Re: Re: Security Issues - Where to look?
| From: | Richard Lynch | Date: | Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:35:42 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Security Issues - Where to look? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-225572@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, November 10, 2005 3:08 pm, GamblerZG wrote:
> Chris Shiflett wrote:
>> GamblerZG wrote:
>>> I think it's still reasonable to restrict a session to a single IP.
>> No, it's not, for all of the reasons Richard mentioned and more.
>
> I agree that using only IP to identify session is bad.
> Using only SID is ok.
> Using SIDs that are tied to a single IP is even _more secure_, since
> the
> possible attacker would need to have exactly the same IP as a victim
> of
> session hijacking. This comes at a price of a small inconvinience for
> dial-up users (since they would need to login on each reconnect), but
> I
> think such price it reasonable.
Please pay attention.
AOL *will* change the IP address of their users *IN* *THE* *MIDDLE*
*OF* *A* *SESSION*.
They will not be "disconnected".
They will not need to re-dial.
Their phone line does not change its status from "live" to "dead"
They will not be logged out of AOL.
Their IP address *WILL* change, just because AOL felt like it [++].
You are rendering your site un-usable by all AOL users in a big way to
rely on IP address not changing in mid-session.
There is *NO* standard, law, rule, nor reason for an IP address to be
assumed to be consistent, even in a single session/login/phone-call.
++ I suspect that AOL has a better reason internally for doing this
than "I felt like it" but they don't NEED a better reason, and the
effect is the same.
--
Like Music?
http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm