HN Explorer

28 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 74.2 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
manojlds
My jekyll based static site hosted on Github Pages uses cloudflare for https. Saying that my site is compromised by CloudBleed is a bit too much.

http://www.doesitusecloudflare.com/?url=www.stacktoheap.com

arianvanp
But it is compromised.... this is literally the only use case in which you can get comprimised. If you put your _http_ page behind cloudlfare https
blibble
if it's public static content what exactly has been compromised?
mcbits
IP addresses of visitors? Depending on the site or visitor, that could be theoretically a compromise.

But the parent comment is untrue. Cloudflare will have unencrypted data in memory at some point, even if it's encrypted coming and going. This is how they eliminate the scary browser message about self-signed certificates, ironically.

bpicolo
They have a (more expensive) version that encrypts all the way to your own edge.
gkya
Well it probably just checks if the given domain uses CloudFlare and reports compromised if positive.
GrinningFool
Chances are it is. The difference being that the leaked data in your case could not have been sensitive.
baptistem
otherwise :

dig website.com +short | head -n1 | xargs -- whois | grep -q cloudflare

gkya
doesn't work with my setup, whois on cloudflare domains do not inlcude the string "cloudflare". This works tho:

  dig website.com +short |  grep -q cloudflare
neic
Does this use live data? Would a site be positive even if it, after the publication of Cloudbleed, migrated away from Cloudfare?
Piskvorrr
"Live" is somewhat misleading here: the leaks are out there, in crawler caches. Do you consider such source "live", even though it is no longer leaking data?
lucideer
I think that's exactly what the commenter was getting at. "Live" data would be deficient in this instance, historical data would be better.
thinkMOAR
I'd be interested both 'does it use' and 'did it use cloudflare' (in the affected period).
gkya
This is at about 38 upvotes ATM, and I believe it may not be killed for anybody's whims after that. It's tech-related, actual, and liked by the community here (not that is of particular interest to me but still).
springogeek
I was literally just saying to someone that this sort of tool needed to be made. Good job!
nikcub
This doesn't detect Cloudflare CNAME clients.

For ex. It says uber.com is not vulnerable - because the homepage isn't, while the app is consitantly one of the most impacted in the caches I've seen

I don't think anyone has really nailed the methodology here - and I think that is important (as is erring towards false positives rather than false negatives) for security mitigation advice

mauriciob
It's not that easy. Not all CNAME clients used the three services that had the issue.

These lists are bad, because they list any Cloudflare clients that can be found, not just the ones that might have had exposed data.

thenomad
Doesn't detect Reddit, which I understand to be affected?
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
throwfast1
Why was this flagged? Can HN offer a mouse over description to answer these types of questions? just curious
eli
Individual users have the ability to flag posts (after a certain karma, I think) and there's no place to provide a reason.
grzm
To elaborate, flags are (nearly?) always the result of user action, not mods.
sli
Dang, this one's probably going to be more popular than mine.

http://cloudbleed.surge.sh

Of course, mine isn't exactly performant, was the result of about 15 minutes of work, and just uses that Github repo with the list of affected domains (so, not exactly the most comprehensive). But hey, it was fun to build.