• 0

Prevent access to files using .htaccess


Question

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to use the .htaccess file to prevent type-in access to .js (javascript) files which are located in a /scripts folder

with:

<Files ~ "\.js$">
Order Deny,Allow
Deny from all
</Files>

I can block type-in access, but the pages cannot use the scripts. I add "Allow from 127.0.0.1" but no results.

I also tried:

Options +FollowSymlinks
RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://mydomain.* [NC]
RewriteRule .*\.(js)$ http://mydomain.com [R,L]

In this case, the scripts are functional, but the first time I type the location of .js file, I can get it open. Only when I refresh the page that I get redirected. I really can't understand why this happens...

I find this really useful to block hotlinks, but it's not always bloking type-in requests.

By the way, I have no access to apache configuration.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The refer is the page/site that you came from to load the current page. When typing in the url, the refer i expect is going to be blank, however upon a refresh it seems that it is changed to the "previous" page displayed!

What your trying to do, afaik, isn't possible; however you go about trying to block access to the js files, they need to be sent to the browser, somehow, so it can use them, there's just no getting around it, however you do that, the code is going to have to be available to the browser for it to run it, and in doing so it automatically becomes accessible to the user too!

Think about it:

1) You could stick the js files in a dir outside of the web root, so they are inaccessible publicly, and then use a rewrite or php file to get to them, but that makes absolutely no difference...

2) You could encrypt them, and have a piece of unencrypted js that decrypts them and allows them to run; the average person couldn't see the code, but anyone with js skills could easily obtain a decrypted copy...

They have to be public one way or another, all you can do is make things a little more difficult, I'd just give up if I were you, it's not worth the effort ;)

  • 0

I utilize WHMCS which utilizes .TPL files.. The unfortunate part was that a user could access the filename.tpl file by typing it directly in (assuming they know the exact filename, which if you use the script, you know it..) Because of this when I was selling premium templates, some users were stealing it by simply manually going to all 40+ TPL files and seeing the hardcoded source..

To prevent them from access the TPLs BUT still allow them to be read by the server, I used the following:

 <Files "*.tpl">
Order Allow,Deny
Deny from All
</Files>

That sample tosses a 403 Forbidden when you access the file in any browser BUT the server can still access it. For example:

http://demo.mywhmcs.com/templates/portal/ -- This is a direct link to a template I'm not utilizing nor do I have it protected as it's a default template. Notice how you can see all TPL files (and others)

http://demo.mywhmcs.com/templates/macish -- This has an .htaccess file tossed into it preventing TPL files from being shown. Notice when you view http://demo.mywhmcs.com, you're able to view the site with NO issues despite the fact that everything is powered from TPL files.

BTW, ignore the **** design on there ;).

The reason why your snippet is not working is because the ORDER of the 1st line is crucial. You can read about it on apache.org. :)

Edit: Bah, I see it's for .js though--That's not possible, sorry! Same with not being able to do it with CSS, etc.

  • 0

As far as I know, if it needs to be downloaded to the client, you can't restrict direct access since that's how the browser will obtain it too, as theblazingangel said.

There are a couple of ways you could go about making it hard though:

  1. Try Google's "Closure" compiler which will optimize, and then obfuscate (as a result of optimization), your JavaScript and make it hard for humans to read. This is the easiest and probably the optimal solution.
  2. Try loading your scripts through a PHP file that detects whether or not the request was automated by the browser loading the script, or manual by a human trying to view it. I still don't know if its possible like this, but its perhaps worth looking into if you're THAT concerned.

  • 0

The key here is understanding the difference between server side and client side code. Server side code can - and should - be 100% hidden from the user. This includes PHP, .NET, and all that kind of stuff.

JavaScript, on the other hand, is like HTML and CSS. It needs to be read by the browser - and if the browser needs to read it, humans who are interested in reading it will be able to. There isn't a way to block access to JS files, because if humans can't access it, browsers won't either ;)

  • 0

Thank you all for the answers!

I thought there was some variable (like HTTP_REFERER) that saves the url from the address bar, so I could compare it, and if ends with .js or any other file i wish to prevent typed-in access, i redirect to an error page. If the request for the file came from the browser or the server, no action is taken.

This means i can't prevent typed-in access to .js .css .txt or image files that will be used by the browser?

  • 0

Thank you all for the answers!

I thought there was some variable (like HTTP_REFERER) that saves the url from the address bar, so I could compare it, and if ends with .js or any other file i wish to prevent typed-in access, i redirect to an error page. If the request for the file came from the browser or the server, no action is taken.

This means i can't prevent typed-in access to .js .css .txt or image files that will be used by the browser?

the referrer header tells you the page the user came from. in other words, the page they were previously on, not the current one.

it is extremely unreliable since it is easily spoofed (just like all browser headers), and very often is simply empty because a) the user didn't visit anything before your page; or b) more likely, their browser/security software is configured not to send any referrers, for privacy/security reasons.

for future reference, if you're writing anything that does anything at all, never rely on anything the user sends to you.

you can prevent type-in access to the files, but it's pointless since you will eventually be sending the whole content to the user anyways. say, for example, you put all your files in a directory that's forbidden to the public, and have a php script which reads the files and serves it back if a certain variable exists, and you set the variable in the index file. this way you've effectively prevented type-in access in the strict sense, but the php script is still giving the user an exact copy of the file. this is useful in some circumstances, but not very many, and it certainly won't protect the contents of your files. anything that you have to send to the user, can't be protected.

I can protect a folder or have a login check to a page, but I can't protect .js or image files from direct download, just hotlinks?

hotlink "protection" also relies on referrer headers, it's much more trouble than it's worth.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Qualcomm's new Snapdragon Reality Elite chip brings on-device AI to Android XR devices by Pradeep Viswanathan Qualcomm has been delivering dedicated SoCs for mixed reality and spatial computing devices for several years. The journey started with the Snapdragon XR1, followed by the Snapdragon XR2 in 2019, the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 in September 2023, and finally the Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2 in 2024. Today, Qualcomm announced a major upgrade with the new Snapdragon Reality Elite Platform, which targets premium mixed reality and spatial computing devices. OEMs can use this SoC to power both all-in-one video-see-through headsets and lightweight, tethered optical-see-through glasses. Qualcomm highlighted that the Snapdragon Reality Elite will power the next wave of Android XR devices coming later this year. These wearables will offer better visuals, improved power efficiency, and deeper on-device AI integration compared to the previous generation. The Snapdragon Reality Elite can deliver up to 48 TOPS of AI performance, allowing large language models and large vision models to run directly on the device for the first time. In addition to enabling new spatial AI experiences, these new AI capabilities will improve head and hand tracking, as well as see-through features. On the performance side, the Snapdragon Reality Elite offers up to 60% higher GPU performance, up to 30% higher CPU performance, and up to 160% higher NPU performance compared to the previous generation. The platform supports visuals of up to 4.4K per eye at 90 frames per second for sharper images and smoother motion. Qualcomm is also claiming significant efficiency improvements. The Snapdragon Reality Elite can offer up to 20% longer battery life under the same workload. More importantly, the chipset can run up to 12 degrees Celsius cooler under load, making headsets more comfortable for users to wear for longer periods. The platform also includes improvements to video see-through, featuring lower latency and better image quality. Qualcomm states that its EVA hardware block helps accelerate demanding computer vision workloads, improving how digital content blends with the real world.
    • Umm... GitHub continues to use AWS. That's the story, that's the headline. There's no "new" news here. GitHub continues to require additional capacity beyond the originally-planned Azure allocations. There's nothing special about this; nothing noteworthy. They're still using AWS' infra until the cutover is complete.
    • Hello, Also known for https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jan/29/adware-internet.   Regards, Aryeh Goretsky    
    • Hello, I have used a few TEAM Group SSDs, USB flash drives, and Micro SDXC cards in the past. They all seemed to work fine. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • "just $100 per TB"? Just? Are we trying to make this seem like the new normal? Kinda weird to make it sound like that is not a ridiculously expensive asking price.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      vjlex earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      517
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!