Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Basket Full of Eggs?
« Rulepack update: soundtrack and bonus material | Main | Electronic Health Records: Deja vu all over again. »With services like Twitter gutting the English language leaving only 140-character shells of real communication, the ability to minimally shorten URLs for sharing has become hugely popular. However, a recent hack against Cligs has shown that URL-shortening services can be a central point of security failure.
URL-shortening services began with href="http://www.tinyurl.com">TinyURL in 2002, whose creator wanted to link to cumbersome newsgroup URLs more easily. Although early exploits against predictable hash values led to some amusing redirects, such as ‘dick’ taking users to www.whitehouse.gov, they were mostly harmless. The greatest security concern to-date has been that shortened URLs introduce an extra level of abstraction between the user and the content they wish to view. We in the security community are fond of instructing users to only visit trusted domains with a reputation for being free of malware and other nasties, but this becomes nearly impossible in the face of multitudes of nearly indistinguishable shortened URLs.
Last weekend, hackers exploited a vulnerability in Cligs, a competitor of TinyURL, to redirect millions of users to a seemingly benign, but certainly unintended, site. Although the motivation for the attack is unclear (some suggest the unusual destination may have been a mistake on the part of an attacker who wanted to redirect users to a malicious site), the implications are dire. Had the site been a launch pad for malware or a phishing attack, the more than 2 million users who were sent there against their will would have little recourse.
From a business perspective this is an interesting example of security becoming a major competitive differentiator. For companies that provide a comparatively generic service like URL shortening, distinguishing oneself from competitors can be challenging. This attack suggests that companies who strive to grow market share without focusing on security run the risk of security becoming the competitive differentiator that drives users to other, more secure, services.
[Trackback URL for this entry]







