-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Security Related Headers check failed, to fix or not to fix and how? #38
Comments
Same problem here, and same question. |
Hi guys, I'll double check how rails 4 handle those headers and eventually I'll disable the check for rails version >=4 |
thx :) On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Paolo Perego [email protected]:
|
Still here in latest update :) |
Because I didn't disable check family for rails 4.x automagically yet. |
It's not the whole family that should be ignored, right? Just this one check in particular? |
With --disable-owasp-ror-cheatsheet you disable (or you should :-)) all On 4 April 2014 14:30, Justin Coyne [email protected] wrote:
$ cd /pub The Application Security blog you really want to read: |
If you disable all you miss certain other ones. For example a Rails 4 app I am working on fails 2 checks (only one of which is Owasp Ror CheatSheet: Security Related Headers check failed) but if I use |
Very strange @shaneog... I turn this from "question" to "bug" so and I'll investigate furher. Can you provide me a skeleton of this app (just the gems) in order to replicate? |
Sure, I'll create a sample app with the same gems very shortly and post a link here. |
I used a previous Rails 4 sample app. Same problem. Output below:
|
--disable-ror-cheatsheet flag worked but disabling the whole family from the YAML config file didn't. Due to a silly typo the magic didn't happened. Fixed now.
These are default headers in Rails 4 - how has this not been fixed in two years? I would prefer not to have to disable all of the ror cheatsheet checks just because of this one warning. Any suggestions? |
@jprince with OSS projects you don't get to demand that other people do work for free. If you want it, why don't you submit a pull request, or fund a developer to do it? |
Hi @jprince this is not fixed in 2 years because from a security perspective, those are not a priority. I receive very few pull requests, so I have to dedicate myself to high priority issues that, at this stage, are adding CVE to the library. Please note that the cheatsheet is pretty unmaintained too. |
@thesp0nge understandable. I was thinking about opening a PR over the weekend that would ignore a particular check if the user's MVC version is above the version in which the vulnerability was addressed. So essentially something where the check's initialization function would have an additional attribute: ...
:applies=>["rails"],
:fix_version=>'4.0',
... Then the |
I run dawn on a Rails 4 project and got this
I have no idea of what those headers are about so I googled for them and found https://coderwall.com/p/k7xlxa
Apparently they are already used by Rails 4. I checked a Rails 4 application of mine and got them in the response
So is Rails 4 already safe? If this is the case, should dawn still warn me about those headers?
I believe there is a more general problem. I'm not a security professional and there will be many people like me in the intended audience of dawn. I need either time to really understand why a vulnerabily is a vulnerabily or plain Ruby code to use in my projects to fix vulnerabilities. Falling back to the second option, the message "Use response headers like X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, X-XSS-Protection in your project" is not so useful because I don't know how to use those headers (which values?) and where to put them (first guess, some callback in ActionController to set headers on all responses but I thought only 1 second about it.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: