Vulnerability: any application have access to change IPFS settings

[ghost]

Version information:

go-ipfs v0.5.1

Description:

I found serious vulnerability: any application and any user have access to change IPFS settings through the API.

Hope you fix it.

[welcome]

Thank you for submitting your first issue to this repository! A maintainer will be here shortly to triage and review.
In the meantime, please double-check that you have provided all the necessary information to make this process easy! Any information that can help save additional round trips is useful! We currently aim to give initial feedback within two business days. If this does not happen, feel free to leave a comment.
Please keep an eye on how this issue will be labeled, as labels give an overview of priorities, assignments and additional actions requested by the maintainers:

• "Priority" labels will show how urgent this is for the team.
• "Status" labels will show if this is ready to be worked on, blocked, or in progress.
• "Need" labels will indicate if additional input or analysis is required.

Finally, remember to use https://discuss.ipfs.io if you just need general support.

[Stebalien]

On localhost, via an origin restricted API, yes. Along with other commands like ipfs pin rm, ipfs block rm, etc.

Are you're running on a shared environment?

[rpodgorny]

(i'm not the original poster)

i think this needs to be (partially) redesigned in general. most modern operating systems are multi-user and while sharing block data may not be a security/privacy issue, sharing the mfs state certainly is.

[Stebalien]

Yeah, this definitely needs to be redesigned. Long discussion here: #1014. Also, #1532.

The short-term version is to have per-user daemons on separate ports with separate tokens.

[RubenKelevra]

Well, as a workaround you can just unix sockets to restrict the API access to certain users on a machine. :)

[polymorphm]

actually it's not closed.

please, do api as a unix-socket by default (while a config is being generated).

it's a vulnerability-issue . so safety must be by default