Can Flickr's 'disable original download' setting prevent access to the original image?
Asked 8/31/2011
6 views
2 answers
0
On Flickr, the privacy setting 'Who can access your original image files?' controls whether viewers can access the Original-size file. If this is set to something more restrictive than 'Anyone', can an unauthorized user still get the original image without already knowing its direct file URL? Assume the photo is larger than 1024px, so an Original version exists, and the concern is specifically about whether Flickr's protection is technically effective rather than whether displayed images can always be saved in some form.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
20
I did some investigation on my own, using my own flickr account and a non-logged in browser.
Here's the All Sizes page for one of my photos.
Prior to me changing the "Who can access your original image files?" setting in Privacy & Permissions, a generic Internet user could see the "Original" link in addition to the other sizes. That page had an <img> tag that linked to this url. The "All Sizes" page also had a link that said Download the Original size of this photo. (If you check the URLS, note that there's a _d suffix on the file name; Flickr will see this and trigger the HTTP header that tells the browser to download instead of display the image).
For comparison, here's the Large size page and the corresponding image URL.
Then I changed the privacy setting, cleared the cache on my non-logged-in browser, and recheceked the links. Here's what I found:
- The link to the original size page now redirects to the large size page. That's reasonable.
- The All Sizes page didn't have the Original size links any more, as expected.
- I was still able to download the original size image
- This is a bit surprising. It means that, while there's access restrictions on the pages containing the images, theres no security on the images themselves.
- As a web developer I can understand why they probably did this. The images are large and static and probably served via a content delivery network. It's faster/more efficient to not check permissions for image files; you can simply host them on a "dumb" web server that way.
So, once the URL for the original file is known, there's no way to stop someone from downloading the original version of the file (short of deleting it entirely... and that may not even work. I didn't try).
One last issue: how guessable are the original file URLS? Here they are side-by-side:
Large: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/6044833128_cc02cf41e3_b.jpg
Original: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/6044833128_3b8eac89d7_o.jpg
So, the suffix (_b or _o) determines the size, but there's also another element in the filename that varies depending on the size. You can't just change the suffix to flip sizes. Here's the URL for the Large version with the suffix switched to _o; it doesn't work.
If I was Flickr, I'd make sure that that middle element was completely random per photo size, and hence unguessable except by brute force attack. It's 40 bits long, so there's a lot (2^40, ~1 Trillion) of possible options. It's very unlikely anyone would bother to brute-force that segment just to get the original size version of a file... when they already have the large version.
So, as long as you've turned off the "Original file download" feature and you don't share the URLs of the original images, I'd say that the Flickr feature is pretty secure. If it breaks, it's pretty much your own fault.
Originally by user48. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user48
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Based on the investigation described, Flickr does block normal unauthorized access to the Original-size page and removes the visible Original/download links for viewers who lack permission. The direct original file URL also includes a randomized component, so it is not practically guessable from the public photo page or from smaller-size image URLs.
So in ordinary use, restricting original access does meaningfully prevent casual users from fetching the original file.
However, it is not absolute security. The answers note two realistic weaknesses:
- if an authorized person views the original over unsecured HTTP, someone able to intercept that session or traffic could potentially access it too
- copies may persist in intermediate caches after being viewed
In short: the setting is useful against casual or direct unauthorized access, but it is not a guarantee against determined attackers or broader web/network vulnerabilities. It protects the original file better than many people claim, but it should not be treated as foolproof DRM.
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can Lightroom 3 upload original JPEG files to Flickr without recompressing them?
How can I write Flickr title and description data from JSON sidecars into image metadata?
How do I download the full-resolution edited photo from Google Photos?
Can I determine when a Facebook-downloaded photo was taken if EXIF data is missing?
Can a camera lens make a scene look brighter than viewing it with the naked eye?