I don't know much about SEO and how web spiders work, so forgive my ignorance here. I'm creating a site (using ASP.NET-MVC) which has areas that displays information retrieved from the database. The data is unique to the user, so there's no real server-side output caching going on. However, since the data can contain things the user may not wish to have displayed from search engine results, I'd like to prevent any spiders from accessing the search results page. Are there any special actions I should take to ensure that the search result directory isn't crawled? Also, would a spider even crawl a page that's dynamically generated and would any actions preventing certain directories being search mess up my search engine rankings?
edit: I should add, I'm reading up on robots.txt protocol, but it relies on co-operation from the web crawler. However, I'd also like to prevent any data-mining users who will ignore the robots.txt file.
I appreciate any help!
You can prevent some malicious clients from hitting your server too heavily by implementing throttling on the server. "Sorry, your IP has made too many requests to this server in the past few minutes. Please try again later." In practice, though, assume that you can't stop a truly malicious user from bypassing any throttling mechanisms that you put in place.
Given that, here's the more important question:
Are you comfortable with the information that you're making available for all the world to see? Are your users comfortable with this?
If the answer to those questions is no, then you should be ensuring that only authorized users are able to see the sensitive information. If the information isn't particularly sensitive but you don't want clients crawling it, throttling is probably a good alternative. Is it even likely that you're going to be crawled anyway? If not, robots.txt should be just fine.
It seems like you have 2 issues.
Firstly a concern about certain data appearing in search results. The second about malicious or unscrupulous user harvesting user related data.
The first issue will be covered by appropriate use of a robots.txt file as all the big search engines honour this.
The second issue seems more to do with data privacy. The first question which immediately springs to mind is: If there is user information which people may not want displayed, why are you making it available at all?
What is the privacy policy for such data?
Do users have the ability to control what information is made available?
If the information is potentially sensitive but important to the system could it be restricted so it is only available to logged in users?
Check out the Robots exclusion standard. It's a text file that you put on your site that tells a bot what it can and can't index. You will also want to address what happens if a bot doesn't honour the robots.txt file.
robots.txt file as mentioned. If that is not enough then you can:
Block unknown useragents - hard to maintain, easy for a bot to forge a browser's (although most legitimate bots wont)
Block unknown IP addresses - not useful for a public site
Require logins
Throttle user connections - tricky to tune, you will still be disclosing information.
Perhaps by using a combination. Either way it is a trade off, if the public can browse to it, so can a bot. Be sure you don't block & alienate people in your attempts to block bots.
a few options:
force the user to login to view the content
add a CAPTCHA page before the content
embed content in Flash
load dynamically with JavaScript
Related
I am working with a Domestic Violence support organisation to build a website and have been asked to provide a "Quick Exit" function.
The purpose is to enable the user to exit the site quickly without closing the browser. I have seen such buttons on similar sites and the normal scenario is that they simply cause a Google search page to be shown. (easy but doesn't hide history)
I am looking for ideas to improve on this function to hide/disguise the history stored in the browser as this is currently a fairly significant flaw with the Quick Exit buttons I've seen to date.
I had a concept but I am looking for input on either fleshing out my concept, or other alternative directions to consider.
My concept was to have two domains: let's call them dv-site.com and decoy-site.com. The former being the source of domestic violence support information and the latter being some random content, could be anything, lets just say weather information for the sake of the conversation.
If a user navigates directly to dv-site.com the server redirects to decoy-site.com but also attaches some session specific, or perhaps single use query string or similar.
decoy-site.com validates the query string and, if valid, loads dv-site.com within an iframe or something like that so from the users perspective they are just looking at dv-site.com, though the domain recorded in history is decoy-site.com.
Links within the iframe loaded site would similarly be redirected with the same or a new query string.
If a user was to click on the browser history and go directly to decoy-site.com it would not be able to validate the query string and would just load the decoy site like a normal site. i.e. just showing weather information that exist on that site.
Domestic violence is a serious systemic issue and I would love some input from anyone who has more technical knowledge than I do on fleshing out this concept.
Other aspects I am unsure of how to tackle;
ensuring that dv-site.com can get crawled and ranked by search engines, even though users are all redirected, as it is imperative that it appears in search results so it can be found
technical aspects of a redirect that does not appear in history.
I'm unsure if it's possible to do this without all content and engagement being attributed to the decoy-site..
For the redirect, I believe that HTTP redirects do not get stored in history. You can use a 302 redirect for that. HTTP has a set-cookie header that lets you record a cookie - coupled with the headers here, you can give the decoy site access without recording it in history. Then, delete the cookie.
As far as pagerank goes, you could add a line to robots.txt as described here (the last point) to force the bot to scrape using a query parameter. Then in the backend, return the dv site only if that parameter is passed, otherwise redirect. If the googlebot removes query params when publishing, it will work out. Otherwise, it might fail.
Best of luck.
When looking at how websites such as Facebook stores profile images, the URLs seem to use randomly generated value. For example, Google's Facebook page's profile picture page has the following URL:
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hprofile-xft1/v/t1.0-1/p160x160/11990418_442606765926870_215300303224956260_n.png?oh=28cb5dd4717b7174eed44ca5279a2e37&oe=579938A8
However why not just organise it like so:
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/{{ profile_id }}/50x50.png
Clearly this would be much easier in terms of storage and simplicity. Am I missing something? Thanks.
Companies like Facebook have fairly intense CDNs. They may look like randomly generated urls but they aren't, each individual route is on purpose and programed to be handled in that manner.
They aren't after simplicity of storage like you would be if you were just using a FTP to connect to a basic marketing website server. While you may put all your images in a /images folder, Facebook is much too complex for this. Dozens of different types of applications accessing hundreds if not thousands of CDNs and servers world wide.
If you ever build a web app, such as a Ruby on Rails app, and you work with a services such as AWS (Amazon Web Services) you'll also encounter what seems like nonsensical urls. But it's all part of the fast delivery network provided within the architecture. Every time you "push" your app up to the server new urls are generated for each unique resource automatically, css files, JavaScript files, image files, etc all dynamically created. You don't have to type in each of these unique urls individually each time you publish the app, the code simply knows where to look for those as a part of the publishing process.
Example: you tell the web app to look for
//= require jquery
and it returns you http://example.com/assets/jquery-eb3e278249152b5b5d5170b73d9dbf52.js?body=1 in your header.
It doesn't matter that the url is more complex than it should be, the application recognizes it, and that's all that matters.
Simply put, I think it can boil down to two main reasons: Security and Cache:
Security - Adding these long unpredictable hashes prevent others from guessing photo URLs and makes it pretty hard to download photos you aren't supposed to.
Consider what would happen if I could easily guess your profile photo URL and download it, even when you explicitly chose to share it only with friends.
Cache - by adding "random" query params to each photo, you make sure each photo instance gets its own URL. Thus you can store the photo in browser's cache for a long time, knowing that whenever you replace it with a new one, the new photo will have a fresh URL and the browser won't keep showing you the old photo.
If you were to keep the same URL for each user's profile photo (e.g. https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/{{ profile_id }}/50x50.png), and then upload a new photo, either one of these can happen:
If you stored the photo in browser's cache for a long time, the browser will keep showing you the cached version (as long as URL is the same, and cache hasn't expired, there's no need to re-download the image).
If, instead, you only keep the image in cache for short period of time, you end up hitting your server much more then actually needed, increasing the load and hurting performance.
I hope this clarifies it.
With your route scheme, how would you avoid strangers to access the pictures of a private account? The hash also prevent bots to downloads all the pictures.
I get your pain :-) I might not stay with describing how this problem could appear more, but rather let me speak of a solution. Well it is normal that in general code while dealing with hashed value or even base64ed value it seems likes mess to deal with, but with an identifier to explain along, it does not remain much!
I use to work in a company where we use to collate Facebook post, using Graph API get its Insights Object and extract information from it for easy passing around within UI and sending back to our Redis cache store; and once we defined a data-structure in TaffyDB how an object organization is going to look like, everything just made sense with its ability to query the useful finite from long junk looking stream of minified Javascript stream
Refer: http://www.taffydb.com/
The extra values in the URL are useful to:
Track access. This is like when a newspaper appends "&homepage" vs. "&email" to an article URL, so their system knows how a reader found the page.
Avoid abuse and control access. Imagine that a user loaded a small, popular pornographic image into a profile image. They could then hijack the CDN to be a free web host for their porn site. But that code is used internally by the CDN to limit the number of views.
What's the best way to keep users from sharing session cookies in Rails?
I think I have a good way to do it, but I'd like to run it by the stack overflow crowd to see if there's a simpler way first.
Basically I'd like to detect if someone tries to share a paid membership with others. Users are already screened at the point of login for logging in from too many different subnets, but some have tried to work around this by sharing session cookies. What's the best way to do this without tying sessions to IPs (lots of legitimate people use rotating proxies).
The best heuristic I've found is the # of Class B subnets / Time (some ISPs use rotating proxies on different Class Cs). This has generated the fewest # of false positives for us so I'd like to stick with this method.
Right now I'm thinking of applying a before filter for each request that keeps track of which Subnets and session_ids a user has used in memcached and applies the heuristic to that to determine if the cookie is being shared.
Any simpler / easier to implement ideas? Any existing plugins that do this?
You could tie the session information to browser information. If people are coming in from 3 or 4 different browser types within a certain time period, you can infer that something suspicious may be going on.
An alternative answer relies on a bit of social-engineering. If you have some heuristic that you trust, you can warn users (at the top of the page) that you suspect they are sharing their account and that they are being watched closely. A "contact us" link in the warning would allow legitimate users to explain themselves (and thus be permanently de-flagged). This may minimize the problem enough to take it off your radar.
One way I can think of would be to set the same random value in both the session and a cookie with every page refresh. Check the two to make sure they are the same. If someone shares their session, the cookie and session will get out of sync.
Yesterday morning I noticed Google Search was using hash parameters:
http://www.google.com/#q=Client-side+URL+parameters
which seems to be the same as the more usual search (with search?q=Client-side+URL+parameters). (It seems they are no longer using it by default when doing a search using their form.)
Why would they do that?
More generally, I see hash parameters cropping up on a lot of web sites. Is it a good thing? Is it a hack? Is it a departure from REST principles? I'm wondering if I should use this technique in web applications, and when.
There's a discussion by the W3C of different use cases, but I don't see which one would apply to the example above. They also seem undecided about recommendations.
Google has many live experimental features that are turned on/off based on your preferences, location and other factors (probably random selection as well.) I'm pretty sure the one you mention is one of those as well.
What happens in the background when a hash is used instead of a query string parameter is that it queries the "real" URL (http://www.google.com/search?q=hello) using JavaScript, then it modifies the existing page with the content. This will appear much more responsive to the user since the page does not have to reload entirely. The reason for the hash is so that browser history and state is maintained. If you go to http://www.google.com/#q=hello you'll find that you actually get the search results for "hello" (even if your browser is really only requesting http://www.google.com/) With JavaScript turned off, it wouldn't work however, and you'd just get the Google front page.
Hashes are appearing more and more as dynamic web sites are becoming the norm. Hashes are maintained entirely on the client and therefore do not incur a server request when changed. This makes them excellent candidates for maintaining unique addresses to different states of the web application, while still being on the exact same page.
I have been using them myself more and more lately, and you can find one example here: http://blixt.org/js -- If you have a look at the "Hash" library on that page, you'll see my implementation of supporting hashes across browsers.
Here's a little guide for using hashes for storing state:
How?
Maintaining state in hashes implies that your application (I'll call it application since you generally only use hashes for state in more advanced web solutions) relies on JavaScript. Without JavaScript, the only function of hashes would be to tell the browser to find content somewhere on the page.
Once you have implemented some JavaScript to detect changes to the hash, the next step would be to parse the hash into meaningful data (just as you would with query string parameters.)
Why?
Once you've got the state in the hash, it can be modified by your code (or your user) to represent the current state in your application. There are many reasons for why you would want to do this.
One common case is when only a small part of a page changes based on a variable, and it would be inefficient to reload the entire page to reflect that change (Example: You've got a box with tabs. The active tab can be identified in the hash.)
Other cases are when you load content dynamically in JavaScript, and you want to tell the client what content to load (Example: http://beta.multifarce.com/#?state=7001, will take you to a specific point in the text adventure.)
When?
If you had a look at my "JavaScript realm" you'll see a border-line overkill case. I did it simply because I wanted to cram as much JavaScript dynamics into that page as possible. In a normal project I would be conservative about when to do this, and only do it when you will see positive changes in one or more of the following areas:
User interactivity
Usually the user won't see much difference, but the URLs can be confusing
Remember loading indicators! Loading content dynamically can be frustrating to the user if it takes time.
Responsiveness (time from one state to another)
Performance (bandwidth, server CPU)
No JavaScript?
Here comes a big deterrent. While you can safely rely on 99% of your users to have a browser capable of using your page with hashes for state, there are still many cases where you simply can't rely on this. Search engine crawlers, for example. While Google is constantly working to make their crawler work with the latest web technologies (did you know that they index Flash applications?), it still isn't a person and can't make sense of some things.
Basically, you're on a crossroads between compatability and user experience.
But you can always build a road inbetween, which of course requires more work. In less metaphorical terms: Implement both solutions so that there is a server-side URL for every client-side URL that outputs relevant content. For compatible clients it would redirect them to the hash URL. This way, Google can index "hard" URLs and when users click them, they get the dynamic state stuff!
Recently google also stopped serving direct links in search results offering instead redirects.
I believe both have to do with gathering usage statistics, what searches were performed by the same user, in what sequence, what of the search results the user has followed etc.
P.S. Now, that's interesting, direct links are back. I absolutely remember seeing there only redirects in the last couple of weeks. They are definitely experimenting with something.
In ASP.NET MVC it seems to be common practice not to use GET requests for calls to a controller that modify the model. For example, deleting a customer should not be possible by clicking a simple HTML link.
The only reason for this rule I am aware of is not safeguard against web-crawlers which might indavertently alter the database. GET requests are commonly regarded as safe, whereas POST requests are not.
Does this mean that this rule does not apply to non-public portions of a website (Example: Your password-protected user administration area)? Or is there any other reason not to use destructive GET requests?
This is generally part of HTTP. From the HTTP 1.1 RFC 2616
Implementors should be aware that the
software represents the user in their
interactions over the Internet, and
should be careful to allow the user to
be aware of any actions they might
take which may have an unexpected
significance to themselves or others.
In particular, the convention has been
established that the GET and HEAD
methods SHOULD NOT have the
significance of taking an action other
than retrieval. These methods ought to
be considered "safe". This allows user
agents to represent other methods,
such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a
special way, so that the user is made
aware of the fact that a possibly
unsafe action is being requested.
Naturally, it is not possible to
ensure that the server does not
generate side-effects as a result of
performing a GET request; in fact,
some dynamic resources consider that a
feature. The important distinction
here is that the user did not request
the side-effects, so therefore cannot
be held accountable for them.
In other words, it's not enforced, but it's really bad form for a GET request to have side-effects. Imagine if a user bookmarks a URL which does updates something, for example - they probably wouldn't expect that to happen.
Another good reason is accelerator plug-ins for browsers. These attempt to speed up page loads by pre-fetching links on the current page. Imagine if you had a bunch of GET requests to delete all the objects in a list, the plug-in would delete them!
The short of it is that you can't predict what a browser will do with GET requests, if it looks like a plain-old hyperlink then its fair game for a browser to go fetch it.
Yes.
It's not just about web crawlers, it's about CRSF - Cross Site Request Forgery.
So imagine that someone is logged into your web site, and browses to www.hax0rs.com
In the source for hax0rs.com is the following tag
<img src="http://mysite.com/members/statusChange?status=I%20am%20looking%20for%20a%20gimp%20mask" height="0" width="0">
Because your user is logged in, and because the request is going to your site, the authentication cookie goes with it. And bang, suddenly your user's status has changed.
What fun :)
But I suppose you can still do some sort of "non-retrieval" actions on GET requests. For example updating the "LastVisit" records which can be consider undestructive and relatively safe.