400,000 Websites Vulnerable Through Exposed .git Directories (scmagazine.com)
35
Open .git directories are a bigger cybersecurity problem than many might imagine, at least according to a Czech security researcher who discovered almost 400,000 web pages with an open .git directory possibly exposing a wide variety of data. From a report: Vladimir Smitka began his .git directory odyssey in July when he began looking at Czech websites to find how many were improperly configured and allow access to their .git folders within the file versions repository. Open .git directories are a particularly dangerous issue, he said, because they can contain a great deal of sensitive information. "Information about the website's structure, and sometimes you can get very sensitive data such as database passwords, API keys, development IDE settings, and so on. However, this data shouldn't be stored in the repository, but in previous scans of various security issues, I have found many developers that do not follow these best practices," Smitka wrote. Smitka queried 230 million websites to discover the 390,000 allowing access to their .git directories. The vast majority of the websites with open directories had a .com TLD with .net, .de, .org and uk comprising most of the others.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
^/.*/\.git/
Protect git repositories in all subdirectories as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: .htaccess (Score:3)
Why doesn't Apache block all '.'-prefixed directories by default?
Re:https://slashdot.org/.git (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot is still using CVS try https://slashdot.org/CVS/ [slashdot.org]
you will see, it works! :)
Your central git repo ... (Score:1)
... belongs behind ssh or, at least, behind http access and SSL.
If I catch you doing otherwise for anything other than FOSS software I'll smack you. Hard.
Re:Your central git repo ... (Score:4, Informative)
And it probably is. The thing is, the website owners are using git to version control and deploy their website (not a bad idea). So they develop their web site, push it to the central git repo, and whenever they need to go live, they just do a "git pull" on the webserver and it'll pull down the latest version of the website.
Problem is, they forget about the hidden .git directory git makes that stores all sorts of useful information and with a little persistence, allow you access to the raw source code since you can access the individual git objects. (Or maybe even clone it using git).
Re: (Score:2)
reheating yesterday's food (Score:3)
just an article from 2015 https://en.internetwache.org/d... [internetwache.org]
I can give you also next year's article about .file vulnerabilities. (spoiler alert) https://en.internetwache.org/s... [internetwache.org]
KKK (Score:2)
Thats what you get on hiring those bootcamp "graduates"
Kode w/ Karlie Kloss, like it or not.
Alternate headline: 99.8% websites are OK (Score:2)
230 million websites. 400k poorly configured. 4*10^5/2.3*10^8 is less than 0.2% of websites surveyed screwed this up.
400k is a big number but it's good to know most developers aren't that stupid on this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
An open git directory will be everything you need to reconstruct the site, more often than not from the same server you're targeting. Scary. Database servers are rarely open. Short of some serious hacking, there isn't a lot you're going to be able to do with this stuff once you've obtained the information you're waving around here.
Until such time as I see hackers actually logging in with this information and defacing github, I'm going to remain unconvinced of the severity of this one.
Re: (Score:2)
My website's .git directories are open intentionally. Makes for convenient mirroring and viewing of archives without having to hope and pray wayback machine picked up my obscure website.
I'm not too worried. It's just data on the filesystem, it's not executing programs. And the data is not supposed to contain any secrets. If it ever does then I better rewrite my git history.
Re: (Score:2)
obviously I would 'git gc'. Not my first rodeo.
Re: (Score:1)
The most likely actual security implication is hard coded keys to 3rd party APIs.
Not that this is an inevitable threat, itâ(TM)s just something I could see being inadvertently exposed and useful without much additional effort.
Re: (Score:1)
itâ(TM)s
Clear something up, are you typing curly quotes/apostrophes on purpose or do you have your browser configured to automatically do that.
Re: (Score:2)
What about if that .git folder (and the website's source code) included private keys for stuff. Or credentials/API keys for 3rd party services. Or credentials for database and other servers.