Last modified: 2014-02-12 23:35:45 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T34716, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 32716 - $wgWhitelistRead leaks username data
$wgWhitelistRead leaks username data
Status: NEW
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-11-30 03:20 UTC by Emufarmers
Modified: 2014-02-12 23:35 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Emufarmers 2011-11-30 03:20:18 UTC
$wgWhitelistRead allows actions other than reading for a page.  This can leak account names on wikis where they're supposed to be private: http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin&oldid=463197526#Quick_question

Also, something weird is going on here:
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
Comment 1 Rob Lanphier 2012-02-02 00:56:10 UTC
Sam, could you take a look at this one?
Comment 2 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-02-02 15:17:15 UTC
I'm presuming that the wiki falls under "private"...


'private' => array( 'Main Page', 'Special:Userlogin', 'Special:Userlogout', '-', 'MediaWiki:Monobook.css', 'MediaWiki:Monobook.js' ),
Comment 3 MZMcBride 2012-02-03 23:01:52 UTC
Some of the strange behavior being exhibited here is due to "Main Page" being whitelisted, but on this particular wiki, that page is a redirect (to "Main page").
Comment 4 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-02-07 22:12:13 UTC
CC'ing Phillippe as this is happening on arbcomwiki
Comment 5 Philippe Beaudette 2012-02-07 22:22:22 UTC
Thanks, Reedy.  Can we un-whitelist the Main page?  Understanding that I'm a technical moron, and may not know the full implications of that....
Comment 6 Tim Starling 2012-03-19 10:44:40 UTC
We can remove the main page from the whitelist on wikis that want that. Some private wiki main pages actually contain useful information for the public, so I wouldn't want to just do it on all of them.
Comment 7 Rob Lanphier 2012-04-03 21:10:08 UTC
When I look at this:
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history

I see "(username removed)‎" and "(edit summary removed)".  Is that because someone took some manual action in this case?

I'm going to assume that since this at least has a workaround, this is normal priority.  It'd be helpful to have an idea of what the "right" solution is, since it's not obvious to me.
Comment 8 Emufarmers 2012-04-04 01:46:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> I see "(username removed)‎" and "(edit summary removed)".  Is that because
> someone took some manual action in this case?
Yes.
 
> I'm going to assume that since this at least has a workaround, this is normal
> priority.  It'd be helpful to have an idea of what the "right" solution is,
> since it's not obvious to me.
The simple (conceptually, if not in implementation!) solution would be to make $wgWhitelistRead only whitelist reading (and only the current version of a page).


I think the weirdness I originally noted with "/w/index.php?title=" vs. "/wiki/" had to do with whether the content (of the redirect target?) was displayed.  I assume http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=1797 was a work-around for that. (There must also be some separate caching going on: the sidebar still looked different for one than the other until I purged the cache for the page.)
Comment 9 Tim Starling 2012-04-04 02:51:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> The simple (conceptually, if not in implementation!) solution would be to make
> $wgWhitelistRead only whitelist reading (and only the current version of a
> page).

I don't know whether that would be acceptable for other private wikis. There may be cases where it's desirable to have version information available for public pages, and presumably it's fairly rare for private wiki users to have secret usernames.
Comment 10 Chris Steipp 2012-04-20 22:15:31 UTC
Hi Sam / Tim,

Trying to understand what (if anything) needs to happen for this bug. It sounds like Tim doesn't think Emufarmer's suggesting that $wgWhitelistRead only allow reading is desirable, and I would agree. I sounds like the issue that spawned the discussion should have been solved by strong passwords and blocking ip's that attempt to brute force. So sites that really want to keep their usernames secret should be pretty rare.

But is this something that we would want to implement as an extension, for sites that want it?
Comment 11 Tim Starling 2012-05-02 00:29:47 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)
> I sounds like the issue that spawned
> the discussion should have been solved by strong passwords and blocking ip's
> that attempt to brute force. 

We require a captcha for IPs that attempt brute force password guessing. It seems to be effective, and avoids the collateral damage that can happen when shared IPs are blocked.
Comment 12 Chris Steipp 2012-05-02 16:35:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> We require a captcha for IPs that attempt brute force password guessing. It
> seems to be effective, and avoids the collateral damage that can happen when
> shared IPs are blocked.

Very cool. I was hoping something like that existed, but hadn't come across it yet.

(In reply to comment #8)
> The simple (conceptually, if not in implementation!) solution would be to make
> $wgWhitelistRead only whitelist reading (and only the current version of a
> page).

So in response to this recommendation specifically, it sounds like an enhancement that would be nice to have for sites that want some extra security through obscurity. Should we classify this as an enhancement request, and add it to the backlog?
Comment 13 Tim Starling 2012-08-15 23:54:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> So in response to this recommendation specifically, it sounds like an
> enhancement that would be nice to have for sites that want some extra security
> through obscurity. Should we classify this as an enhancement request, and add
> it to the backlog?

Yes.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links