How to hide content in a txt file from direct url
I'm working on a windows app which is reading a "authorized" domains list from a txt file with a web request from "domain.com/sub/txtfile"
I don't want people to see the content of the file when entering it directly in the browser. Is it possible to achieve this with some .htaccess hacks or something else?
.htaccess file security url-rewriting
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
add a comment |
I'm working on a windows app which is reading a "authorized" domains list from a txt file with a web request from "domain.com/sub/txtfile"
I don't want people to see the content of the file when entering it directly in the browser. Is it possible to achieve this with some .htaccess hacks or something else?
.htaccess file security url-rewriting
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
add a comment |
I'm working on a windows app which is reading a "authorized" domains list from a txt file with a web request from "domain.com/sub/txtfile"
I don't want people to see the content of the file when entering it directly in the browser. Is it possible to achieve this with some .htaccess hacks or something else?
.htaccess file security url-rewriting
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
I'm working on a windows app which is reading a "authorized" domains list from a txt file with a web request from "domain.com/sub/txtfile"
I don't want people to see the content of the file when entering it directly in the browser. Is it possible to achieve this with some .htaccess hacks or something else?
.htaccess file security url-rewriting
.htaccess file security url-rewriting
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:09
PeterPeter
61
61
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As your app is a client-side native Windows application, it's not possible to store any secret in the app itself that could be used for authentication. As the user has everything the Windows app may have, it impossible to authenticate the client as discussed many times here.
It also doesn't make much sense. Imagine it was somehow possible and file contents were only visible to your app. What would be the purpose? What if an attacker changed the hosts file on Windows to download the file from a rogue server? What if he used an intermediate proxy to inspect, change or replace contents? The latter is also possible with https, because the user has full control of the client, and can trust whatever certificate he wants.
You could authenticate the user though. An attacker can still see and modify downloaded file contents, but at least not anybody could download the file, only your authenticated users. But this means having a user database where the file is downloaded from, and implementing proper authentication. And it still doesn't solve the other problems.
In short, you can't protect a client-side application from a user that controls the whole client.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53307192%2fhow-to-hide-content-in-a-txt-file-from-direct-url%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As your app is a client-side native Windows application, it's not possible to store any secret in the app itself that could be used for authentication. As the user has everything the Windows app may have, it impossible to authenticate the client as discussed many times here.
It also doesn't make much sense. Imagine it was somehow possible and file contents were only visible to your app. What would be the purpose? What if an attacker changed the hosts file on Windows to download the file from a rogue server? What if he used an intermediate proxy to inspect, change or replace contents? The latter is also possible with https, because the user has full control of the client, and can trust whatever certificate he wants.
You could authenticate the user though. An attacker can still see and modify downloaded file contents, but at least not anybody could download the file, only your authenticated users. But this means having a user database where the file is downloaded from, and implementing proper authentication. And it still doesn't solve the other problems.
In short, you can't protect a client-side application from a user that controls the whole client.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
add a comment |
As your app is a client-side native Windows application, it's not possible to store any secret in the app itself that could be used for authentication. As the user has everything the Windows app may have, it impossible to authenticate the client as discussed many times here.
It also doesn't make much sense. Imagine it was somehow possible and file contents were only visible to your app. What would be the purpose? What if an attacker changed the hosts file on Windows to download the file from a rogue server? What if he used an intermediate proxy to inspect, change or replace contents? The latter is also possible with https, because the user has full control of the client, and can trust whatever certificate he wants.
You could authenticate the user though. An attacker can still see and modify downloaded file contents, but at least not anybody could download the file, only your authenticated users. But this means having a user database where the file is downloaded from, and implementing proper authentication. And it still doesn't solve the other problems.
In short, you can't protect a client-side application from a user that controls the whole client.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
add a comment |
As your app is a client-side native Windows application, it's not possible to store any secret in the app itself that could be used for authentication. As the user has everything the Windows app may have, it impossible to authenticate the client as discussed many times here.
It also doesn't make much sense. Imagine it was somehow possible and file contents were only visible to your app. What would be the purpose? What if an attacker changed the hosts file on Windows to download the file from a rogue server? What if he used an intermediate proxy to inspect, change or replace contents? The latter is also possible with https, because the user has full control of the client, and can trust whatever certificate he wants.
You could authenticate the user though. An attacker can still see and modify downloaded file contents, but at least not anybody could download the file, only your authenticated users. But this means having a user database where the file is downloaded from, and implementing proper authentication. And it still doesn't solve the other problems.
In short, you can't protect a client-side application from a user that controls the whole client.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
As your app is a client-side native Windows application, it's not possible to store any secret in the app itself that could be used for authentication. As the user has everything the Windows app may have, it impossible to authenticate the client as discussed many times here.
It also doesn't make much sense. Imagine it was somehow possible and file contents were only visible to your app. What would be the purpose? What if an attacker changed the hosts file on Windows to download the file from a rogue server? What if he used an intermediate proxy to inspect, change or replace contents? The latter is also possible with https, because the user has full control of the client, and can trust whatever certificate he wants.
You could authenticate the user though. An attacker can still see and modify downloaded file contents, but at least not anybody could download the file, only your authenticated users. But this means having a user database where the file is downloaded from, and implementing proper authentication. And it still doesn't solve the other problems.
In short, you can't protect a client-side application from a user that controls the whole client.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:46
Gabor LengyelGabor Lengyel
5,35021027
5,35021027
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53307192%2fhow-to-hide-content-in-a-txt-file-from-direct-url%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
