pulled into the empty parking spot and the driver jumped out to apologize for messing up the photo. The driver was a zombie.
Some rights reserved