Slashdot Mirror
Can Mozilla-Based Browsers be Hijacked?
Chibi Merrow asks: "Matt Hartley in his latest GnomeReport speaks of supposed browser hijacker programs that are now targeting Mozilla FireFox instead of IE. While this is in a way cool (since that means the browser's now considered mainstream), it's also hard to believe. It doesn't help that his article is very light on details. Now there have been some discussion about spyware masquerading as valid extensions; but they require user intervention to install. Most people think of a browser hijack as something that automatically installs itself. Has anyone ever encountered an actual self installing browser hijacker/spyware program that has targeted Mozilla Firefox, or is this a bunch of FUD?"
There's always a risk that any application that's handling data, especially unclean internet data, can be the victim of a buffer overflow. Here's where the open source nature of Mozilla beats MSIE hands down, the code is open to scrutiny which means that someone somewhere has probably already looked after most of the exploits already. That's the theory, anyway.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I love Firefox and Thunderbird. But everytime I install an extension I really wonder: Why does noone bother to sign their extensions ? As the browser complains that the extension is not signed a mechanism to do that must be there.
Integration into the OS makes the scope of IE vulnerabilites larger, but it doesn't necessarily make IE less safe. Microsofts neglect towards known vulnerabilities is a problem, but a similar attitude would hit Mozilla just as hard.
An example: For a short time, several themers chose to distribute Mozilla skins in XPI form, because that allowed users to install them without additional files. The now preferred way of installing skins requires the help of a script, either in the browser (theme installer extension) or on a webpage. The latter method does not give skins access to JavaScript and is considered safe. XPIs can do a lot more: The installation process can run arbitrary code on the target system and even skins which are installed this way can later on access browser resources and relay them to an external attacker.
That means nothing. In any computer product that is intended for use by non-computer-experts, the developer needs to keep this in mind: You cannot trust the end user to make good decisions regarding computer security.
Here is what I mean. My dad clicks on a link. The front page says "Click here to install the software necessary to view this web site." So he clicks. He gets a scary message, warning about potential viruses and trusting and digital signatures and stuff. None of it makes sense. Essentially, it gets translated into the following question:
Do you want to visit the web site? OK / Cancel.
XpInstall is just as vulnerable as ActiveX in this regard. People are dumb. Just like you don't care enough to read the full EULAs with all their legal mumbo-jumbo, most computer users won't really consider the warning.
And, by the way, ActiveX also requires an OK before installing, just like XPI. There are buffer overflows or cross-site scripting attacks that can bootstrap an attack without ActiveX (and to which Mozilla is just as vulnerable), but ActiveX itself doesn't offer any way to auto-install software without the user's agreement, unless the user changes the Internet Security settings.
ActiveX == Browser Plugins. Mozilla allows plugins, so there is NO difference.
IE gets updated whenever a security flaw is found. And the user is prompted to download the update. I don't get alerts when FireFox needs an update -- I go to the website once in a while. You tell me which method is more likely to keep my dad's computer secure.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
And lets not forget the obvious - IE6 is always going to be bad for this. Mozilla gets updated each and every day and has a regular release schedule.
Let's get one thing straight: this sort of browser hijacking isn't aimed at defeating technically-minded people like you or I, it's aimed at non-technical users, such as friends and relatives we might have encouraged to switch away from Microsoft Internet Explorer, or people who've installed Mozilla Firefox from a magazine cover disc, etc.
For the most part, these non-technical users aren't going to be actively updating their software on a regular basis. They're not going to be looking out for potential security risks and their solutions because they thought that they were leaving all that behind when they switched over from MSIE. In all probability, many if not most of these users won't even know that they've been hijacked if and when that happens.
To suggest that browser hijacking doesn't have the potential to be a major problem for Mozilla users is rather short-sighted. Being dismissive about it is like adopting a "head in the sand" security policy, and no better than a "security through obscurity" one.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"While this is in a way cool (since that means the browser's now considered mainstream)"
actually it just means that hackers are finally starting to realize that people using IE rarely have data worth accessing. If someone's using FireFox, chances are they're bright enough to have some cool data.
On our webserver, we're only getting about 1.5% of 50,000 hits per day that our Firebird/Firefox, so it's still far from mainstream.
Any program that is complex enough to have user input and system/user output is going to be possibly exploitable.
So yes, I believe it may be possible to exploit Mozilla.
But I also believe that the exploit will be known almost as soon as it hits the streets rather than being kept quiet until the devs get around to fixing it.
And if the devs don't quickly fix it I trust that the community will, because it is in their own interests.
The last 2 paragraphs are because Mozilla is open, IE is closed, plain and simple.
Not to mention that I don't believe that Mozilla is -as- vulnerable to exploits as IE nor will such exploits be as serious due to purposeful lack of OS integration.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
That's the theory. In practice, however, that still doesn't necessarily work. Look, for example, at the recent buffer overflow found in CVS, software that's been open since its inception and been around for a long time. Also, look at the latest problems with OpenSSH, again a package that has been around for quite a while, and one that people should be *very* security concious about.
While the idea that the code being open forces the bugs to be found and removed, that only works if someone with the skill to find the bug, and the willingness and skill to fix the bug does so.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation