>https://subdomain.sharefile.com/rest/getAuthID.aspx
Notice the https. The facepalm is just that there's no additional security in using POST vs GET.
And POST over HTTPS keeps the POSTed values hidden from those who might listen, whereas with GET over HTTP it would just be out there in the URL.
Deleted comment
And HTTPS requests are encrypted. The whole request, including the "GET /someurl&password=s33krit HTTP/1.1" part. As I said, using POST doesn't add any additional security to this.
That's why professional security audits will ding you for putting anything sensitive in a URL.
And having read and written this particular audit line item about 29074894389734897 times in the last 15 years, let me assure you that logging is clearly an issue.
The bit about how "if someone can see your logs you're already boned" is also message-board-logic more than reality. Logs are shipped all over the place. On a network pentest, one of the things you do when you pop a box is hunt for logs; even after you get root on the machine, you don't automatically have all the passwords that get stuck in the log files. Same goes for all the random LogLogic-style consoles those logs get fed to.
If you have more questions about this stuff, my contact info is in my profile --- just click my username above this comment. I just wanted to chime in to say that 'carbocation was exactly right, but my comments are now repeating themselves, and so I'm done on this thread.
Why?
So will everything else, including the URI being requested, and thus the query string in it. Which is why it makes no difference using GET or POST.
I disagree from the data I'm seeing in the access logs from my SSL-hosted site running nginx. In the logs I can see lines such as:
GET /path/script?variable=blahblah&another_variable=123
EDIT since I appear to have lost the ability to reply to comments: I disagree with SomeOtherGuy2 that The fact that it may get logged is a red-herring.
Ignoring how secure a server with a rogue user accessing it is, it's possible that there will be more than one server involved in this scenario, and central logging servers are common. Will the traffic sent to the logging server be encrypted? And what if the logging server is compromised? You're essentially storing passwords in plain text.
And again, if they are compromised, then they are compromised. It doesn't matter if they have logging disabled, someone who would have access to the logs also has access to either the httpd account or the root account. Either way, they can already read your plaintext usernames and passwords directly when they are being submitted. Of course, they don't need your username and password anyways, as they already have full access to the system.
At least one person appreciates someone taking the time to correct this rather serious misunderstanding.