<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Local File Inclusion – Tricks of the Trade</title>
	<atom:link href="http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/</link>
	<description>Managing Risk and Security since 1998</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:39:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Challenge of Dynamically Generating Static Content &#124; Zoompf</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-1640</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Challenge of Dynamically Generating Static Content &#124; Zoompf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-1640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] their raw contents into a response and send it to me!&#8221; Jackpot baby! This is what we call a Local File Inclusion vulnerability just waiting to happen. The developer has not so much created a resource combiner as [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] their raw contents into a response and send it to me!&#8221; Jackpot baby! This is what we call a Local File Inclusion vulnerability just waiting to happen. The developer has not so much created a resource combiner as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jesse</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-1562</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jesse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-1562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When I started building websites 3 years ago I was using php 4 with allow_url_fopen on by default on my windows server 2003.  With that said, I have designed and programmed over 100 php websites of which  all of them using this php inculde here: 
 for all my headers and bottom navigations menus.

Since then this PHP include Security risk came about and now they changed that rule “allow_url_fopen” to be off by default to close this risk which would render my original php include line of code useless and only pull a error. However, I have researched and found the following code would work fine  Would this fix the exploit? Also, My issue is, I do not want to go over every website created and make the include code change to over a 1000 locations, so im wondering if there are any other fixes? Maybe by adding a rule in the .htaccess?
Maybe something like this:  RewriteRule index\.php?(?!id&#124;altid&#124;DataSet1_currentPage).+ /404.php [I,RP,L]

Thanks Jesse]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I started building websites 3 years ago I was using php 4 with allow_url_fopen on by default on my windows server 2003.  With that said, I have designed and programmed over 100 php websites of which  all of them using this php inculde here:<br />
 for all my headers and bottom navigations menus.</p>
<p>Since then this PHP include Security risk came about and now they changed that rule “allow_url_fopen” to be off by default to close this risk which would render my original php include line of code useless and only pull a error. However, I have researched and found the following code would work fine  Would this fix the exploit? Also, My issue is, I do not want to go over every website created and make the include code change to over a 1000 locations, so im wondering if there are any other fixes? Maybe by adding a rule in the .htaccess?<br />
Maybe something like this:  RewriteRule index\.php?(?!id|altid|DataSet1_currentPage).+ /404.php [I,RP,L]</p>
<p>Thanks Jesse</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Take your  and shove it - The HP Security Laboratory Blog -</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-332</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Take your  and shove it - The HP Security Laboratory Blog -]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Apache&#039;s user) would need to have access to that file but that doesn&#039;t exclude a lot of interesting [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Apache&#39;s user) would need to have access to that file but that doesn&#39;t exclude a lot of interesting [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David "secteam" Jacoby</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-263</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David "secteam" Jacoby]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for a nice article, i wrote something similar a while back. 

INTRODUCTION
Imagine that an attacker finds that a website is vulnerable to a PHP remote file include vulnerability. In most cases the attacker would try to execute commands, get a shell and read configuration files which may contain sensitive data. Is this the best way to exploit PHP remote file include vulnerability? Is there an alternative?

Read the entire article here:
http://itbloggen.se/cs/blogs/secteam/archive/2009/01/26/alternative-ways-to-exploit-PHP-remote-file-include-vulnerabilities.aspx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for a nice article, i wrote something similar a while back. </p>
<p>INTRODUCTION<br />
Imagine that an attacker finds that a website is vulnerable to a PHP remote file include vulnerability. In most cases the attacker would try to execute commands, get a shell and read configuration files which may contain sensitive data. Is this the best way to exploit PHP remote file include vulnerability? Is there an alternative?</p>
<p>Read the entire article here:<br />
<a href="http://itbloggen.se/cs/blogs/secteam/archive/2009/01/26/alternative-ways-to-exploit-PHP-remote-file-include-vulnerabilities.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://itbloggen.se/cs/blogs/secteam/archive/2009/01/26/alternative-ways-to-exploit-PHP-remote-file-include-vulnerabilities.aspx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cris Neckar</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cris Neckar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most HTTP servers support the Range header to facilitate download resumption. The syntax for this header is something like:

Range: bytes=-1024

This would specify that only the last KB of output should be returned from the server. You can use this to skip the bulk of large logs files in order to efficiently exploit local inclusion vulnerabilities.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most HTTP servers support the Range header to facilitate download resumption. The syntax for this header is something like:</p>
<p>Range: bytes=-1024</p>
<p>This would specify that only the last KB of output should be returned from the server. You can use this to skip the bulk of large logs files in order to efficiently exploit local inclusion vulnerabilities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Coles - Bluelip</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Coles - Bluelip]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s been a long time since I&#039;ve used it, but back in the days of DOS, you could insert an EOF character that would cause some programs to stop reading from the file. It&#039;s worth a shot to insert the character and give it a try.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s been a long time since I&#8217;ve used it, but back in the days of DOS, you could insert an EOF character that would cause some programs to stop reading from the file. It&#8217;s worth a shot to insert the character and give it a try.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cris Neckar</title>
		<link>http://labs.neohapsis.com/2008/07/21/local-file-inclusion-%e2%80%93-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cris Neckar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neolab.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An interesting challenge for anyone who is interested:

In the case of a large log file, I noted that you would have to wait for the beginning of the file to load before you could see your command output. The challenge is to come up with code to include which will prevent the contents of the log aside from command output from being displayed back to the user (and thereby bypass the time penalty). 

Post your ideas here.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting challenge for anyone who is interested:</p>
<p>In the case of a large log file, I noted that you would have to wait for the beginning of the file to load before you could see your command output. The challenge is to come up with code to include which will prevent the contents of the log aside from command output from being displayed back to the user (and thereby bypass the time penalty). </p>
<p>Post your ideas here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

