What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidentally or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarrassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(My most embarrassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidentally or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarrassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(My most embarrassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url
New contributor
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
17 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidentally or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarrassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(My most embarrassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url
New contributor
Assume that my internet history is made public (accidentally or on purpose). And this release is over 24 hours since the visits were made.
Also assume that there aren't an embarrassing sites on there: there isn't any blackmail potential.
(My most embarrassing page visited in the last week is actually the TV tropes page for my little pony, for which I have a valid reason and a witness).
What potential attacks does this allow? I'm mildly concerned about seeing massive links like:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ap-post-redirect?openid.assoc_handle=amzn_dtp&aToken=Atza%7CIwEBIO9mWoekr9KzK7rH_Db0gp93sewMCe6UcFPm_MbUhq-jp1m7kF-x0erh6NbjdLX3bm8Gfo3h7yU1nBYHOWso0LiOyUMLgLIDCEMGKGZBqv1EMyT6-EDajBYsH21sek92r5aH6Ahy9POCGEplpeKBVrAiU-vl3uIfOAHihKnB5r2yXPytFCITXM70wB5HBT-MIX3F1Y2G4WfWA-EgIfZY8bLdLangmgVq8hE61eDIFRzcSDtAf0Sz7_zxm1Ix8lV8XFBS8GSML9YSwZ1Gq6nSt9pG7hTZoGQns9nzKLk7WpAWE8RazDLKxVJD-nDsQ9VdBJe7JZJtD7c77swkYneOZ5HXgeGFkGhKsMnP7GSYndXhC_PqzY251iDt0X7e5TWvh86WZA0tG2qZ_lyIagZtB3iw&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AEK7TIVVPUJDAK3JIFQIQ77WZWDQ&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z4004222742336216632&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fap-post-redirect&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2CaToken%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2018-12-11T13%3A46%3A52Z&openid.sig=5cx5iHjeLyWTTA9iJ%2BucszunqanOw36djKuNF6%2FOfsM%3D&serial=&siteState=clientContext%3D135-4119325-2722413%2CsourceUrl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fkdp.amazon.com%252Fbookshelf%253Flanguage%253Den_US%2Csignature%3DgqJ53erzurnmO1SPLDK1gLwh9%2FUP6rGUwGF2uZUAAAABAAAAAFwPv8dyYXcAAAAAAsF6s-obfie4v1Ep9rqj
in my history and worrying that secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere.
I am aware that this makes it easier to impersonate my identity, I'm mostly interested in the leakage of information via the URL itself.
web-browser url
web-browser url
New contributor
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
The Guy with The Hat
202113
202113
New contributor
asked 19 hours ago
Joe
23837
23837
New contributor
New contributor
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
17 hours ago
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
17 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
17 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
29
down vote
accepted
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
1
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
One of the threats I'd like to mention that has not been named yet is de-anonymization.
The URIs in your history could leak information about your user accounts on different sites - for instance if you constantly check your own profile on social media sites. If you use some web services anonymously and others under your real name (Facebook, Twitter) an adversary can very easily de-anonymize and dox you. That can be especially damning for you if you appear on a platform anonymously and want it to stay that way (dating platforms, file sharing platforms, free speech platforms).
Data on the internet also has the tendency to be there for a long time, so this threat is very persistent.
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
5
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
6
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
29
down vote
accepted
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
1
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
accepted
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
1
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
accepted
up vote
29
down vote
accepted
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
Your question might be more undefined than you realise. Any kind of data can be passed using URL parameters. Usernames, passwords, authentication tokens, settings, form data, or anything the web developer chooses. It's not always good practice to use URL parameters to for this, but it is always possible.
And it's entirely up to each individual web developer on each individual page (not just site) as to what might be exposed and when. So you might not be able to predict what might be exposed.
So, to answer your question, in the worst case, you could experience a complete and utter disclosure of any amount of personal data including credentials.
By request, I did a search for the practice of "passwords in URL parameters" and restricted results to this year. Here's one of the top hits:
https://answers.splunk.com/answers/622600/how-to-pass-username-and-password-as-a-parameter-v.html
That's a forum from Feb 2018 from a major, publicly traded company talking about how to do this.
Here is OWASP's official page on this vulnerability:
The parameter values for 'user', 'authz_token', and 'expire' will be
exposed in the following locations when using HTTP or HTTPS:
Referer
Header
Web Logs
Shared Systems
Browser History
Browser Cache
Shoulder Surfing
edited 16 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
schroeder♦
72.5k29159194
72.5k29159194
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
1
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
1
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
2
2
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
The only thing I'd add to this is that the problem is also worse because while you're correct that any data can be passed via URL, the problem is compounded by the fact that what information is passed via a URL and whether and how it is secured is up to each individual company you're visiting and furthermore, the standards of the web programmers who developed each page. So you could never say by looking at one URL that there wasn't any sensitive data passed--you couldn't even say that about different URLs from the same site...
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
@thepip3r - oh that's interesting - so you are saying that there might be information visible only to employees of that site... cute...
– Joe
17 hours ago
1
1
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
and even if passwords aren't passed in the query string, if the session token is, you'd better hope that the developers restricted it to a single IP address and limited time validity...
– Ben Voigt
11 hours ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
And what is a 'safe' practice today - isn't necessarily safe tomorrow.
– Paul
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
Quite a bit actually:
- Extortion based off content
- Mapping systems that are not public
- Sensitive parameters in certain requests
- Personal information
Extortion
That search of yours that may be embarrassing and taken out of context. A WebMD search for a medical condition you don't want made known to co-workers for example. A search that was best done in incognito mode you forgot about.
Mapping systems that are not public
How about your works intranet site or that production web portal, well those names are going to pop up in your history now and if its something like Jenkins - thats a great candidate for a DNS rebind attack.
Sensitive parameters in certain requests
If you visit a site that just does the internet wrong and the parameter contains an API key, password, credential or just an account ID well that is captured and can be used now.
Personal information
I see you've been searching for holidays in March for 2 weeks - that would be a great time to break in to your house or impersonate you. Looking for an engagement ring well that sounds like something worth stealing. You did a google map from your address to another location?
answered 18 hours ago
McMatty
2,5701213
2,5701213
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
One of the threats I'd like to mention that has not been named yet is de-anonymization.
The URIs in your history could leak information about your user accounts on different sites - for instance if you constantly check your own profile on social media sites. If you use some web services anonymously and others under your real name (Facebook, Twitter) an adversary can very easily de-anonymize and dox you. That can be especially damning for you if you appear on a platform anonymously and want it to stay that way (dating platforms, file sharing platforms, free speech platforms).
Data on the internet also has the tendency to be there for a long time, so this threat is very persistent.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
One of the threats I'd like to mention that has not been named yet is de-anonymization.
The URIs in your history could leak information about your user accounts on different sites - for instance if you constantly check your own profile on social media sites. If you use some web services anonymously and others under your real name (Facebook, Twitter) an adversary can very easily de-anonymize and dox you. That can be especially damning for you if you appear on a platform anonymously and want it to stay that way (dating platforms, file sharing platforms, free speech platforms).
Data on the internet also has the tendency to be there for a long time, so this threat is very persistent.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
One of the threats I'd like to mention that has not been named yet is de-anonymization.
The URIs in your history could leak information about your user accounts on different sites - for instance if you constantly check your own profile on social media sites. If you use some web services anonymously and others under your real name (Facebook, Twitter) an adversary can very easily de-anonymize and dox you. That can be especially damning for you if you appear on a platform anonymously and want it to stay that way (dating platforms, file sharing platforms, free speech platforms).
Data on the internet also has the tendency to be there for a long time, so this threat is very persistent.
One of the threats I'd like to mention that has not been named yet is de-anonymization.
The URIs in your history could leak information about your user accounts on different sites - for instance if you constantly check your own profile on social media sites. If you use some web services anonymously and others under your real name (Facebook, Twitter) an adversary can very easily de-anonymize and dox you. That can be especially damning for you if you appear on a platform anonymously and want it to stay that way (dating platforms, file sharing platforms, free speech platforms).
Data on the internet also has the tendency to be there for a long time, so this threat is very persistent.
answered 16 hours ago
Tom K.
5,25032047
5,25032047
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
5
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
6
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
5
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
6
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
Having your browsing history exposed means the attacker has in possession the list of url's your browser has accessed. From a complex url an attacker can identify these information:
- Protocol
- Subdomain
- Domain
- Port
- Path
- Parameters of a query
- Fragment
Now, your privacy depends on the way the developer has built the site.
If you logged in in a website that has an url like this:
www.example.com/?login=**myusers**&password=**mypassword**
then the attacker has your credentials for that site.
Some of possible attacks would be:
- sql injection
- URL Manipulation
- Directory Traversal
- Identify theft
In simple words, your privacy/risk depends on the security level the site has.
edited 18 hours ago
AndrolGenhald
8,98141831
8,98141831
answered 19 hours ago
Vini7
541412
541412
5
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
6
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
add a comment |
5
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
6
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
5
5
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
All of the attacks you list are attacks that could be possible against sites that he visited, none of them are attacks against him made possible by disclosure of the urls. URL Manipulation could be relevant, but I don't see how sql injection or directory traversal are.
– AndrolGenhald
19 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
Bad security of a site, brings automatically a threat to the users whom have information stored on that site.
– Vini7
18 hours ago
6
6
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
Absolutely, but that threat exists with or without OP's browser history being exposed. The browser history may allow someone targeting him to look for vulnerabilities in those specific sites because they know he has an account there, but I certainly wouldn't say "sql injection is made possible by public release of browser history".
– AndrolGenhald
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
To add to the post about information leakage in URL:
An attacker that has this may:
1: Extract what sites you use to try and log into to see if you are using the same creds [assumes attacker has captured a cred]
2: This info grants much more advanced knowledge for creating phishing attacks EX: "you've been selected to screen the new MLP season [whatever]"
3: Possible physical tracking based on sites "oh their kid goes to "little gals daycare" because I see them log into to pay that bill"
Could be more depending on what's in there.
edited 19 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
bashCypher
660111
660111
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
I'm not sure how the URL parameters provide all that. Just the URLs would be enough.
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@schroeder I didn't see that the question asked for only information that would need parameters.
– Acccumulation
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@Acccumulation the focus is on the parameters, yes
– schroeder♦
16 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@schroeder parameters are mentioned but the question is: "What attacks are made possible by public release of my web history?" Please make sure to clearly check the question. Thank you.
– bashCypher
15 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
@bashCypher The OP discounts the sites themselves (domains), and explicitly states is concerned about "secure information might be passed in a URL somewhere" and " leakage of information via the URL itself". And the example is clearly about the large number of parameters.
– schroeder♦
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199557%2fwhat-attacks-are-made-possible-by-public-release-of-my-web-history%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is it just your browser history or it a complete account/host compromise? It matters because, while your browser history might not provide much (unless you're into obscure porn), if they had access to your computer/profile, cookies, key loggers, screen scrapers are a whole different ballgame.
– thepip3r
18 hours ago
@thepip3r browser history only - and actually in this use case: url and timestamp pairs.
– Joe
17 hours ago