Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: URL Spoofing vulnerability in different browsers
From: James Voss <james.voss () northwestdedicated com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:24:18 -0500

Lol, okay

-- 
Regards,

James Voss <james.voss () northwestdedicated com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jameswvoss
312-000-0000 - Direct
847-000-0000 - Fax

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is
for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all
copies.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Chris Truncer <
CTruncer () christophertruncer com> wrote:

Just ignore Mustlive. The rest of the list does.



On Jul 22, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Chris Evans <scarybeasts () gmail com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MustLive <mustlive () websecurity com ua>
wrote:
Hello list!

I want to warn you about URL Spoofing vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox,
Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Opera and other browsers. I found it
long
time ago, at 6th of February 2008, just after finding of built-in CSRF
vulnerability in Mozilla and Firefox (it's funky CSRF attack via
prefetching
functionality), which I described at my site in March.

-------------------------
Affected products:
-------------------------

Vulnerable are all browsers which support Basic/Digest Authentication.
It's
all modern browsers and many from old browsers. In particular affected
are
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.19, 3.5.11, 3.6.8, Firefox 4.0b2 (and Mozilla and
all
other Gecko-based browsers), Internet Explorer 6, 7, 8, Google Chrome
1.0.154.48 and Opera 10.62 and previous and next versions of these
browsers.
And other browsers which support Basic/Digest Authentication.

In March, after my informing, Mozilla opened Bug 647010 in Bugzilla
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647010).

Among four browsers developers informed by me only Mozilla said, that
they
are planning to fix this vulnerability (without specifying the time).
Google
even didn't answer me, but in June they informed in their blog
(
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/new-chromium-security-features-june.html
),
that they fixed this vulnerability in browsers Chrome 13 (it's now beta
version) and higher.

----------
Details:
----------

This is better to call attack, then vulnerability, because it's using
built-in browsers functionality (and its intended behavior) to attack
users
of web sites. This attack allows to conduct phishing attacks on users of
web
sites - in this case phishing is doing not at other (phishing) sites,
not
with using of holes of target sites (like reflected XSS or persistent
XSS),
but with using of browsers functionality (and allowed functionality of
target sites to place external content).

I called this attack as Onsite phishing (or Inline phishing). It can be
used
(including by phishers) for stealing of logins and passwords of users of
web
sites.

As I've tested, a lot of different methods (with using of tags and CSS),
which allow to make cross-site requests, can be used to conduct this
attack.
Except prefetching (in all Gecko-based browsers which support
prefetching
functionality), which doesn't show Authentication window at receiving of
401
response from web server. The next methods can be used:

Tags img, script, iframe, frame, embed, link (css) - Mozilla, Firefox,
IE,
Google Chrome and Opera.
Tag object - Internet Explorer, Google Chrome and Opera.
CSS (inline, in html files, in external css files): such
as -moz-binding:url - Mozilla and Firefox < 3.0, such as
background-image:url - in all browsers.

Here are screenshots of the attack in different browsers (in Firefox
3.0.19,
3.5.x, 3.6.x. 4.0b2 the dialog window looks almost equally):

http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20Mozilla.png
http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20Firefox.png
http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20IE6.png
http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20IE7.png
http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20IE8.png
http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20Chrome.png
http://websecurity.com.ua/uploads/2011/03/Attack%20on%20Opera.png

The attack can be made as reflected at target site, as persistent (with
using of allowed functionality at target site, which allows to put some
tags, like img tag). The persistent attack is more dangerous (and such
type
of attack is showed on screenshots). And there are millions of web sites
which allow such user generated content (like img tags) which can lead
to
such persistent attacks.

------------
Timeline:
------------

2011.03.26 - announced at my site.
2011.03.31 - informed Mozilla, Microsoft, Google and Opera.
2011.04.01 - Mozilla answered and opened entry in Bugzilla
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647010).
2011.04.01 - Microsoft answered and asked for more details.
2011.04.03 - gave additional details for Microsoft. But they ignored to
fix,
like Google and Opera did.
2011.06.14 - Google hiddenly and lamerly fixed this hole in Chrome 12
beta
(and future versions), without answering and thanking me for informing.
Which is lame behavior and I don't respect companies with such behavior.
But
this Google's step should force other browsers developers to fix this
vulnerability in their products.

FWIW -- no, Chrome Security Team does not operate that way, and you
should be well aware of that!

In case you weren't, please check out the Hall of Fame:
http://dev.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/hall-of-fame
As can be seen, we have a long record of working with a variety of
excellent researchers, including paying rewards and issuing credit in
multiple places.

I don't even know what bug you're talking about because you mention a
Chrome 13 security features blog post and then (directly above) you're
saying we fixed something in Chrome 12.

If you provide the Chromium bug URL that you reported this to, I'd be
happy to investigate what happened and whether you should be added to
any credit page.


Cheers
Chris

2011.07.21 - disclosed at my site.

I mentioned about this vulnerability at my site
(http://websecurity.com.ua/5038/).

Best wishes & regards,
MustLive
Administrator of Websecurity web site
http://websecurity.com.ua


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


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

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

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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]