[aur-dev] [PATCH v2] Fake pkgbase actions for unconfirmed users

Lukas Fleischer lfleischer at archlinux.org
Fri Jun 26 21:08:38 UTC 2015

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 at 22:14:20, Gordian Edenhofer wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 21:26 +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > Cool, this is kind of what I expected! I wonder whether we can 
> > directly
> > set a referer here, though? Shouldn't something like
> > 
> >     get_uri('/login/', true) . '?referer=' . urlencode($uri)
> > 
> > work?
> I can not make sense out of the "?referer" parameter, since my fix of
> FS#32481 uses $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'] and does not rely on an
> additional parameter to a GET request.

It uses $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'] unless $_REQUEST['referer'] is set. So
we should be able to overwrite the referer by setting the HTTP GET

> > Having said that, I now see a potential problem with the GET 
> > parameter
> > approach of implementing FS#32481. You could build a malicious login
> > link that redirects to a certain page and send that link to a 
> > privileged
> > user (i.e. a TU or a Developer). I am not aware of any action that
> > cannot be undone and doesn't require any additional confirmation, so
> > that probably isn't very critical. We should fix it anyway...
> Since most of the relevant package actions are perform through POST req
> uests (which are redirected as GET requests), I could not think of any
> potential security issues.
> Furthermore the referer is partially checked for outgoing links:
>         if (strpos($referer, aur_location()) !== 0) {
>                 $referer = '/';
>         }

Yeah, however, it is already kind of annoying if you can make a TU flag
a package out-of-date without noticing. And we might introduce something
more critical that does not require a POST request in the future. Better
safe than sorry. This is something to fix in a separate patch set,

More information about the aur-dev mailing list