I don't want to spam any links here but if you are interested please do look at my last post about the dangers of doing this and lessons I learned from my mistake.
Please do not keep the files for 10 days. Even 24 hours is a deal-breaker. From what I've learned, anything more than 30 minutes can get you into trouble.
I wonder though if you could simply just block the Google crawler and bypass it. Or use a JavaScript to auto-POST something before the file gets sent for download. The Google crawler doesn't issue POST requests as far as I know.
1. Many people are more likely to go to a lot of effort to complain loudly and widely rather than hit a simple "delete this" link.
2. Such feature is basically a self-DoS. If someone takes a disliking to the app or a user of it they can script up a "delete everything" and fire it off.
If you make it super user-friendly and advertise it as the next Megaupload, sure. But if you keep a small audience of good-faith users it's not asking for problems.
If you can teach me to make my file upload as hacker-friendly as this service while implementing auth, i'd be glad. Here the entire point is you don't need further configuration/credentials for example to upload log/config from a server.
2. How do you know someone is from small audience of good-faith?
3. What if a file has virus and corrupt all the files on your end?
If you don't need auth, there are few measures you can take on your end:
1. TTL - Make these files temporary - They will be erased after x hours. Eg. x=1
2. Throttle - Limit number of uploads from a given IP/machine or control by uploads per sec
3. May be adding a malware scanner?
You can stand up an (SCP/SFTP-subprotocol-only) SSH server, and tell the user to log in with their GitHub username + GitHub SSH key. Then configure your SSH server to call[1] a check on GitHub’s API to map the provided username to the GitHub user’s set of public SSH keys. From there, the server treats that list exactly as if it were the user’s ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file.
[1] As it happens, I wrote an OpenSSHD plugin for exactly this: https://github.com/tsutsu/github-auth3
Following that, you can configure PAM to continue the auth process however you like, policy-wise: let any GitHub user in; only let GitHub users in from a specific GitHub org; keep an LDAP directory of GitHub usernames such that you can attach metadata to them like “is banned” or “has used up their upload credits for the day” or “is on plan tier X”; etc.
Then, to actually handle the uploads, you can 1. set up automatic local user instantiation per remote user; 2. populate /etc/skel with just the right set of limited files to allow the user to upload into one “spool” directory; 3. have an inotify-like daemon that watches for files to be closed in that directory and handles them from there (e.g. uploading them to an S3 bucket, etc.)
—————
Or, alternately, you can avoid building this on top of OpenSSH, since you’re really fighting against the current by trying to virtualize everything, when OpenSSH expects to be relying on, and providing access to, a traditional POSIX environment.
Instead, you can have your own SSH server daemon that provides access to a pretend environment inside the SSH-server process, and handles SCP/SFTP upload streams through a custom in-process handler, the same way a web framework handles PUT requests.
I don’t know how common this is in other runtimes, but Erlang has an SSH server framework that you can use to implement exactly this. (As it happens, I’ve also written a high-level service that uses this SSH server framework to implement an alternative carrier for Erlang remote shell, where you can just SSH into the Erlang node to get a shell on it: https://github.com/tsutsu/exuvia. This app is also, AFAIK, the only public/FOSS demonstration of how to use Erlang’s SSH server library—which is kind of sad. People should play with things like this more! Make MUDs and such!)
I use a little python script that creates a curl command to upload to S3 for cases where I don't have the AWS toolchain on a remote box.
Not as easy as a single command, but at least I'm less likely to be sending files off to some random site for everyone to see.
curl -X POST https://content.dropboxapi.com/2/files/upload --header "Authorization: Bearer ACCESSTOKEN" --header "Dropbox-API-Arg: {\"path\": \"/DROPBOXFILEPATH/DROPBOXFILENAME\"}" --header "Content-Type: application/octet-stream" --data-binary @/LOCALFILEPATH/LOCALFILENAME
https://gist.github.com/tuxfight3r/7ccbd5abc4ded37ecdbc8fa46...
Other comments are right to point out that this site is setting itself up to be abused. My feeling is that this is intended to be a demo. I doubt the creator is trying to provide a real service here. And they might be in for a rude awakening if it gains traction.
But, it looks like they intend this to be open source. Anyone can clone the repo and run this on their own server! Unfortunately, the repo does not have a license file, which makes me a little uneasy.
Edit: I didn’t say that very well. With no license file, technically we cannot actually use this code since it defaults to ‘All rights reserved’. I think the author might not realize that though. It seems they intend it to be ‘open’ based on line 334.
Also, it is not particularly good PHP code, a little rough around the edges. But hey, it's a cool demonstration on a very straight forward way to upload & share files! Could be a good starting point to develop further.
Surely the author is bearing the liability of getting burned by not specifying a licence.
A small script i use very regularly:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
if [ ! -f $1 ]; then echo "MISSING: $1"; exit 1; fi
torify curl -F"file=@$1" https://YOURSERVER || echo "UPLOAD FAILED (code: $?)"Also there is a cute alias you can do to easily 'share' files:
alias share='f() { curl --progress-bar --upload-file "$1" https://share.schollz.com | tee /dev/null; echo };f'
CopyFile["/path/to/file",CloudObject["your.file"]]
https://miscdotgeek.com/curlytp-every-web-server-is-a-dead-d...
cat file.txt | curl -F 'sprunge=<-' http://sprunge.us
ix.io
Luckily I found out before law enforcement did [2] so I proactively talked to my federal bureau for months generating Excel sheets of IPs and access times and devices and countries. I didn't see many of the images myself, basically just looked at one upload per IP which was like three in total and forwarded all uploads of that IP to the police but man.. what the hell is wrong with people. 4 digit number of uploads of CSAM.
[1] https://github.com/HaschekSolutions/pictshare [2] https://blog.haschek.at/2018/fight-child-pornography-with-ra...
Nice job going through the reporting process and I'm glad you blogged about it to share with others
(*based on https://github.com/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole)
*this one and another few before it.
You could setup a website which accepts file uploads at username:file_signature@example.com , when a request is accepted you retrieve the public ssh key for "username" and validate that the "file_signature" is valid for the file uploaded.
It's a bit unintuitive to sign files with your SSH key but possible https://superuser.com/a/1616656/51984
1. letting you ban bad actors from your system by creating a blacklist of GitHub usernames; and
2. putting a stumbling block in the way of getting around #1 by signing up for 1000 accounts (signing up for a GitHub account takes a while; adding a unique new SSH key[1] to that GitHub account means generating a new SSH keypair, which takes another while; etc. Having a GitHub account with an associated SSH key constitutes a very small proof-of-work, similar to an e-stamp.)
[1] IIRC, a given SSH public key cannot be associated with more than one GitHub account at a time.
Any SSO provider would provide the same guarantees; but GitHub is the only SSO provider that has people's SSH pubkeys on file and accessible through a public API, and so GitHub is the only SSO provider you can use as an SSO provider through SSH.
Also, as a separate "benefit" (though some would argue it's the opposite), GitHub accounts — SSO accounts generally — are more-often-than-not associated with people's personal identities. SSO identity-provider sign-up processes usually collect quite a bit of PII, and often do a bit of KYC with phone verification, etc. This means that requiring sign-in through SSO is an almost-perfect ward against criminal use of your service — since any criminal stupid enough to SSO into your site and then do something illegal, can be quickly-and-easily identified by the police by sending a warrant to the SSO provider.
-----
Besides all that, the point here is to make the process of uploading a file as simple as possible for the end-user (presuming the end-user is a developer familiar with common CLI tools.) The backend complexity isn't really a concern, if it presents a simple and straightforward API.
With GitHub-identity-supported SSH-pubkey-auth, anyone who has a default SSH keypair and a GitHub account (and who has registered their default SSH keypair against their GitHub account) can directly jump to typing `scp ./file mygithubuser@uploader.example.com:` and it'll "just work" — without having to ever even visit uploader.example.com to register an account! Most developers have a GitHub; and most developers have used SCP before at some point. It's a very familiar process. Less confusing, even, than GitHub's own requirement of needing to SSH into github.com as the "git" user.
With your scheme, meanwhile, the user has to figure out how to sign a file using SSH — something I don't think more than a handful of people in the world will have ever had previous experience with. That's not quite "easy" on the level of "just use cURL" or "just use SCP" :)
Couple years ago got a DM from an ex-colleague and security researcher who discovered child porn that was publicly accessible. he contacted Dropbox several times over the course of 3 weeks. Weeks later the links were still up. I reached out to somebody I knew at Dropbox who said they were reluctant to do me this favor and deal with that matter and would prefer if I continue contacting their security. I continued trying on LinkedIn and contacted several people in Germany and the UK. No response other than "thank you for your email". The head of security in Germany even blocked me for saying "there is child porn on the site please help me get hold of somebody in charge". Getting really fed up by then, I contacted sales from my company email (a fortune 500 company) and asked them to give me a quote for what looked to them like a multi million $ client. Within 2 hours I got a call from the VP of sales to talk about my "storage needs". I told them about the child porn and that they are helping to actively distribute it now since several weeks. One of the videos was a girl not older than 7 getting raped and tortured. It took another 3 days to take down the material.
Maybe not a great idea. In some places, that puts you in possession, and is enough for prison time, regardless of your motives.
I have done work for lawyers in exactly this scenario. Be very very careful.
You do not want to have to explain to explain the provenance of such a file without having someone to back you up.
Yeah that must be great to walk around with...
You can't rely on the good faith of users, if your service is easily usable for crime, it will be used for it.
I had a client wanting to defer identity validation on a two-sided market system. I had to explain how it would be used for money laundering. It had never occurred to the client.
> Google Drive scans a file for viruses before the file is downloaded or shared. If a virus is detected, users cannot convert the infected file to a Google Doc, Sheet, or Slide, and they'll receive a warning if they attempt these operations.
So at least some degree of automated moderation is going on. Frankly, I'd be astounded if some amount of scanning isn't being done for illegal content and/or phishing stuff.