,2,5,2,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147119,1,,,1/3/2017 15:25,,4,1203,"I'm trying to understand how simple stack overflow works (On Linux 32 bits) but I'm in front of a strange problem.
+
+I'm using https://www.pwnerrank.com/tasks/stack-based-buffer-overflow-code-execution to test my code.
+Everything works great. My shellcode is perfectly executed, so I think I understand (a little bit) what I'm doing.
+
+BUT, when I'm trying the same thing on my own computer (same code, same GCC options, ASLR off), I'm facing a strange problem. I simply can't overwritte EIP :/
+
+First of all, this is the code:
+
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <string.h>
+
+int main(int argc, char*argv[])
+{
+char buffer[256];
+
+if(argc < 2) {
+perror(""Usage: ./pwnme twitt\n"");
+return 1;
+}
+
+strcpy(buffer,argv[1]);
+printf(""%s"", buffer);
+
+return 0;
+}
+
+
+On the challenge's server, EIP is overwritten (Good news !):
+
+$> lsb_release -a
+No LSB modules are available.
+Distributor ID: Debian
+Description: Debian GNU/Linux 8.6 (jessie)
+Release: 8.6
+Codename: jessie
+
+
+$> uname -a
+Linux binary-challenges-pwnerrank-com 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.82-1 x86_64 GNU/Linux
+
+
+$> file ./pwnme
+./pwnme: setuid ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.26, BuildID[sha1]=b49c31fc047654c28f93910c8e04cecb6a19ac30, not stripped
+
+
+$> gdb -q ./pwnme
+
+(gdb) r `python -c 'print ""A"" * 280'`
+[SEGFAULT]
+
+(gdb) i r
+eax 0x0 0
+ecx 0x0 0
+edx 0xf7fc9878 -134440840
+ebx 0xf7fc8000 -134447104
+esp 0xffffd5e0 0xffffd5e0
+ebp 0x41414141 0x41414141
+esi 0x0 0
+edi 0x0 0
+eip 0x41414141 0x41414141
+eflags 0x10286 [ PF SF IF RF ]
+cs 0x23 35
+ss 0x2b 43
+ds 0x2b 43
+es 0x2b 43
+fs 0x0 0
+gs 0x63 99
+(gdb)
+
+
+=====================================================================
+
+Now, I'll try on my own Linux (with the same C code):
+
+$> lsb_release -a
+No LSB modules are available.
+Distributor ID: LinuxMint
+Description: Linux Mint 18 Sarah
+Release: 18
+Codename: sarah
+
+$> uname -a
+Linux 4.4.0-21-generic #37-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 18 18:33:37 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
+
+
+Compilation:
+
+$> gcc bof.c -o pwnme -fno-stack-protector -z execstack -m32
+
+
+ASLR off:
+
+$> $ sudo cat /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
+0
+
+$> file pwnme
+pwnme: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, BuildID[sha1]=bf0e63dc240cb7a8e72fd656677a2d03a93588ed, not stripped
+
+
+$ gdb -q ./pwnme
+Reading symbols from ./pwnme...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
+(gdb) r `python -c 'print ""A"" * 280'`
+Starting program: /home/n3r0x/Documents/BoF/pwnme `python -c 'print ""A"" * 280'`
+
+Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
+0x080484db in main ()
+(gdb) i r
+eax 0x0 0
+ecx 0x41414141 1094795585
+edx 0xf7fac870 -134559632
+ebx 0x0 0
+esp 0x4141413d 0x4141413d
+ebp 0x41414141 0x41414141
+esi 0xf7fab000 -134565888
+edi 0xf7fab000 -134565888
+eip 0x80484db 0x80484db <main+112>
+eflags 0x10286 [ PF SF IF RF ]
+cs 0x23 35
+ss 0x2b 43
+ds 0x2b 43
+es 0x2b 43
+fs 0x0 0
+gs 0x63 99
+(gdb)
+
+
+As you can see, this time, only EBP is overwritten. And I don't understand why :/ Maybe an other security feature somewhere ? Do you have an idea ? And off course, if I replace 280 'A' by 300 or more 'A', it's the same thing.
+
+Thank a lot :)
+
+[EDIT] - Sorry, I found the answer on this forum. It was just a question of stack alignment. Everything is here: Compiling a buffer overflow example in modern Linux?
+
+I moved the strcpy on a different function, it works great. And the last reply gives a good explanation.
+
+Thanks for you help !
+",135109,,-1,,3/17/2017 13:14,1/4/2017 9:54,32bits Linux - Simple stack overflow - EIP never overwritten,,3,1,0,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147120,1,,,1/3/2017 15:56,,1,598,"I was getting into my Windows 10 configuration and I saw a lot of options which are sending data to Microsoft. Telemetries, tracking, statistics... even sharing Windows updates on my PC to other users!
+
+I guess legally there is nothing to do - the EULA covers them for ""all damage done"" to the users... I was investigating this and I have three questions:
+
+
+Is ""Windows update sharing"" like p2p old style sharing? If yes, what about my bandwidth? Does Microsoft care about it in some way?
+Are there any good guides about how to restrict all the Windows 10 options to stop sending sensitive data to Microsoft to do it manually setting every option without using a software for blocking?
+Is legal on my side to restrict sending this data even after accepting the EULA? I mean by using software like Blackbird .
+
+",133285,,98538,,1/5/2017 21:50,1/5/2017 21:50,Microsoft is spying me. What can I do?,,0,7,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147121,1,147504,,1/3/2017 15:56,,0,736,"What's going on in this video?
+
+https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXVqdezJf1A
+
+Here, the ISP restricts access to all other sites but one (twitter.com) when the user's account balance is insufficient. In this video, an SSH connection is being used somehow to connect to restricted IP addresses through the ISP's proxy server.
+
+How is all of this working? And what can be done to protect against such attacks / hacks?
+",96479,,96479,,10/4/2017 8:48,10/4/2017 8:48,How is it possible to bypass single-site restriction set by ISP?,,1,2,1,10/6/2017 14:50,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147122,1,,,1/3/2017 16:05,,1,178,"There are several cloud providers that offer ""baremetal"" hosting where tenants are allowed root-level access to the OS running directly on the hardware. What is the risk that a previous malicious tenant installed a firmware-based compromise that would grant them root-level access past reinstall when one of the kernel modules attempts to interact with that malicious hardware/firmware?
+",17035,,,,,4/13/2017 11:29,"Persistent exploits on ""baremetal"" cloud hosting services",,2,1,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147123,1,,,1/3/2017 16:05,,1,182,"Currently, I have an implementation where I send an OCSP request in the verify_callback(int preverify_ok, X509_STORE_CTX *x509_ctx) function for every intermediate and end-entity certificate. The verify_callback function is set using the SSL_CTX_set_verify() function.
+
+Now, I would like to add OCSP stapling to my implementation. I do have some example implementation of how to include OCSP Stapling using an OCSP callback.
+
+The issue with adding the above OCSP callback is that the verify_callback() first gets called prior to OCSP Stapling callback function.
+
+My question is how can I have both of them in such a way that, if there is no OCSP stapling response from the server, then the client will itself send the OCSP request.
+
+Is there a way to check if the OCSP stapling is supported or not before we reach the verify_callback() function?
+",135111,,98976,,1/3/2017 16:25,1/3/2017 16:25,Combining OCSP Stapling and manual OCSP request from client,,0,5,,1/3/2017 21:02,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147125,1,,,1/3/2017 16:21,,10,1752,"Whenever it is time to change passwords, each user in our office has to provide our new password to the IT department and they change it & store it. Can you provide something that details why this is a bad firm policy?
+
+Windows Server 2012; Users have Windows 7 Professional on desktops
+",135114,,135114,,1/3/2017 17:03,1/4/2017 1:36,Network administrator knowing all user passwords,,4,4,2,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147131,1,,,1/3/2017 17:01,,0,121,"Is there ever going to be a processor or execution system that can execute protected code for very specific operations that heavily rely on shared secrets and authentication?
+
+With the assumption that one could download a bit of encrypted code that only this processor has the correct private key to decrypt, and that key could potentially rotate with some frequency.
+
+Code wise, a call would look something like, with the protected as a keyword that assumes the language/vm/etc could actually marshall/transfer and run this encrypt function within a protected space
+
+ int transactionAmount=1; int transactionId=444555;
+ byte[] data;
+ protected { data = encrypt(transactionAmount, transactionId); }
+ sendToServer(data);
+
+",135117,,,,,1/3/2017 17:19,protected code execution,,1,0,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147135,1,147142,,1/3/2017 17:15,,1,1580,"As per this post on quora whatsapp messenger application seems to use public key cryptography but without a third party trusted authority to verify the public key against.
+
+Is it true? And if it is doesn't it leaves users open to man in the middle attack unless you manually verify the keys?
+",107406,,6253,,1/3/2017 18:49,3/18/2017 9:38,Is whatsapp messenger encryption similar to tls without a trusted authority?,,2,0,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147138,1,,,1/3/2017 17:31,,1,589,"I've recently learned much more about Tor hidden service, thanks to this post , and its answers. But I am still wondering about a few small tid-bits...
+
+As said in the linked post:
+
+Q: If a hidden services IP is hidden, how is it possible to connect to them?
+
+A: ""Tor network uses different mechanisms, as stated in the article mentioned above.""
+
+a. If I am interpreting this correctly, then Tor uses a mechanism to find the hidden IP of the hidden service hoster, so whose to say an individual aiming to deanonymize a hidden service hoster doesn't use these same mechanisms or somehow see's the IP after Tor has completed this mechanism and find's the hoster's real IP, which could be very dangerous, depending on the situation. (oppressive government)
+
+b. Another way I have interpreted this is that the client, nor Tor, needs to know the real IP address of the hidden service hoster, since they only communicate through a rendezvous point, and they both go through 3 encrypted hops just like normal to the rendezvous point, providing them both anonymity. Is this true, or is a. true?
+
+If b. is true, then the client and hidden service hoster don't communicate outside of the rendezvous point, becuase it's unsafe... So how do they find out which rendezvous point they will both be communicating at? And is\f the data is decrypted at the rendezvous point from the hidden service from the hoster, and encrypted again for the client, could a malicious/adversary controlled rendezvous point see what data is being sent/received?
+
+This is also stated in the linked post:
+
+""Note that hidden services might be deployed without IP address at all; while a machine running Tor would have an IP address, the hidden service itself might only listen on HiddenServicePort and thus be not available without Tor at all.""
+
+If an individual is living in a country with an oppressive government, and wants to host a hidden service in this way to avoid a dangerous situation, how would they do so?
+
+Thanks for any and all answers.
+",135051,,135051,,1/3/2017 18:35,8/2/2017 3:12,Tor Hidden Service In-Depth Questions,,2,0,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147139,1,,,1/3/2017 17:32,,0,219,"If a certificate looks suspicious you'd want to verify it with the authority. As such you'll need to open a channel to the authority's verification server. Who/what protects this verification channel against man in the middle attack?
+",107406,,,,,1/3/2017 18:40,What prevents a man in the middle attack when verifying a certificate with authority?,,2,7,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147144,1,147147,,1/3/2017 18:04,,58,5863,"A CNN article on the recent US Election hacks claims that
+
+
+ ...the administration has traced the hack to the specific keyboards -- which featured Cyrillic characters -- that were used to construct the malware code, adding that the equipment leaves ""digital fingerprints"" and, in the case of the recent hacks, those prints point to the Russian government.
+
+
+Now to me that sounds like total baloney. You're going to trace a character, which may in some executable code back to a specific keyboard? And you're going to know that its one particular model that is physically in one particular location?
+
+Is this nonsense or is there something I'm missing here? Wouldn't it also be trivial to spoof whatever is the source of this info?
+",49767,,,,,1/4/2017 9:46,Can you trace malware back to a specific keyboard?,,2,20,8,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147145,1,,,1/3/2017 18:09,,4,6769,"Over the last couple of days I've been learning Apache and servers in general - I installed Apache, PHP and mySQL on my Ubuntu system and accessed my website with 'localhost'. I have always thought that when you run something as localhost, nothing ever leaves your computer and your server can't be accessed by computers in your WiFi network, let alone other computers connected to the Internet. However, I got scared when in a tutorial video I watched they told to turn off your Internet connection as soon as you install Apache. Is it justified? There are no sensitive information in the database or in /var/www, it's all dummy data just for learning purposes, but I'm worried that somebody could hack into my whole system.
+
+Keeping in mind that I've been doing this for the last few days, should I consider myself hacked?
+
+And to make it clear, when I run my server locally and can access it through localhost, is it available to people on the Internet?
+",135125,,,,,12/6/2018 19:20,How likely is it that I was hacked by running a local server for development?,,3,0,2,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147155,1,,,1/3/2017 19:05,,1,1257,"Me and my friend have access to a private enviroment, and we use Nmap to scan one domain and a www.
+
+I get the following result:
+
+======================================================================
+ INCORRECT SCANNING
+======================================================================
+
+nmap -sS -v www.site.com.br
+
+Starting Nmap 7.31 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2017-01-02 13:45 EST
+Initiating Ping Scan at 13:45
+Scanning www.site.com.br (173.x.x.20) [4 ports]
+Completed Ping Scan at 13:45, 0.20s elapsed (1 total hosts)
+Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 13:45
+Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 13:45, 0.45s elapsed
+Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 13:45
+Scanning www.site.com.br (173.x.x.20) [1000 ports]
+Discovered open port 22/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 53/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 21/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 554/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 111/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 80/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 7070/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 13:45, 6.73s elapsed (1000 total ports)
+Nmap scan report for www.site.com.br (173.x.x.20)
+Host is up (0.17s latency).
+rDNS record for 173.x.x.20: 14.5d.2d.static.xlhost.com
+Not shown: 990 closed ports
+PORT STATE SERVICE
+19/tcp filtered chargen
+21/tcp open ftp
+22/tcp open ssh
+25/tcp filtered smtp
+53/tcp open domain
+80/tcp open http
+111/tcp open rpcbind
+554/tcp open rtsp
+5555/tcp filtered freeciv
+7070/tcp open realserver
+
+Read data files from: /usr/bin/../share/nmap
+Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 7.72 seconds
+Raw packets sent: 1034 (45.472KB) | Rcvd: 1022 (40.896KB)
+
+
+But my friend gets this:
+
+======================================================================
+ CORRECT SCANNING
+======================================================================
+
+nmap -sS -v www.site.com.br
+
+Starting Nmap 7.31 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2017-01-02 15:26 BRT
+Initiating Ping Scan at 15:26
+Scanning www.site.com.br (173.x.x.20) [4 ports]
+Completed Ping Scan at 15:26, 0.21s elapsed (1 total hosts)
+Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 15:26
+Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 15:26, 0.01s elapsed
+Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 15:26
+Scanning www.site.com.br (173.x.x.20) [1000 ports]
+Discovered open port 80/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 111/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 22/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 21/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Discovered open port 53/tcp on 173.x.x.20
+Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 15:26, 6.58s elapsed (1000 total ports)
+Nmap scan report for www.site.com.br (173.x.x.20)
+Host is up (0.17s latency).
+rDNS record for 173.x.x.20: 14.x.x.x.x.com
+Not shown: 991 closed ports
+PORT STATE SERVICE
+21/tcp open ftp
+22/tcp open ssh
+25/tcp filtered smtp
+53/tcp open domain
+80/tcp open http
+111/tcp open rpcbind
+139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
+445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds
+2301/tcp filtered compaqdiag
+
+
+My results do not make sense, and his is correct. Why do we get different results, and how can I fix it?
+",135129,,98538,,1/3/2017 19:14,1/4/2017 18:50,Different scanning results with Nmap,,2,2,1,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147157,1,,,1/3/2017 19:22,,2,2232,"All my 2 factor authentication used to come from Google sms, but recently I've had the following numbers come up on my phone. I realise that to do this the person would need to have my phone number. I checked and this seems to be a number in canada. I did have a strange phone call from canada about a week ago but not sure if this is connected. Does anyone know if this is just my jumpiness or if this a legit attack. If it is, how can I prevent?
+
+
+",135132,,,,,1/4/2017 2:25,Google login 2 factor authentication sms -fake or real?,,2,6,2,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147166,1,147176,,1/3/2017 21:07,,20,30819,"Google and many other sites know my correct location. How can I fake my location without using a VPN, proxy, Tor or similar?
+
+I went to about:config and looked for geo. What I think I have to modify is geo.wifi.uri? Maybe we can put in false lattitude and longitude values directly? If so, how would it look then? I really have no idea about the format.
+
+Or is there another way using JavaScript in Greasemonkey?
+",126235,,98538,,1/3/2017 22:48,9/19/2021 2:27,How can you fake geolocation in Firefox?,,2,0,9,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147168,1,147171,,1/3/2017 21:14,,4,2303,"I have a .NET system with users logging in normally and standard hashing and/or 3rd party login (google, fb etc). I have a 3rd party plugin that requires username/login for each user in addition to our api secret which lets us make requests on behalf of the user. The users can also log in directly from a web portal using these credentials but we have no interest in exposing the users to this functionality. Unfortunately we cannot turn it off either.
+
+So from a UI perspective the user should never need to know their user/pass for the third party system. On the other hand we need to generate and store these records, and the user/pass data can provide access to sensitive client data and the ability to harm that data.
+
+I can't come up with a way around storing passwords using two-way encryption. Is there a recommended best practice for this type of process? Am I missing some options?
+",102548,,,,,1/4/2017 20:03,Is there a best practice for storing passwords in a two way encryption?,,1,0,3,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147173,1,147179,,1/3/2017 22:46,,2,221,"I've created a CSR using IIS. When I paste the text here...
+
+https://www.sslshopper.com/csr-decoder.html
+
+... it validates correctly.
+
+But when I use the Let's Encrypt tools here...
+
+https://zerossl.com/free-ssl/#crt
+
+https://gethttpsforfree.com/
+
+... both of these tools say that the CSR is invalid.
+
+Why is this?
+",7247,,,,,1/3/2017 23:46,Invalid CSR when using Let's Encrypt web tools,,1,0,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147174,1,,,1/3/2017 22:47,,0,380,"As a part of my research, I need to determine the maximum packets (Internet traffic) can one instance of firewall/ IDS process. I am not sure where to begin though.
+
+Your assistance and guidance in this regard is much appreciated.
+",135142,,135142,,3/16/2017 5:06,3/16/2017 5:06,How much traffic can a firewall node handle? Any real examples?,,2,2,,1/14/2017 0:32,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147175,1,,,1/3/2017 23:20,,5,12290,"Google is reportedly planning to make Chrome report all web site connecting using http:// as unsafe.
+
+But is this really true if the host in question is localhost and the server is only listening for connections from the local machine? For instance, if there is a server running on the local machine and I navigate to http://localhost:8080 is there anything insecure about that? As far as I know, this resolves to 127.0.0.1 which is inaccessible outside the local machine. I think it should never be possible for localhost to resolve to 127.0.0.1 or that 127.0.0.1 doesn't refer to the local machine.
+
+All communications should be going through a channel that can't be seen from another processes other than the server process on the machine and the client process which is the web browser. So sending things like passwords, session keys, etc. across the channel should be secure, right?
+
+I'm aware of security risks which might be caused by allowing localhost access , and how these might be protected against. What other risks are there?
+",43948,,,,,1/3/2017 23:31,Is HTTP to localhost safe?,,1,3,1,1/4/2017 5:16,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147181,1,,,1/4/2017 1:24,,1,32,"A lot (at least on iOS) of third-party mail apps ask for your account credentials.
+
+The background of my question is basically the same as this one: 3rd Party Mail Clients on iPhone/Android and Credential Storage
+
+For example, Dispatch explicitly states :
+
+
+ Because of that, we do not store your credentials anywhere else
+ besides in the secure keychain of your device. Your credentials are
+ never transmitted anywhere else besides to your own mail server for
+ authentication.
+
+
+Unfortunately, it seems Dispatch is the only one that does that. Calendar apps, on the other hand, don't seem to have the same problem and can just use the accounts that are already stored on the phone.
+
+Can I really trust these mail apps? If I give them my info, anyone that has access to their server has access to my mail. Even if I am using 2FA, their server is now trusted, right? Seems like a serious security risk to me, but if the practice is so widespread, am I just being paranoid?
+
+Update: This has been marked as a duplicate because there is another similar question How does Mail.app handle account credentials? but that focuses on Mail.app. My main question is how concerned I should be about all the third-party mail apps. It seems crazy to provide credentials to your email (especially something like a Google account, which has a lot more than just email). However, millions of people are doing it and I haven't heard of any problems, so maybe it should not be a concern. I just want to get some opinions from people who are more knowledgeable than me.
+",135151,,-1,,3/17/2017 13:14,1/7/2017 18:38,Should I be concerned with iOS third-party email apps storing credentials?,,0,3,,1/6/2017 5:28,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147182,1,,,1/4/2017 1:37,,1,225,"*For the purposes of this post, Software OS Update == Firmware Upgrade. For instance when the device notifies you that there is a OS Software Update, this could also modify the firmware of the device.
+
+QUESTION : I have been given an untrusted Android device recently which may or may not have malware of any type on it. Let's be clear, there is no suspicious activity, but I cannot personally confirm its history. Let's assume the worst case scenario, and that the device is infected with some sort of unknown sophisticated malware. Under these circumstances, is it:
+
+
+Preferable to first wipe the device in order to remove any malware that may interfere with the firmware upgrade?
+Or it is preferable to first upgrade the firmware and then wipe the device to prevent any malicious firmware with interfering with either the wiping of the device or the upgrading of its firmware?
+
+
+*POSTNOTE: I know many will suggest it won't make a difference. Please pick the best option, and explain why. Also, I would like this question to pertain to more than just Android, to avoid posting duplicate Windows/Linux based questions. If possible please address any differences if the OS and firmware will affect the answer. Thank you.
+",61842,,61842,,1/4/2017 1:43,1/4/2017 2:03,"Is it preferable to wipe device first and then upgrade firmware, or vice versa?",,1,2,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147183,1,,,1/4/2017 2:01,,2,7545,"I have recently read malware being hidden in a ""usable"" picture file with stenography such as this forum,
+https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/574487/is-it-possible-for-a-virus-to-be-embedded-in-a-image/ .
+
+Could a malicious hacker use similar methods on an audio file?
+
+There are similar questions on various sites about malware in an audio such as this,
+https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/140812-can-an-mp3-file-contain-malware/ ,
+but my question is specifically related to the tactic of steganography.
+",134574,,6253,,9/1/2019 14:57,9/1/2019 14:57,Is it possible to put malware in an audio file with steganography?,,3,0,1,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147188,1,147193,,1/4/2017 2:44,,51,46503,"I work on web applications and as you know, having an administrator panel is a must in most cases. We can see that a lot of web applications have a specific login page for administrators in which there is a form (usually POST method) that admins can use to login their panel.
+
+But because the field names are known, a hacker can attempt to crack the passwords even if some security methods are implemented.
+
+So what is the problem with a simple GET key (as username) and its value (as password)? Why it's not used a lot or at least, is not suggested in many articles?
+
+For administrators, user-friendly login pages are not really needed! Data will be logged in both cases (GET/POST) if there is a MiTM attacker.
+
+But using this method, fields will be unknown expect for admins themselves.
+ Here is a sample PHP code:
+
+""category.php"": (A meaningless page name)
+
+<?php
+if (isset($_GET['meaningless_user']) && $_GET['meaningless_word'] == ""something""){
+ session_start();
+ $_SESSION[""user""] = ""test"";
+ header('Location: category.php'); // Redirect to same or other page so GET parameters will disappear from the url
+} else {
+ die(); // So it'll be like a blank page
+}
+?>
+
+",42412,,16306,,1/5/2017 2:36,1/7/2017 15:55,Is it bad practice to use GET method as login username/password for administrators?,,9,14,9,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147189,1,,,1/4/2017 3:02,,1,786,"Sometimes I need to make multiple transactions on some websites which only allow 1 transaction per hour per IP address. So to avoid IP address problem I sometimes use TOR browser. I know tor keeps us anonymous but what about our credit card or others details, can they be monitored on tor exit node on websites which use https ?
+
+How secure is my transaction ?
+
+Correct me if i am wrong : I don't think VPN + Tor will help either because VPN will just avoid my ISP getting to know I am using TOR & my traffic will still be unencrypted at Tor Exit nodes.
+
+Only VPN option was not considered because I have seen VPN to be slow (sometimes speed drops to zero) and have read that there are chances of IP leaking while using VPN, & in my case if IP address is leaked my transaction will fail.
+
+I need a fast, secure & IP changing solution.
+",121305,,,,,1/4/2017 3:43,Tor Exit Node Security & https website,,1,1,,,,CC BY-SA 3.0
+147202,1,,,1/4/2017 6:58,,0,102,"