Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify and/or correct section about SSRF #53

Open
johnbillion opened this issue Mar 7, 2017 · 4 comments
Open

Clarify and/or correct section about SSRF #53

johnbillion opened this issue Mar 7, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@johnbillion
Copy link
Member

HTTP requests issued by WordPress are filtered to prevent access to loopback and private IP addresses. Additionally, access is only allowed to certain standard HTTP ports.

I don't believe this is accurate. Port access configuration is outside of the control of WordPress.

@iandunn
Copy link
Member

iandunn commented Mar 8, 2017

I assumed that was in reference to outbound requests, and specifically to the reject_unsafe_urls param of wp_remote_{get|post}. That defaults to false, though, so I guess that wouldn't make sense.

If it does refer to inbound requests, maybe it's an artifact from the original WordPress.com white paper?

@iandunn
Copy link
Member

iandunn commented Mar 8, 2017

Ah, I bet it was referring to wp_safe_remote_get() and wp_safe_remote_post(), since reject_unsafe_urls is true for them.

@johnbillion
Copy link
Member Author

Ah yes, I think you're right. Needs some clarification.

iandunn added a commit to iandunn/Security-White-Paper that referenced this issue Mar 8, 2017
@iandunn
Copy link
Member

iandunn commented Mar 8, 2017

@johnbillion, how does 929d667 look to you?

Overall, the white paper seems pretty light on low-level details, which I'm assuming was intentional (perhaps to avoid boring/overwhelming non-technical readers?). So maybe the references to specific functions and ports should be removed?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants