From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DCED78414 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:11:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C9DA1E39A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:11:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id BE6191E38C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:11:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9A8CC46439 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:11:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9795a8e7-58cb-58df-7837-5df9f426a567@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:11:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com> References: <20210428141346.240896-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com> <20210428141346.240896-2-l.stechauner@proxmox.com> <a2b24e37-4afb-ce9a-40b9-5fa530c25f45@proxmox.com> <9daaf9f5-e310-b452-6ba7-10623e2bfdf6@proxmox.com> <01194e1a-2b5c-6c9b-818a-f15694d91a70@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <01194e1a-2b5c-6c9b-818a-f15694d91a70@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/1] fix #1710: add retrieve method for storage X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:11:54 -0000 On 29.04.21 16:01, Dominik Csapak wrote: > On 4/29/21 15:22, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Maybe we can just allow it only for users with Sys.Modify + Sys.Audit on / ? >> >> We could also enforce that it needs to be a hostname (no IP) and/or resolve >> to something out of the priv. network ranges, at least if the aforementioned >> privs are not set. > > yes, sounds good, but then we have to disallow redirects > true, or at least resolve them manually ourself. >> >> Another idea would be enforcing the URL to match something like /\.(iso|img)$/ >> and being not to informative on errors to avoid allowing to see which hsot are >> on/off line in a network. With that one could make this pretty safe I think. > > mhmm.. could work, but then we'd have to use a fixed timeout > (like on authentication) to avoid timing based probes had that in mind too, actually replied that to lorenz just now ^^