Re: Re: Re: Re: Links to Google's cacheof626FrSIRTexploits

["Dave Korn" <davek_throwaway () hotmail com>]

Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:15:00 GMT, Dave Korn said:
>
> > difference?  robots.txt is enforced (or ignored) by the client.  If a 
> > server
> > returns a 403 or doesn't, depending on what UserAgent you specified, 
> > then
> > how could making the client ignore robots.txt somehow magically make the
> > server not return a 403 when you try to fetch a page?
>
> It *can*, however, make the client *issue* a request it would otherwise 
> not have.
>
> If the client had snarfed a robots.txt, and it said "don't snarf anything
> under /dontlook/here/", and a link pointed there. it wouldn't follow the 
> link.
>
> If you tell it 'robots=off', then it *would* follow the link.

  Yes, these are all extremely obvious truisms, but I think now you need to 
go back and read the thread, because you haven't noticed that they're 
utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

> Remember - robots.txt *isn't* for the pages that would 403.

  See, thing is, "pages that would 403" is /exactly/ what we were talking 
about.  So saying "switch off robots.txt" is a completely irrelevant 
response.  And the fact that doing so _would_ have /an/ effect in /other/ 
circumstances doesn't make it any less irrelevant, at least not according to 
any definition of the word "relevant" that I've ever seen!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... 



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/