Slashdot Mirror


Shmoo Group Finds Exploit For non-IE Browsers

shut_up_man writes "Saw this on Boing Boing: East coast hacker con Shmoocon ended today and they had a nasty browser exploit to show off... using International Domain Name (IDN) character support to display fake domain names in links and the address bar. Their examples use Paypal (with SSL too) and this looks very useful for phishing attacks. Interesting note that it works in every browser *except* IE (which makes this exploit a lot less dangerous in the end, I suppose)."v The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

621 comments

  1. Another IDN bug on Firefox by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Informative
    When trying this out on Firefox on Linux, I noticed that the URL in the address bar is rendered two or three pixels lower than normal. If you're paying close attention, this is easy to spot. Also, the "real" URL appears in the status bar while the spoofed page is being loaded, i.e. "Looking up www.xn--pypal-4ve.com..."

    To disable IDN as a workaround for this problem (on Gecko-based browsers): hit about:config and set network.enableIDN to false.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you do realize that on most computers, if the view source tool has ever been used, it was because the user hit it accidentally while trying to access another menu item or key combination...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, cos we ALL watch that stuff - and my monitor is at 320x200 so 3 pixels out is easy to spot . . . .

    3. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Firefox 1.0 on Windows with IDN off and a cleared cache is still affected (even after a restart of firefox).

    4. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by vivin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Who says this is a Linux vulnerability? This is a browser vulnerability.

      Browsers != Linux.

      And it's not FUD - it is an actual problem. It sure tricked Firefox running on my windows machine.

      --
      Vivin Suresh Paliath
      http://vivin.net

      I like
    5. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Troed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Works 100% as advertised in Opera. No easy way to spot it's fake.

      On the other hand, this is nothing new. This was predicted a long time ago when debating on how to handle websites with charactersets incompatible with the ones used in Western countries ..

    6. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) It isn't a Linux vulnerability, it is an IDN phishing vulnerability that affects Firefox amongst other browsers
      2) Most people don't look at the source code!
      3) Hence it is a phishing vulnerability, i.e., masquerade to fool the average user
      4) It certainly isn't FUD when your non-geek relative loses a lot of money by one of these phishing attacks

    7. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative
      Just tried it on Safari, and unfortunately none of the "bugs" that occur in Firefox that give the game away are present. Mouseover looks like Paypal. Connecting message shows nothing untoward. Renders as "www.paypal.com" in the regular font and location on the URL bar.

      I wonder if there's a quick and easy fix for this for Safari users, like there is for Firefox (about:config, network.enableIDN -> false.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Saven+Marek · · Score: 0

      You can't blame the browser when people refuse to use features that can protect them.

    9. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Saven+Marek · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > I wonder if there's a quick and easy fix for this for Safari users

      Look at the source, its obvious there

    10. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This is just more FUD people"

      Ah, I get it. When it's about FireFox, it's FUD. When it's about Microsoft, it's just another reason to switch. Am I getting warm?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by duvie · · Score: 3, Informative
      One: the setting of enableIDN to false appears to have NO effect.

      Two: The only way to see that you are not at paypal (unless you notice the flash-by in the status bar) is to look at the certificate details. For the POC site, the certificate was issued to "www.xn--pypal-4ve.com"

      We all read those certs every time, neh?

    12. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Digitalia · · Score: 2, Informative

      That did not work for me. Upon disabling IDN, I went back and tried the link again. It was still spoofed.

      --
      Pax Digitalia
    13. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by stryke3 · · Score: 1

      Even if they don't check the source, paypal warns all the time not to click on links in emails or to use url links on pages to get to paypal. They want you to type in their domain in the address bar and login from there.

    14. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 5, Informative

      To disable IDN as a workaround for this problem (on Gecko-based browsers): hit about:config and set network.enableIDN to false.

      That is a great suggestion, except for the part where it does not work.

      Go ahead, make the change, then restart your browser. Now go look at about:config again. Yup, still set to false. Now go see if it the setting worked. It does not. So at least with Firefox 1.0 just took a bad situation and made it worse. Now people will think turning off this setting will actually accompolish something and protect them and it will not.

      Finkployd

    15. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Another thing as well, this can't really be counted as a Linux vulnerability, if you look at the source code either in an email message or in the browser, it's clear as day that it's not going to the real paypal.com

      You are assuming everyone double checks their links by reading the source code.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    16. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      It may show the correct address when loading, but hover over the link and paypal.com is still shown as the link in the status bar. Bit of a messy bug, but a dangerous bug all the same.

    17. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      Mod parent up please.

      The suggested "fix" for Firefox simply does not work! It doesn't actually disable IDN like it should! I've changed the setting, cleared the cache, restarted the browser, and it still displays the example fake paypal site in the example.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    18. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by aWalrus · · Score: 4, Informative

      It worked for me (firefox in OS X). What it does is fix the lookup, not the display, so the links will still look as they did, but when you click on them it says "domain not found"

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
    19. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this is occuring, but in my browser (Firefox 1.0, Slackware -current), it looks nothing like "https://www.paypal.com/".

      Looks like "https://www.pypal.com/"

      It might be because I'm using the GTK-QT theme engine, but I'm not sure...

      Konqueror has JUST a box, no chinese character looking think in it, and it also says "The IP address of this site does not match that of the security certificate.".

      So I guess some things "aren't" vulnerable in their own ways...

    20. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by hcdejong · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's assuming "people" understand HTML. Hint: Most computer users don't.

    21. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Aeiri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahh you stupid Slashdot parsing engine!

      Looks like "https://www.pypal.com/"

      That should be:
      Looks like "https://www.p[weirdchineselookingcharacterwithabo xaroundit]ypal.com/"

      ...and now I have to wait two minutes to post this and correct myself, great...

    22. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AddressException · · Score: 1

      It's not rendering the а correctly, that's why it looks like paypal without the first a.

      The first a is actually a а

    23. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AstroDrabb · · Score: 0
      The about:config workaround is a very simple fix and I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox sends down a temporary quick-fix.

      One other big giveaway for me is if you view page info and then click on security and click view. The _true_ PayPal site has a cert issued to www.paypal.com while the spoofed site has a cert issued to www.xn--pypal-4ve.com. I always check the cert if I am doing banking or anything with money. However, I really doubt most Joe Users will put that much effort into it, so I do hope the Firefox team at least pushes down an Auto-Update that sets network.enableIDN to false until the team gets a permanent fix.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    24. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 1

      Same here running on slackware 10 (firefox 1.0). It can't find the domain now...

      --
      Silly rabbit
    25. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 1

      What version? I am running a clean (no extensions) FireFox 1.0 (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0) on OS X 10.3.7 and I can report that it most certainly does NOT work. I click on the links and go right to the "meeow" page. Refreshing just pulls up the same page. Clearing the cache STILL pulls up the spoofed page.

      Finkployd

    26. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1, Informative

      Go ahead, make the change, then restart your browser. Now go look at about:config again. Yup, still set to false. Now go see if it the setting worked. It does not.

      WFM. I am unable to visit those links after disabling IDN. This is because the browser is no longer translating the name to the Punycode format that the IDN DNS system requires, therefore the lookup fails.

      Perhaps your cache setting is fucked.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    27. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Informative
      One: the setting of enableIDN to false appears to have NO effect.
      Are you using Firefox 1.0? I set enableIDN to false and now if I click any of the spoof links, I instantly get a "www.paypal.com could not be found" alert.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    28. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by strider44 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the status, the reason why the text is a few pixels lower is because the a is bolded. Interesting, I wonder why that happens?

    29. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by double-oh+three · · Score: 4, Informative

      And when this was presented at Shmoocon they mentioned that, IIRC they said that it was first thought up in 2001. Safari's fooled too, with the source code thing not apparently working. However if you try to save the page the international characters will disappear from the filename.

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    30. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      With IDN disabled, try clicking the link. For me (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7) Gecko/20041016), disabling IDN still shows the spoof in the status bar, but when I try and follow the link I get "www.paypal.com could not be found".

      ND

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    31. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by stuntpope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blame the stupid user because they don't read the source for every web page they go to? Come on. Are you, the highly intelligent informed user, going to start doing that now, even though there are no visual cues on the rendered page that something is amiss?

    32. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Ced_Ex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose you understand how pharmaceuticals fully interact with your body? Or I suppose you fully understand every working part in your car?

      There are plenty of things people use that they have very little understanding of. They may know the interface of that device or system, but beyond that, it's all a black box to them. Browsers included.

      If you go by your statement of "if you don't understand it, don't use it", I'm sure there are plenty of things you can eliminate out of your own life as well.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    33. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 1

      WFM. I am unable to visit those links after disabling IDN. This is because the browser is no longer translating the name to the Punycode format that the IDN DNS system requires, therefore the lookup fails.

      Perhaps your cache setting is fucked.


      I cleared the cache, reloaded the page, restarted again, checked the setting. Still not working.

      Look around, I am not the only one noticing that this does not work. I wonder what specific versions it does work for.

      I can tell you that this workaround does NOT work on Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

      (FireFox 1.0 / OS X 10.3.7)

      Finkployd

    34. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, guess what, most people don't understand what goes on inside an ATM. Almost no one (statistically) knows what goes on inside their engine, let alone their PCM. Most people don't even understand what all is involved in water getting to their house. Does that mean no one should use an ATM, drive a car, or turn on the faucet? Expecting users to know how HTML works before they surf the web is like expecting them to be an architect before they enter a building.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by duvie · · Score: 1

      Yep: Fiirefox 1.0 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

    36. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Informative
      Hmm, I stand corrected. Setting enableIDN and then testing worked right away for me. Until I restarted my browser. About:config still shows enableIDN set to false, but the spoof works again. However, if I go back into about:config and reset enableIDN to false, it again stops the spoof.

      Maybe it is a problem in the Firefox startup code not setting enableIDN properly.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    37. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, a number of ebay purchase systems REQUIRE that you make the transaction through their system. I just turned off IDN, so I guess I can still trust SpoofStick - though it just displays the same thing the IDN exploit puts in your address bar. Guess it's not near as useful as I thought it was.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AstroDrabb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Restart you browser and then try again. I thought it was working until a restart of Firefox and it appears that the Firefox startup code doesn't properly set enableIDN based on your profile settings. As soon as you restart, the spoof works again. However, go into about:config and you will see that enableIDN is still set to false, so toggle it to true and then false again and the spoof won't work. Rinse, repeat.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    39. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 1

      If they don't "understand" something they shouldnt "use" it. would you give your 3 year old your net banking details to use them?? NO!

      Wow, I can only assume you are a troll laughing about this, because if you are actually serious...damn

      In case you are serious, I hope you built that computer you are working on, or at least can draw for me the complete schematics. If you don't understand how it works, you shouldn't be using it.

      Oh, and can you describe in great detail the process of cellular respiration? If not, you should really drop dead right now. You should not be using those mitocondria unless you know what you are doing.

      Finkployd

    40. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Same here: in Mozilla 1.7.5 the setting works until I exit Mozilla and restart, then it says it's false but still follows the link to the 'phishing' site.

    41. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by afidel · · Score: 1

      I'm running Firefox 1.0 and setting the pref to false, it did nothing to prevent the spoof. Even after closing all browser windows and restarting Firefox it still works. The certificate and the source on the origional page show the real site, but that's a very high hurdle to jump, even for most technical users.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    42. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run firefox on gentoo built from portage. setting IDN to false does NOT solve the problem in any way. The "real" URL only appears for a very brief amount of time in the status bar while the page is loading since the network here is really fast. I don't notice anything being two pixels lower.

    43. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Zocalo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, changing the actual setting via about:config works OK for me with Firefox 1.0 on both MS Windows XP and Fedora Core 3 (both fully patched). However, even with IDN supposedly disabled in Firefox clicking on the links still takes me to the spoofed version of Paypal on both links, and I'm not seeing any of the URL bar glitches either. More worryingly, on the HTTPS site, the domain is also given as "www.paypal.com" by the padlock icon; you have to double click on the padlock and then view the certificate before you finally see that the site is actually "www.xn--pypal-4ve.com".

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    44. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by strider44 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's obvious without even looking for it on my 1280x1024 low-size font resolution. However most users will just think "that's odd" and not take any precautions.

    45. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by aWalrus · · Score: 1

      Oh, crap, you're right! I restarted the browser and the exploit works again, enableIDN still set to false.

      Damn. This sucks.

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
    46. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh huh, try restarting your browser and going back. With mine (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0) I get the meeow paypal page even though about:config shows the setting is still set to false.

      Frightening to see this kind of bug in Firefox, I hope it is fixed soon.

      Finkployd

    47. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Darn it! you're right :-(

      Then again...I have a nice little solution (quite by accident, in fact it's just due to me not bothering to sort my configuration out) anyway: any character sets not installed (all except the default) show up as a funny little square where the characters would normally be. I'd say that it's a pretty good give away when I've got http://www.p[]ypal.com (or there abouts) showing in the address bar...

      --
      Silly rabbit
    48. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1
      To disable IDN as a workaround for this problem (on Gecko-based browsers): hit about:config and set network.enableIDN to false.

      That is a great suggestion, except for the part where it does not work.

      It works perfectly for me with Firefox 1.0 and fully patched WinXP -- I didn't even have to restart the browser or clear the cache or anything. Clearly it isn't working for everybody, though.

    49. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by geordie_loz · · Score: 1

      It's easy to make a link say something in the bar, using JavaScript. remember those scrolling message you see? It could still be done like that

      Admittedly, it would be good if you could have an icon there indicating that the content is site set, NOT browser set to stop that spoof being used..

    50. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it does work, I just tested your claims using Firefox 1.0. Specifically

      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

      Upon restart about:config and set network.enableIDN remains set to false.

    51. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I apologize, you are correct. For some reason it seemed to work past my first browser restart, but I restarted the browser again, and the setting has reverted even though the about:config shows it hasn't...

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    52. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by bunratty · · Score: 2, Informative

      It still worked after restarting my browser using a recent trunk build of Mozilla on Windows XP. Try a recent trunk nightly build of Firefox and see if it works after restart.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    53. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by huge+colin · · Score: 1
      Except IE is not vulnerable to IDN exploits like this for the same reason that the following program isn't vulnerable:
      int main()
      {
      return(0);
      }

      If it's hard to see, the reason is that both IE and the program above lack support.
    54. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Well, changing the actual setting via about:config works OK for me with Firefox 1.0 on both MS Windows XP and Fedora Core 3 (both fully patched). However, even with IDN supposedly disabled in Firefox clicking on the links still takes me to the spoofed version of Paypal on both links, and I'm not seeing any of the URL bar glitches either.

      Not to be a dick, but if that is the case then changing the setting via about:config does NOT work OK. Did you restart your browser? you will see that the config change has no effect.

      Finkployd

    55. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Jerry · · Score: 1, Funny

      Works for me!

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    56. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Jononon · · Score: 1

      FWIW - another vote for it doesn't work Fully patched XP Home, Firefox 1.0 Yet another reason to check certificates every time.

    57. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 1

      It works perfectly for me with Firefox 1.0 and fully patched WinXP -- I didn't even have to restart the browser or clear the cache or anything.

      Uh huh. You weren't reading what I wrote. Restart your browser, THEN it stops working, even though the setting says it is still "false" in about:config.

      Finkployd

    58. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by electronym · · Score: 1

      It works perfectly for me with Firefox 1.0 and fully patched WinXP -- I didn't even have to restart the browser or clear the cache or anything

      I can't tell if you're trying to be funny. The point being made here, is that once you restart your browser, the setting no longer prevents you from loading the spoofed page.

    59. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked on mine, which is Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050124 Firefox/1.0+

    60. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Upon restart about:config and set network.enableIDN remains set to false.

      Yes, yes it does. HOWEVER IDNs are now enabled again even though the setting says it is false. Try hitting the paypal page again and you will see what I mean.

      Finkployd

    61. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      omg. now not only do people not read the articles, but they don't even read the posts in the thread they're responding to. :P

    62. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restart your browser. The spoof will work again. Apparently, the code that disables the IDN is broken.

      The phishing technique exposed a seemingly unrelated bug in Firefox.

    63. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posting AC 'cause I'm stupid but:
      how do I set this in FireFox?
      I can't figure out where to go based only on about:config
      thx.

    64. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 4, Funny
      I wonder if there's a quick and easy fix for this for Safari users,

      There is! Run I.E. in a VirtualPC window.

    65. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by The+Mgt · · Score: 1

      Setting network.enableIDN to false worked for me until I restarted Firefox. After I restarted I got the 'Meow' page again. However if I toggle network.enableIDN to true and then back to false it works again and I get the error message.

    66. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      " posting AC 'cause I'm stupid but:
      how do I set this in FireFox?
      I can't figure out where to go based only on about:config
      thx."

      just type "about:config" no quotes in the address bar
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    67. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Ulven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looking at the source would get a little tedious if one has to do it before clicking on every single link.

    68. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Tojo-Mojo · · Score: 1

      In K-Meleon I see "www.p?ypal.com", see the "Looking up www.xn--pypal-4ve.com...", then have "www.p?ypal.com" in the address bar after it loads.
      Not too convincing here.

    69. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked for me on Firefox/XP. The link was still rendered as www.paypal.com but it couldn't be resolved after the config change.

    70. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041109 Firefox/1.0 (MOOX M3)

      The fix works correctly here.

    71. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1
      You weren't reading what I wrote. Restart your browser, THEN it stops working

      Whoops! I misunderstood -- I thought you (and others) were saying it didn't work even after restarting. But you're right, I restart the browser and it stops working....

    72. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried using the 'SpoofStick' extension? I wonder what effect it has on this vulnerability, if it would give away the fact the page isn't real or not?

    73. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by TCM · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to generally block IDN in a forced proxy by disallowing (.*\.)?xn--.* as a domain, i.e. everthing starting with xn-- with an optional part followed by a dot preceding it?

      I watched my squid logs and the domain is obviously handled in the xn-- notation.

      Blocking it should prevent anyone accessing IDN domains through the proxy, right?

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    74. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why? Does it run under Virtual PC, or would you need to get hold of the Windows version of IE to get that to work?

      What does Virtual PC do that "secures" IE in this way? Why not just run it as a standard app?

    75. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a ridiculous attitude. By that standard, no-one should be able to drive a car unless they can rebuild a carburetor.

    76. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by bahamat · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was probably cached, which does nothing to help anyone. Any user no matter how long they've been using computers is apt to think that disabling it will make a difference right away. I've been developing websites for close to 10 years, and browser cache is the biggest thorn in my side in that area.

      While you can view the certificate in Firefox, it takes a whopping 4 clicks to get the info that shows the page is bogus (double click the lock icon, click security tab, click view cert). The average user will never find it. Even the above average users will be thrown by the General tab which shows the spoofed URL as though it were the real one. If they don't actively hunt down all indications that a site may be spoofed, they're going to be fooled.

      What's worse, is that Safari doesn't even give the option to view certificates that it thinks are valid (not expired and signed by a valid root CA).

      Ouch.

    77. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by IO+ERROR · · Score: 0
      One: the setting of enableIDN to false appears to have NO effect.

      Did you restart Firefox? No? That's why it isn't working!

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    78. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

      This has been reported as bug 281377.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    79. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      I never restart Firefox... good thing you mentioned this or I might not have noticed for months >_>

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    80. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Illserve · · Score: 1

      True but...

      In the great war of ideology that we're now in, Linux and Open Source and non IE browsers are all in the same trench.

      To besmirch non IE browsers is to besmirch them all, and claiming otherwises is dishonest.

      You can't have it both ways, If Linux victories are good for open source, and vice versa, then so to are open source problems a black eye for Linux.

      You sound about as absurd as an MS advocate would be if he tried to claim that IE isn't Windows,
      therefore you can't count IE problems against it.

      You win some and you lose some, stop trying to play dodgeball and take the red ball in your nuts like a man.

    81. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works _until_ you restart fool.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    82. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Neurowiz · · Score: 1

      Yup - I'm seeing the same behavior - I've done the about:config try AND gone searching for network.enableIDN on my harddrive. Nothing seems to work on that setting.

      --
      Neurowiz
    83. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried it in 1.0.3 but it dosn't work, just says server "www.p/? could not be found"
      They only claim to have tested it w/ safari 1.2.5 thow...

    84. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The only way I was able to tell on Opera (8.00, build 7401) that the site was a fake was to look at the console log of my http://www.privoxy.org/ web proxy.

      It showed:

      Feb 07 12:14:59 Privoxy(03720) Request: www.xn--pypal-4ve.com/
    85. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by mwood · · Score: 1

      Looks like it just forgets to write the setting out to prefs.js. What happens if you put it in user.js?

    86. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by ammoQ · · Score: 1

      In my configuration (FF/Linux) you see imediately that something is odd. paypal.com is even hard to read.

    87. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Cattywampus · · Score: 1

      It was probably cached, which does nothing to help anyone. Nah, it has nothing to do with caching of any kind. I fixed the setting, restarted the browser, blew out its cache and tried the link. It still loaded up the spoofed PayPal.

    88. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by sn0wflake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean most users will never, ever, notice it. Even I as a Slashdot reader don't look at the URL constantly.
      Recon spyware coders will implement this in their programs now so it'll work in MSIE.

    89. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worse, to lack functionality that quite a lot of people have absolutely no use for, or to leave yourself open to a phishing vulnerability that can hit you even if you're not using that functionality?

    90. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Ea · · Score: 1

      On Firefox/Mac, the "a" of the IDN char is rendered slightly differently than is the regular "a". This is true both of the mouseover prompt and the URL bar version. The IDN is slightly more rounded, with a droopier slope.

      That said: it's a *slight* difference. I had to look at the source to figure out what the hack was, then stare closely at the characters before I noticed the difference. It's not something you'd notice in a glance at the URL.

    91. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by LinuxPeach · · Score: 1

      The FF extension called "Spoofstick" is also vulnerable. Spoofstick is supposed to protect web users from this kind of issue. I have notified the company that provides the extension, so hopefully they will be able to fix their extension and show the correct URL.

      While it's not an end-all-be-all solution, this extension is very useful in preventing my mom from going to spoofed web sites.

      --
      Clean Environment. Good jobs. Dream On.
    92. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      Your original post and subsequent post state that while you were able to make the config change it wasn't surviving a restart of Firefox. I was saying that I could change the setting and that it was surviving the restart, but that it was making no difference anyway, which is slightly different. Hence the clarifications of "actual setting" and "supposedly disabled" in my post.

      Either way, it's still broken of course. :(

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    93. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by duvie · · Score: 1
      I changed the setting. No effect. I restarted Firefox. No effect. I rebooted. (Well, it IS Windoze.) No effect.

      Any more smart-ass questions to which you will presume inaccurate answers?

      So... NOW why isn't it working?

    94. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AstroDrabb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It was probably cached
      No, it wasn't cached. I cleared the cache in Firefox and also if you hold down shift and click Refresh, Firefox skips the cache and goes right to the server for the content. I think that the about:config interface correctly updated the enableIDN variable while the startup Firefox code doesn't look for the enableIDN settings in your user profile. To me that would explain why the settings take place immediately, yet fail to be set when you restart your browser.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    95. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      So... NOW why isn't it working?

      See this posting.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    96. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      It works right after you set your pref in about:config, however it you restart your browser, it seems to be a bug in the Firefox startup code that doesn't look at enableIDN so the spoof works again. However, if you go in and reset enableIDN to false, the spoof is again blocked. Not a very good way to protect yourself from this spood, especially for Joe User, however, I bet the Firefox team will have an Auto-Update out in no time.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    97. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      I don't think the solution is in disabling IDN. While this is a solution as any other for english (or classical Latin) speaking surfers, it is not desirable for all others (a nuisance for some, and a roadblock for others).

      The real long term solution, is changing DNS registrations so that IDN is the only way domain names are registered. If the only "character set" is IDN then there would not be 2 ways to type the same thing, and phishing would become impossible.

      The way to fight this in the meantime, is to maybe have a little box before the rendered URL in the URL bar. This box would contain the full original string of the URL if there is enough room in the Addressbar to show both, or compress it to an optimum size, and showing, with context, the IDN string where it differs from the rendered string. Even when the whole string is not visible, just hovering the cursor over it should show the unrendered string.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    98. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

      Works fine on my end, just get a "domain not found" with the seemingly correct URL in the msgbox.

    99. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by duvie · · Score: 1

      Uh huh... what's your point?

    100. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in Opera you can spot that these are fake. Look at the window title, it displays:

      http://www.p?ypal.com (for the paypal example)

    101. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by metamatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, RISKS digest warned about this well over a year ago when IDN was being discussed.

      Obviously, everyone went ahead and implemented IDN anyway, without fixing the problem. I mean, this is the computer industry after all...

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    102. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Something which one could do is use a filtering proxy (Proxomitron, Privoxy, etc.) to flag those sites which use the .xn--* bit in their URLs and alert the user when these come along.


      Okay, maybe it's a bit much for the regular user, but slashdaughters should be able to get this to work.

    103. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or run a network monitoring application whenever you're about to make an online purchase.

    104. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I used up the first two boxes, and can't afford the third. Does that mean it's time to crack open number four?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    105. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid you should actually pay attention to what previous posters have said before you post this drivel. It works ONLY UNTIL you quit and restart the browser. Then the "fix" doesn't work any more unless you apply it AGAIN. (Win2K Firefox).

    106. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by ikegami · · Score: 1

      Not all of us get this 3 pixel difference. Co-workers's WinNT + IE (with presumably minimal internal support): Displays a black box instead of the first 'a'. My Win2k + IE6: Both 'a's are displayed indetically, pixel by pixel. My WinXP + IE6: Both 'a's are displayed indetically, pixel by pixel. My WinXP + Mozilla: Both 'a's are displayed indetically, pixel by pixel.

    107. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by SavoWood · · Score: 1

      When this URL gets passed to Safari from Mail, the funny-URL is noticed but not translated and the page won't display. If the attempt comes by mail, it looks like Safari users may be safe.

      --
      Plant a tree in a developing country.
    108. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I'm using Firefox 0.9.1 still and it does work after restarting. Looks like someone broke the code to actually load that property in the 1.0 release.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    109. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      The default version of IE isn't susceptable to this bug.
      I would imagine that you can run the Mac native version too.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    110. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wasn't cached.

      Yes, it was clearly cached you need to delete

      xpti.dat, compreg.dat, and the Cache directory in your profile!

    111. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by demonAfro · · Score: 1

      I have a Winamp plugin that appends the currently playing song to the active window title bar and the address shows up in the title bar as www.p?ypal.com. (Opera 7.54 and Winamp Slider)

    112. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Averron · · Score: 1

      No I don't understand completely how they interact with my body, but I damn sure read the directions on the bottle and follow them, and I'm not very likely to stick anything in the wrong hole -- thats far more than we can expect from the average user.

    113. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by smahesh · · Score: 1

      Setting does not work in FF1.0 on Windows. It does not matter if you set it via prefs.js or user.js - in either case the settings still show user set value of 'false' but the IDN spoof still works.

    114. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you drag the link from Safari and drop it in the Finder, it doesn't make a .webloc.

    115. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by nizo · · Score: 1

      I am running my own dns server, I wonder if I could make it ignore lookups to domains like this? It seems like filtering this junk out at the ISP level might be the way to go. Something a little nicer would be to have the address returned direct the user to an IP with a web server running with a page stating "this may not be the domain you think it is" with perhaps a link to the host by IP or something so if they really really wanted to go there they still could. Of course any other functionality (ftp or whatever) would die a horrible death and the user wouldn't know why.

    116. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by legirons · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's pretty easy to spot. The ethereal window shows packets going to and from www.xn--pypal-4ve.com when you request the web-page - can't understand why anyone would be fooled...

    117. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I.E has got a similar security flaw (ability to display any URL in the address bar, but have the content load from a different website) the I.E "bug" has been known about since december but not yet been fixed, its documented here: http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_cross-site_sc ripting_vulnerability_test/

    118. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Ok, what's worse: to introduce an unnecessary URL-coding scheme and all the security problems it brings, or to simply expect everyone to use the already-existing Latin-character-only system (which they were probably using anyway)?

    119. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by imkonen · · Score: 1
      Well the one fault you Linux users seem to find most often with Linux is lack of good fonts. Perhaps it's not such a fault after all :-). I can tell you on my FF 1.0, W2000, the title looks identical.

      Even scarier, I copied both from the location bar and by right clicking the link->copy link location, pasted into notepad, and I still see

      http://www.paypal.com/

      even though the white paper implied this was supposed to be a way to check this spoof. Of course pasting from notepad into /. and previewing my post, it is now missing the "a". Then even after disabling IDN, it's still not obvious. I don't see gibberish. The mouse-over preview still says "paypal". All I get when I click on it is an alert dialog saying "www.paypal.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again"...a rather "innocent" message that I actually get quite frequently at home with my spotty internet connection. The only positive identification of this spoof was to view the source. Then I see the strange "& #1072;" stuff that's doing the spoofing.

    120. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I'd be careful when surfing sites that needs the user to enter logins/passwords/personal data: if you cannot or don't want to see the certificates enter the url by hand instead of clicking on links.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    121. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by TobyIRC · · Score: 1

      Ah, I don't know if this is what you mean but this is what I thought of:

      As there is a patch for IE to make it work with internationalized domain names, then EVILware makers could include this patch and then direct you to www.ebay.com which is actually EVILwares site! Intriguing idea sir.

    122. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dunno about you but I grabbed the devel version of fedora's firefox and it seems to read the about:config for this exploit upon restart. The page doesn't work for me.

    123. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by fm6 · · Score: 1
      And it's not FUD - it is an actual problem.
      "FUD" is just a synonym for "flamebait". Somebody says something you don't want to hear, so you attack his motives for saying it. The validity of what's being said is of secondary importance!
    124. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by calethix · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure exactly what you guys are talking about. When I follow the paypal link from here, it doesn't look any different to me.

      I even loaded that link and the real paypal in separate tabs. Then I flipped back and forth and they're exactly the same. Maybe it's different in Linux or something.

      As far as seeing the real address in the status bar, well it loads so quick for me that I don't see that either.

    125. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it mean it it's 2-3 pixels to the left? To the right? Diagonally? Back? Forward?

    126. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by kid-noodle · · Score: 1

      Seconded.

      This bug is fixed in the new nightly builds of FF however.

      --
      fortune -o
    127. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Firefox and Safari on mac use a dumb font and I can't see any difference. That sucks.

      I wonder if I should just filter these funny domains out at my dns. I never agreed with the whole unicode dns movement anyways. Makes about as much sense as making domain names case-sensitive or support spaces. Hey I bet I could register a domain with something that looks like a . in it. then I could have www.microsoft or something registered.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    128. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Yes, RISKS digest warned about this well over a year ago when IDN was being discussed.

      And micr0soft.com was registered what? a decade or so ago?

      This is NOT a new exploit, it is a problem that SSL CAs have known about for years. The internationalization has not changed the job of an SSL registrar which is checking that the company asking for a cert for paypal, owns the domain name AND is authentically registered as a legitimate company.

      A homologue can do the first of these but not the second, not unless they want to be on the pointy end of a lawsuit. If you attempt to register paypal.com or paypal-billing.com or any other cousin domain and you are not Paypal Inc. a division of EBay you has just committed fraud. Moreover the SSL registration process should have verified your name and details when you registered.

      The SSL cert on the schmoo site is not registered by a well known CA, far from it, the web site does not even show how to get a cert from them.

      There is no risk here if everyone does their job properly. Folk reading slashdot in English might not see the need for international domain names, the 80-90% of Internet users that are not native English speakers have other opinions.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    129. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Jondaley · · Score: 1

      As pointed out by numerous people, this fix only works in nightly builds of FF, or pre-1.0 releases.
      If you go into about:config every time you start firefox, and click on the setting to make it say false (ie. clicking twice since it is already set) will set the setting correctly.

      Bad bug indeed.

    130. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      That page scares me. Looking at the source, it's not a link to paypal.com, it's a link to pypal.com. Firefox then of course renders the #1072 character in the statusbar, which looks A LOT like an ascii 'a'. (looking really closely, the 'a' in "pay" does look slightly different than the 'a' in "pal", though it's not something you'd notice casually).

      Though I had the disableIDN workaround thing set, so when I clicked the link, I just got an error saying "www.paypal.com" could not be loaded.

    131. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Y2 · · Score: 1
      And when this was presented at Shmoocon they mentioned that, IIRC they said that it was first thought up in 2001.

      I know that this was brought up at an IETF meeting in '99 using the example SUN.COM, where the C was a Cyrillic S.

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    132. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's assuming "people" understand HTML. Hint: Most computer users don't.

      I don't know what all the kneejerk responses to the above comment are about, I didn't read any user-blaming there. A statement of a fact of computer users as regular people.

    133. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, in Mozilla 1.8a6 it works. The only difference is that the first "a" in paypal looks slightly different both in the status bar and in the url. But you need to be looking for it to see it.

      And, yes, I remember this being predicted long ago when there was first discussion on how to use international characters in URLs. It has happened, just as predicted.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    134. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by HiThere · · Score: 1

      True, but there should be some distinctive difference. Perhaps one should pick a character set as the "default" and have any non-default character displayed in red + flashing + bold?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    135. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      True, but there should be some distinctive difference. Perhaps one should pick a character set as the "default" and have any non-default character displayed in red + flashing + bold?

      I would prefer to have an anti-phishing plug in that looks for these types of tricks. If a domain name is all cyrilic then there is unlikely to be a problem. Its the domain names that only have one foreign character and a homologue at that that are a potential threat.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    136. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 1

      Now that sounds like a more elegant solution all round. Thanks.

      --
      Silly rabbit
    137. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Ulven · · Score: 1

      Using IE may save you from this particular bug, but you need the virtual PC to save you from all the others that IE lets through.

    138. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      pypal.com

      Actually, it's a link to pypal.com (which would be encoded however domains encode unicode using ascii, I can't remember now) it just so happens that the cyrillic "a" and typical latin "a" are identical, at least in the font I'm looking at.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    139. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by strider44 · · Score: 1

      It's probably the native fonts in linux. Freetype does look slightly different to the Windows fonts ("better or worse" is for another conversation), and they can have slightly different symantics.

      For me it's pretty obvious. I'd take a screenshot of it but I don't have a hoster. The a is bolded and the actual url is extending off the screen. I picked it up from the corner of my eye, so it can't be that difficult to see.

    140. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by arminw · · Score: 1

      Copying the link to the clipboard and pasting into textedit on OSX shows the same URL, but the "a" looks diffferent than the other characters. Pasting into BBedit shows some strange added character. This is a nasty trick that will undoubtedly be used by evildoers. If an unsolicted email or any web page comes up with a window that asks for passwords or other personal info, then the only defense I can think of right now is to type the link manually into the URL window.

      --
      All theory is gray
    141. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh. unless your PC is NOT in english to begin with.
      Oh aren't you so elite.
      btw, the status bar also says Looking up www.paypal.com..
      not everyone lives in the US.

    142. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Lightning+Hopkins · · Score: 1

      I've done this, and it works fine for me. I'm on Firefox 1.0 using Windows 2000.

      --
      Eh?
    143. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by melikamp · · Score: 1

      If a domain name is all cyrilic then there is unlikely to be a problem.

      These can be spelled in pure Cyrillyc:

      1. paypal.com
      2. apple.com
      3. aol.com

      Btw, does anyone know how to post Cyrillic on /.? Is it even possible?

    144. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by bstone · · Score: 1

      How about just changing the registration process to disallow registering any name that "looks" identical to an already registered name? Just keep a list of character synonyms on the registration sites and don't let anyone register synonyms.

    145. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by KagatoLNX · · Score: 1

      FWIW, if you ever study classical texts on rhetoric, you'll quickly discover that there are a few simple falsehoods that are always present. I think it was the Greeks or the Romans that first codified it.

      This one is called "ad hominem", I think. Basically meaning to attack the person, not the argument.

      Ironically, I think politics in the USA today show the level two which the intellect of people have fallen. There was a time when people recognized these attacks for what they are. They would even be insulted by them. IIRC, a lot of the European aristocracy feared rule by the people for exactly this reason--that the people could be manipulated by the standard falsehoods but the aristocracy were trained not too. It's no coincidence that you find the same theme in the US as early as Alexander Hamilton (an aristocracy of talent).

      For example, I had an argument Saturday with somebody who was basically defending "ad hominem" attacks. Essentially she was saying that she wouldn't support the right idea from the wrong person. However I was dumbfounded when she carried forward stating that she would support the wrong idea from the right person!!! Of course, in this discussion the person's rightness/wrongness was somehow correlated with religion, which may make it even more of a tragedy (sin?).

      But I digress, since I'm way off topic.

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    146. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by KagatoLNX · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say that might be dramatizing a bit.

      This is not a root exploit. This is not a buffer overflow. The worst we've got here is a settings loading problem.

      The fact of the matter is that Firefox is exhibiting the correct behavior but the specification is flawed.

      If you look at the sad mess that is today's encoding of SSL certificates, you can see the same thing. There are a lot of ways to encode a certificate so that it's valid but doesn't work most places. Of course, most people never have to deal with this dark art, so its not as obvious.

      The fact of the matter is that this "vulnerability" isn't one. The vulnerability lies in the consequences of the IDN standard, the reliance of SSL on DNS and ASN.1, and the world-wide security standard not being based on truly verified public-key cryptography.

      And as for the "war of ideology", the war is won in the trenches. See how long it takes to get a fix. If you don't see one fast enough, THAT is how the war will be lost. Not by raving lunatics on Slashdot!

      Also, don't forget that this "vulnerability" comes with some benefit. Without IDN, having domain names in Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arabic, Hebrew, et al. would simply not be possible. I think that, had this problem not been solved, we would be suffering seriously more balkanization in the internet--possibly resulting in a new asian/international browser. I think it's obvious to see why that could be bad (at least of Verisign).

      If anything, what you are witnessing is an incomplete application of Unicode. IIRC, unicode specifies equivalency tables for sorting and comparing these things. Now support for unicode in SSL certificates in a whole other game. Mind you, I think if we settled on punycode encoding them in the SSL certificate, we would have a non problem.

      Comments?

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    147. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cure found. News at 11.

      http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=21 51 78

      xMorpheousx416 (too flippen tired to create yet another acct)

    148. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work for me FF 1.0 XP Home

    149. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing the IDN to false worked immediatly for me and I had previously gone through the links on teh schmoo advisory thingy. Sounds like yer firefox is whacked

    150. Re:Another IDN bug on Firefox by calethix · · Score: 1

      ok, so I booted into Linux at home to compare for myself. It's definitely noticeable.

      When I click the bad link in Firefox, it shifts the text in the location bar down so far that it chops off the p's tail in http.

      I tried in Konqueror too. It gives me this error instead:
      An error occurred while loading http:/:
      No hostname specified.

  2. Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm surprised to hear that Microsoft's refusal to adopt international standards in their browser actually thwarts a potential phishing attack rather than aiding it. If the problem can't be fixed in the browsers, maybe email clients and websites can find some way of decoding, detecting, and disabling such links. Are phishers going to bother trying to use this exploit if it works on less than 10% of their potential victims?

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by LourensV · · Score: 1

      Well, it is just like a Windows XP virus not working on Windows 98 I guess, not that special.

      I'm wondering whether it would be a good solution to warn the user if a URL uses characters from different scripts, maybe only if it's isolated characters. That way, if you had a URL consisting of two words in different scripts, it would still work, but if you replaced a single letter to fool the user they'd get a nicely coloured navbar (or something similar).

    2. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by AbbyNormal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cmon. We are all touting Firefox to be the next "Greatest" thing since sliced bread. I have it installed on most of my family's machines. What now when M$ turns this around and says: "See? Only MS prevented this flaw because of our proprietary tested..bla blah".

      All it takes is 1% of the 10 percent.

      --
      Sig it.
    3. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by moon-monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Are phishers going to bother trying to use this exploit if it works on less than 10% of their potential victims?

      They sure are. Think about how many people actually respond to spam messages. It's probably much smaller than 0.01%, but it's still economical enough for the to send out the messages anyway. I'd be fairly confident that the same holds true for phishers, too.

      --
      "Pokey, are you drunk on love?" "Yes. Also whiskey. But mostly love... and whiskey."
    4. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Saven+Marek · · Score: 0

      > I'm surprised to hear that Microsoft's refusal to adopt
      > international standards in their browser actually thwarts a
      > potential phishing attack rather than aiding it.

      The thing is this is another carry on effect where MS refusal to follow standards only hurts others. Now when a phish attack that can take advantage of this problem appears it will be designed to hit other browsers say firefox on linux or opera or konqueror. So because it only breaks on these browsers it will mean any attacks on them will be tailor made for their kinds of users, which is linux users.

      So when a phish attack comes along attacking linux users it might phish for cvs passwords and other open source type things instead of just banking details. I consider this a big risk to some open source projects. I wonder what browser Linus uses??

      If MS had followed standards they could not allow phishers to attack just a specific group like this, and phishers would have to act blindly like they are now only looking for generic things that affect most of the population.

    5. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      "I'm surprised to hear that Microsoft's refusal to adopt international standards in their browser actually thwarts a potential phishing attack rather than aiding it."

      hey.. dont tell them that.. we actually want MS to ADD support, not remove it in the future....

      New IE7, now with less CSS support, FOR YOUR SECURITY!!!!

      And before you laugh.. rememebr we are touting Firefox is more secure, because of lack of ActiveX.

      (Before you call me a troll, put yourself in the shoes of Joe Bloggs who hasnt a clue nor does care about the dangers of ActiveX)

      --
      Have a nice day!
    6. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Are phishers going to bother trying to use this exploit if it works on less than 10% of their potential victims?"

      Why not? Alternative browsers are picking up steam. How many FireFox users also have a PayPal account?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are phishers going to bother trying to use this exploit if it works on less than 10% of their potential victims?

      This is entirely not an acceptable attitude if you don't want to remain a substandard browser. This is simply security by obscurity. No one will check under the door mat for the key, right?

    8. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The more features you add, the more vulnerabilities. That's why webservers do not run extra services. Mozilla people spend a lot on web products, and probably are egomaniacal about "Linux and Firefox is secure" and get tricked.

      Just some food for thought.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Bad Grammar
      -1 Linus Fanboy
      -1 Incoherent

      Take your pick.

    10. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by double-oh+three · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fix is simple for this(for firefox at least), just have a little bar appear at top(like the popup one) and have a message saying that there are international characters in the address. Have a button with a link to the non-international charactered page. There's no reason to kill international character support, just make it so that the user is warned.

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    11. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Paypal was just used as an example, it could be any site. But on the other hand, if I'm going to my bank's web site, or some other trusted site, I will usually type in the URL or select it from my bookmarks, not click a link in a suspicious email.

    12. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A solution, yes. A good one? Well, if users are too stupid to pay attention to simpler things, like not running attachments promising nude pictures of tennis stars, then do you really expect them to pay attention to what font their browser is displaying.

    13. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      That was one of my first thoughts too. We keep hearing about how Microsoft's programs get exploited so frequently because of their market dominance, well now we may get a hint as to whether that is the case or not. Let's say your 10% is accurate (it seems reasonable to me) and keep in mind that a lot of those will have downloaded Firefox because of concerns with IE's security record.

      A significant number of phishing attacks using this would kind of destroy the already dubious "most prevalent platform" argument in my book. However, what if there are no attempts to exploit it? 10% is a still pretty sizable userbase; there must be some fools in there waiting to help prove the adage about being parted from their money, and spam runs are cheap...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    14. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by mwood · · Score: 1

      Come back tomorrow when the fixed Firefox starts shipping. :-)

    15. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by mwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. Japanese users will be thrilled to keep being distracted by the little warning dot which tells them that the Japanese site they linked to has Japanese characters in its name. What's the Japanese word for, "duuuh!"?

    16. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait, IE refuses to support the standard. But the standard is apparently flawed, so lack of support of this particular standard is not entirely a bad thing.

      And yet, somehow, IE is once again the cause of armageddon here.

      What I don't understand is how refusal to support a standard that turns out to have a gaping security hole is a bad thing (Ignoring precisely why the standard is not supported in the first place; yes, I'm aware IE is terrible for standard support in general).

      I have to ask; what if the tables were turned? Hypothetically, what if it were IE supporting the flawed standard and the various open source (Or not) browsers stomping all over it? I have to bet your tune would be along the lines of "LOLZ Look at teh vulnerbility in IE!1!1 We do not suport those standards bcuz they suxxx!!1!", as if IE were somehow responsible for the standard being flawed.

    17. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by vample · · Score: 1

      Because of course when someone implemented this, they'd also show a "dont show me this warning again" and it would go away.

      Or even come disabled by default in japanese installs.

      duuuh.

      --
      -- Ryan Watkins vamp@vamp.org http://www.vamp.org/
    18. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by cortana · · Score: 1

      What's your solution?

      I think having some kind of icon in the address bar, or changing the background of the address bar to red, is the simplest and most transparent solution.

      At least it is good enough as a workaround, until you think of something better! ;)

    19. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by pdc · · Score: 1

      For some people, what you consider international characters are national characters.

      The test browsers should apply is whether a word in the URL contains letters from more than one script (e.g., using a Cyrillic letter in a word otherwise in the latin script is suspicious, whereas a word consisting entirely of Cyrillic is OK).

      Might be problems if (say) Greek or Japanese companies insist on having trade names mixing native and latin leters.

      In my opinion, the IRI specification should have forbidden mixing letters from different scripts: the phishing IRIs would then be forbidden and browsers would be entitled to refuse to follow those links.

    20. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's do the simple fix instead of the *right* fix which would be to warn when homograms are present in the URL.

      Of course, this is really a problem with Unicode, since the letter "A" appears in it SO OFTEN that it's ridiculous. Same with a lot of latin characters, especially vowels. You have a 16-bit character space, why not have 10 values that all produce "a" but with different "meanings"?

    21. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by mwood · · Score: 1

      How about *fixing the rendering*? If I saw something in the address widget that looked kinda like "paypal" except it has a Chinese character where the 'a' should be, I'd suspect foul play. I'm sure that some bozo marketing genius will concoct such a mixed-script logo for his company some day, but then at least you could compare the logo to the address and it would match. If someone uses, say, the Klingon symbol-for-empire in the middle of his server name, then the browser should by golly render a symbol-for-empire there in all contexts. The current behavior is not just lacking; it is *wrong*. Unicode position #1072 is an unassigned position in the "Myanmar block" and shouldn't render as *anything*, certainly not as a slightly small lowercase Roman 'a'.

      Fixing something that's broken should take less time than adding a new feature.

      (Okay, if I don't have e.g. a Klingon font installed then I will accept a "no glyph for this position" box. But it shouldn't show something that isn't there.)

    22. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Pay-what? I thought people who used OSS didn't pay for anything?

      * note to mods
      Please say the word "Ha" twice after reading this post.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    23. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by cortana · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that the browsers are rendering the address correctly.

      The HTML entity а != U+1072. It corresponds to U+0430 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER A, which it seems most fonts render almost exactly identical to U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A.

      It appears the problem is in RFC3491 "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)" or RFC3292 "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)". As I understand it, one of the processes these RFCs describe involve a sanitisation process to be carried out on domain names, that fixes cases where an attacker is using odd unicode control characters to make one character appear like another.

      The problem is that these procedures overlooked U+0430 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER A (and perhaps others?).

      So I suggest flagging the address field with a red tint when such characters are discovered as a work around, until the clever people who write RFCs come up with a good idea of how to proceed.

      More info on this blog, if you are interested.

    24. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by bnenning · · Score: 1

      And before you laugh.. rememebr we are touting Firefox is more secure, because of lack of ActiveX.

      And rightly so. By the same token, if there's not a trivial fix for this problem, the proper thing to do is to put out a temporary patch that completely disables IDN until it can be corrected.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    25. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But if, e.g., they can set character sets as default, say Kanji and Hirigana (sp.?), then the flash could appear when characters in ANOTHER character set are displayed. It would have to be a multiple choice selection, however. And what a Russian would do is a bit unclear. Most of the web uses ASCII, so that would NEED to be allowed.

      Possibly ASCII could be displayed in black and international characters displayed in bold royal blue (the way key words are in a highlighting editor). This would still render those who needed access to Russian more vulnerable, as the distinction would be less clear, but perhaps it would be sufficiently clear to be readily noticable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by mwood · · Score: 1

      My point here is that what language you think you are writing affects which characters are "international". Much better, I think, to avoid trying to read the user's mind (which we can't do reliably) and just show him when the script changes (which I believe we can do reliably). Think about the Russian speaker reading a link to a site whose name is a familiar string of Japanese characters, except that one of them is actually a similar character used only in Korean and the link really goes somewhere he wouldn't want to visit. Similarly there are families of languages derived from or influenced by Sanskrit, and there may be similar tricks you could play with various languages which all look (to me, anyway) like Arabic.

      Anyway, setting aside questions of multiculturality, it's impractical to decide for the user which language a URL "should" be, but it's not so impractical to indicate that scripts are being mixed, and that mixing is a pretty strong hint that someone is trying to game him.

      On another note, I wonder whether it would be useful to code up a filter to cull junkmail for these mixed-script links and build an RBL for them? Do any browsers have RBL support?

    27. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by frizzbit · · Score: 1
      The test browsers should apply is whether a word in the URL contains letters from more than one script (e.g., using a Cyrillic letter in a word otherwise in the latin script is suspicious, whereas a word consisting entirely of Cyrillic is OK).

      I think this kind of test would only be possible if you assumed what the expected character set is and tried to flag any characters that don't belong there. For example, there are russian words that use only latin letters (the acronym CPPP comes to mind - ok not a real word, but definitely a potential url or part thereof) as well as ones with only one uniquely cyrillic letter (not sure how to give an example on Slashdot). How would you distinguish those from genuine phishing attack?

    28. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by pdc · · Score: 1

      Just to be pedantic... while old USSR rockets looked like they had CCCP on the side, it was really U+0421 U+0421 U+0421 U+0420 (pronounced Es Es Es Er, apparently). (I tried using the Cyrillic characters, but Slashdot is stripping them out.) The Cyrillic letter Es is no more a C than an O is a 0.

      So with a Russian keyboard producing the correct characters, you should be able to enter the aforementioned Cyrillic characters in a IDN. If you wanted to allow people to also write cccp.su (using the homoglyphs) that's OK too. But a mixture like U+0440 U+0440 U+0440 U+0061 should at least generate a warning message.

    29. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by frizzbit · · Score: 1

      You could still have a problem with spelling out commercial domain names using non-native character sets, particularly when they are short. This is almost possible with paypal (except for the L) using the cyrillic character set.

    30. Re:Are phishers going to bother with this, though? by pdc · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. Come to think of it, I wonder what mischief one could make with the use of half-width and full-width ASCII characters...

  3. Canned Slashdot Response by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Serves those Internet Explorer users right! They should immediately switch to ... uh, wait. Nevermind.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Canned Slashdot Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me want to switch to IE...:/

    2. Re:Canned Slashdot Response by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      The smug "Canned Slashdot Response" comment is now, itself, a canned slashdot response.

    3. Re:Canned Slashdot Response by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 1

      Out of the frying pan into the fire?

      --
      Silly rabbit
    4. Re:Canned Slashdot Response by iabervon · · Score: 1

      I'm disappointed in your Canned Slashdot Reponse. It should be: In Soviet Russia, the phishers send you to пaяпал.

      Not that there seems to be any way to include non-ascii characters in slashdot posts, which makes this a tad less clear. ("paypal" in cyrillic characters, except for a plain latin-1 "a")

    5. Re:Canned Slashdot Response by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Yep. Good thing I still use the IE based Maxthon browser.

  4. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't per-se a browser fault, it is more of a flaw in the IDN system.

    Atleast, we can bash FF instead of IE now.

    1. Re:So what? by kimba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't even that. It is a fundamental side-effect with the the notion of internationalization, and the fact cyrillic and latin (and others) share the same letters. More specifically you may consider it can be pinned on the way Unicode enumerates characters (by giving different code points to letters rendered the same).

      It isn't a fault of the browser or IDNs.

    2. Re:So what? by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      And I suppose ICANN should be blamed for "regular" domain name spoofing?

      --
      -David
    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total security is a mirage. I mean, I lock my car door, but I know anyone with a jimmy can crack it open. I don't expect my car to be 'thief proof'. I take reasonable care & make sure it is secure within my powers, but beyond that, there's nothing I can do.

      I think it is about time we realize that achieveing 100% security is probably never gonna happen in our lifetime.

    4. Re:So what? by mildgift · · Score: 1

      The fault goes to the registrar. There should be an arbitration system, where PayPal can collect damages from the registrar and the registrant. It seems to be, mainly, a fraud issue. Maybe it's a trademark issue. Moreover, there is no simple technological solution for this problem. The existing technology, far from being flawed, actually makes it easier to spot the fake name. You *can* look at the source for the link. In contrast, if someone printed up "PayPal" letterhead, you wouldn't have been able to tell it's fake.

  5. Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damnit... now I'm switching back.

    1. Re:Switch by naylor83 · · Score: 0

      Heh.

  6. IE also fails! (kinda) by grandmofftarkin · · Score: 4, Informative
    The first thing I did was fire up IE (a rare occurrence) and test this. IE also failed (for me). Then I remembered that I have the i-Nav plug-in installed. Granted, this isn't actually a fault of IE then but rather the plugin. Though it should be noted that IE is only spared because (in it's default configuration, i.e. without the plugin) it doesn't support standards. In this case that standard is Punycode.

    This would actually appear to be a flaw in the Punycode standard rather than the browsers themselves, given that all IDN (internationalized domain name) aware browsers similarly fail.

    Looks like someone may have to fix Punycode. Then we can update the browsers. In the mean time perhaps Opera, Firefox, etc. can given some kind of visual notification when Punycode is used, in the same way the URL turns yellow when a secure URL is entered in Firefox.

    1. Re:IE also fails! (kinda) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Spin it this way, that way. It doesn't matter. Firefox is vulnerable, IE isn't. I'm sorry guys but FIREFOX FAILS IT!

      In Soviet Russia, Cyrillic domain names exploit YOU!

    2. Re:IE also fails! (kinda) by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      From TFA:


      V. Workaround

      You can disable IDN support in mozilla products by setting 'network.enableIDN' to false. There is no workaround known for Opera or Safari.


      At least, FF users are safe once they turn off IDN support. God bless Opera/Safari users.

    3. Re:IE also fails! (kinda) by grandmofftarkin · · Score: 1
      Spin it this way, that way. It doesn't matter. Firefox is vulnerable, IE isn't. I'm sorry guys but FIREFOX FAILS IT!

      I didn't pass a comment on Firefox being superior (although it is). All I'm saying is that we need to either 'fix' the Punycode system (if this is possible) and/or put a visual clue in the browser when Punycode is being used.

      Though why I'm taking the time to respond to a troll I don't know. I must be bored!

    4. Re:IE also fails! (kinda) by kyhwana · · Score: 1

      Unfortuantly this doesn't survive a browser restart, and even worse, it's still shown as false, but it's auctally true! (That is, the spoofing works)

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    5. Re:IE also fails! (kinda) by grandmofftarkin · · Score: 1
      There is an interesting suggested solution here:

      A solution for Phishing?

  7. Why? by sammykrupa · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are they telling every man and his dog by letting tihs get on /.? If they had just released some patches for Firefox and written up some help files for people this would not mean much.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hmm.. hiding exploits so that you can take your sweet time getting the fixes done? Do you work for Microsoft?

    2. Re:Why? by jdludlow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can anyone please tell me why people "hack" or "phish" or anything that is used for malicious activity? I'm not trying to start an argument, I seriously want to know why some people spend so much time trying to make others lives miserable.

      Money.

      Think for a minute why it would be beneficial to the bad guys to have people logging into their site with valid PayPal usernames and passwords.

    3. Re:Why? by sammykrupa · · Score: 1

      Lol, no.

  8. Firefox 1.0 by rubypossum · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you "View Source" for some weird reason the real address shows up in the title bar.

    --
    I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    1. Re:Firefox 1.0 by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Yes, and everyone views the source of every page they look at.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    2. Re:Firefox 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you "View Source" for some weird reason the real address shows up in the title bar.

      Another way to tell that it's a fake is that the real paypal page doesn't say "meow"

    3. Re:Firefox 1.0 by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that is definitely what he was implying.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
  9. Shmoocon IDN Demo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was personally there. The demonstration of the IDN spoofing at shmoocon was hands down very disturbing. This will open new possibilities for fraud and phishers unless something is done about it. I suggest browsers point out when mixed-language characters are used in URL's this may help mitigate this severe issue.

    -caes

    1. Re:Shmoocon IDN Demo by StoatBringer · · Score: 0

      That does seem to be the obvious, short-term solution.
      If the browser spots a mixed-code URL, show the coded/decoded versions to the user and check that they really do want to follow the suspicious link.

      --
      Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
  10. Call me a flamer.... errr by isa-kuruption · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is a good reason why we should just force all nations in the world to adopt a single language, English.

    Erm of course... if I was French, I would just sed 's/English/French/' that last sentence and you wouldn't set me -1 Flaimbait.

    1. Re:Call me a flamer.... errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why english? Because most people know it?

      If that's the reason you might as well shove christianity down everybody's throat too. It's the most popular, right? Lets just declare all others inferior! Why not there'd be no religious wars then...right?

      Choice in language is good.

    2. Re:Call me a flamer.... errr by wed128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe one language is a little bit overkill. How about limiting it to one char. set?

    3. Re:Call me a flamer.... errr by nazsco · · Score: 1

      Esperanto!

    4. Re:Call me a flamer.... errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it's on the way to being just English. As my international friends say, English is the language of money -- which is why its become dominant. Just look at how easy it is for english speakers to travel around the world as compared to 20 years ago...everywhere you go you can find someone on the street who speaks english.

      The future is english, spanish, and arabic. The rest will continue due to nationalistic reasons, but will basically die for usage any other way.

    5. Re:Call me a flamer.... errr by lunarlander · · Score: 1

      How about limiting it to one character? ;)

    6. Re:Call me a flamer.... errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese?

  11. This isn't a newly discovered exploit. by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can remember discussions about it years ago. I'd bet there may even be a /. article about it, although its not really worth searching to see.

    This was a big part of the critisism around supporting larger character sets in domain names.

    1. Re:This isn't a newly discovered exploit. by aug24 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right - the example from a couple of years ago was using www.microsoft.com but with the Os in microsoft being a russian character that is drawn identically.

      I can't be arsed to search for it either.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    2. Re:This isn't a newly discovered exploit. by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here's the earlier article: Spoofing URLs With Unicode. Summary:
      "Scientific American has an interesting article about how a pair of students at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology registered "microsoft.com" with Verisign, using the Russian Cyrillic letters "c" and "o". Even though it is a completely different domain, the two display identically (the article uses the term "homograph"). The work was done for a paper in the Communications of the ACM (the paper itself is not online). The article characterizes attacks using this spoof as "scary, if not entirely probable," assuming that a hacker would have to first take over a page at another site. I disagree: sending out a mail message with the URL waiting to be clicked ("Bill Gates will send you ten dollars!") is just one alternate technique. While security problems with Unicode have been noted here before, this might be a new twist."

      Incidentally, it seems that Slashdot's ASCII-only URL reporting system successfully deflects such spoofing here: Go to paypal.com

      --
      four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
    3. Re:This isn't a newly discovered exploit. by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "... a pair of students at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology registered "microsoft.com" with Verisign, using the Russian Cyrillic letters "c" and "o". Even though it is a completely different domain, the two display identically (the article uses the term "homograph"). "

      Tarnation, lookit what the Intarweb is becoming to these days. People using furrin languages to make homographic websites! An innocent child's soul will be turned from the path of good just by looking at that there homographic material. Somebody oughta make a law or sump'n, outlaw those homographers and send 'em back to Satan where they came from!

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  12. This has been hinted at by ded_guy · · Score: 1

    in an entry in Michael Kaplan's blog last month. That in turn mentions this entry which talks about spoofing filenames using a similar method.

    --
    In the future, all spacecraft will be made of cheese.
  13. Opera won't fix it? by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the text:
    VI. Vendor Responses

    Verisign: No response yet.
    Apple: No response yet.
    Opera: They believe they have correctly implemented IDN, and will not be making any changes.
    Mozilla: Working on finding a good long-term solution; provided clear workaround for disabling IDN.

    So, Opera won't fix it? They have a proof of concept, and Opera believe their implementation is correct? Maybe, but they still need to provide an update, and something tells me they will .. eventually.

    1. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Wudbaer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is not their implementation, which is likely correct. The problem is that the standard is "wrong" is this respect.

      So it will be quite difficult to fix this without breaking and/or changing the standard.

    2. Re:Opera won't fix it? by MoonFog · · Score: 1

      You're probably correct, but that doesn't help the fact that their browser is vulnerable to this exploit. As the article summary states, they do not have an option to turn the use of IDN off.

    3. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey RETARD!

      No they don't...if IE had the plugin it would be vulnerable too but you couldn't yell at MS to fix it...the STANDARD is broke, not the browser. The browser just follows the standard like its supposed to.

    4. Re:Opera won't fix it? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Informative

      "So, Opera won't fix it? They have a proof of concept, and Opera believe their implementation is correct? Maybe, but they still need to provide an update, and something tells me they will .. eventually."

      In case anybody's curious, Opera's broken, too.

      I'm really kinda saddened by this. There was an exploit a year or two ago that worked in a similar way. It involved using an @ symbol in the header to disguise the true domain. At the time, Mozilla and IE were absolutely broken in that respect, but Opera was nice enough to put up a friendly message saying "Are ya sure you want to enter this particular domain?" (Kinda necessary, those @ symbols are useful.) Guess I just kinda expected more from Opera in this respect.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Opera won't fix it? by TheIndividual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well it isn't really a bug. Their implementation is correct it just suffers a flaw that IDN introduced. So from a technical point of view, the browser does what it is supposed to do. However it would be nice to see them implement some kind of protection against unicode letters looking like ASCII-letters. A warning popup or colour coding of those letter maybe.

    6. Re:Opera won't fix it? by TheIndividual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The nice thing is that you don't need to break or change the standard. It just shows that you should think a little about something before you implement it, even if it a widely used standard.
      In this case, why not introduce a warning popup if the domain name contains a unicode letter that looks like a normal ASCII letter.
      Effort? One lookup table of "bad" unicode letters and a small if-statement before opening a link...

    7. Re:Opera won't fix it? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Mozilla: Working on finding a good long-term solution; provided clear workaround for disabling IDN.

      Yup, except that the clear workaround does not fix the problem at all. The setting stays set to false in about:config after retstarting the browser, but in reality it goes back to enabling IDNs, and the paypal spoof referenced in this story still works.

      Shame on Firefox (my favorite browser) for taking a bad situation and making it worse by providing a false sense of security :(

      Finkployd

    8. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately that's not a thing Opera _can_ actually fix, since it's a problem with IDN itself and not with Opera's implementation.

      It's like asking the PINE devs to "fix" deliberate spelling mistakes that may cause confusion...

    9. Re:Opera won't fix it? by grandmofftarkin · · Score: 1

      They could put visual notification when IDNs are used. At least until a better solution is found.

    10. Re:Opera won't fix it? by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      I don't need Opera to fix it; I just want them to provide an option where I can turn that feature off.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    11. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How bloody annoying is THAT for the users who actually want to use IDN?

    12. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So...

      It isn't really a bug... it's a FEATURE!

    13. Re:Opera won't fix it? by MooseGuy529 · · Score: 1

      I'd say the best solution is to make all Unicode letters blue, or some other non-offensive color. Is this sorta like the opposite of hiding affiliate links with % escapes?--instead of using an escaping method to make a normal URL look like it goes somewhere weird, it uses an escaping method to make a weird URL look like it goes somewhere normal. Perhaps the IDN standard needs to refuse domains that replicate ASCII characters with escapes, on the premise that those could be written as ASCII?

      --

      Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist

    14. Re:Opera won't fix it? by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      So from a technical point of view, the browser does what it is supposed to do.

      I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but that sounds like Nazi soldiers claiming that they were also doing what they were "supposed to do". Selling a product that knowingly has a security flaw and hiding behind a technical standard is just morally wrong. Sorry, but Opera loses on this one. I'm glad I don't use their browser.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    15. Re:Opera won't fix it? by cbr2702 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yup, except that the clear workaround does not fix the problem at all. The setting stays set to false in about:config after retstarting the browser, but in reality it goes back to enabling IDNs, and the paypal spoof referenced in this story still works.

      That's strange; I just tried it (in FF/1.0) and it remembered the setting and still had the site fail. Now the site still does render as "http://www.paypal.com/" in the status bar, but when I click on it I get a message saying "http://www.paypal.com/ was not found".

      This is one case where I like Linux's font support is not perfect. On the Mac the 'a' and the 'a' are indestinguishable, while here the latter is short and squat.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    16. Re:Opera won't fix it? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Did you restart the browser? That is when the workaround fails.

      Finkployd

    17. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but that sounds like Nazi soldiers claiming that they were also doing what they were "supposed to do".

      And since you brought up that particular comparison, YOU lose. This is the first time I've seen someone invoke Godwin's law on themselves...

    18. Re:Opera won't fix it? by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

      Yup. I closed it, reopened it, and idn support stayed off.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    19. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Wrexen · · Score: 1

      If fixing a bug hurts users more than it helps them, is it really a bug?

    20. Re:Opera won't fix it? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      It stayed off in the about:config, but it is not actually off. Go to the paypal site and you will find that it happly spoofs again, so you are worse off, now you think you are protected but are actually not.

      Unless it still works for you, in which case I would love to know what version you are running because it seems to be broken for most everyone else.

    21. Re:Opera won't fix it? by lamber45 · · Score: 1
      All right, here's another algorithm:

      • Certain character ranges don't make sense in domain names (such as u2460-u24FF, "Enclosed Alphanumerics, and uFF01-uFF5A, the Latin part of "Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms"). If the name uses characters from this range, WARN THE USER.
      • Characters are generally distinguisable from each other within a single script (Latin, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) If the domain name mixes alphabetic characters from different alphabets, WARN THE USER.

        Note that {u0440 u0430 u0443 u0440 u0430} spells "paypa", but there's no Cyrillic letter that really looks like an "l" when printed.

      • Otherwise, it's probably safe not to warn the user. Furthermore, when a user goes back to a site he's chosen to visit befor, he needn't be warned again (so this could be like a cookie-blocker, etc.).

      However, it would also help if the domain registries weeded out garbage domain-names, and if owners of high-profile domain names exercised due diligence in looking for attempts to get a domain that looked like their own trademark in a typical Unicode font. This isn't just a browser issue.

    22. Re:Opera won't fix it? by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

      It is working for me. I'm using the Gentoo firefox 1.0 r3 build. What are you using?

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    23. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      it would be nice to see them implement some kind of protection against unicode letters looking like ASCII-letters

      And what of ASCII letters that look like Unicode letters? It works both ways - if you can fool ASCII users by using an idenitally-rendered Unicode character, then you can fool Unicode users by using an identically-rendered ASCII character...

    24. Re:Opera won't fix it? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

      Make sure you restart firefox and then check it (not just the setting, but the actual paypal spoof site), most people find it stops working after the restart.

      That said, the r3 build might not have that problem, I am running the regular 1.0 release.

      Finkployd

    25. Re:Opera won't fix it? by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

      I did restart Firefox and I did check the spoof site. The disrepency may come from it being r3, though I don't know if that is something internal to Gentoo or not. There may also be something different about the Mac version.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    26. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > don't need Opera to fix it; I just want them to provide an option where I can turn that feature off.

      That would still be a fix, though, and they've said they're not going to do one.

      So much for Opera on my home machine.

    27. Re:Opera won't fix it? by ymgve · · Score: 1

      Opera might have another motive too, the company is located Norway, a country where we have the letters æ, ø and å. Not supporting their own country's alphabet might be considered a bit offensive.

      (Though personally, I would prefer something like the XP SP2 popup blocker - a bar or something that shows up, alerting you to the fact that the URL you're visiting has unicode letters.)

    28. Re:Opera won't fix it? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      An earlier post said that the latest build didn't have the problem of not remaining off. He didn't say just when the problem had been fixed, though, so it's probably the r3 that fixed it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:Opera won't fix it? by vinc17 · · Score: 1

      ASCII is flawed too, as "1" looks like "l" with many fonts, and it is too easy to be misled.

    30. Re:Opera won't fix it? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But many users frequently use IDN characters. So they can't do that. (I'm told they're a Norwegian company...don't want to disable their home language.)

      I still prefer the idea of displaying IDN characters in a separate color, and warning when a mix of character sets is used in the same URI.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    31. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      If the domain name mixes alphabetic characters from different alphabets, WARN THE USER.

      If the domain mixes alphabets pop up a selection box to decide which alphabet to display, any characters from the non-selected language(s) will show up as their numerical equivilant rather than be rendered.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    32. Re:Opera won't fix it? by dcam · · Score: 1

      To characterise the way Mozilla and IE handled @ as broken is incorrect. They handled it perfectly, it is just that this was a little used (and insecure) feature of URLs. Because it was little used, and therefore unfamiliar, it could be used to hide the URL for the unwary.

      What it was actually there for was to allow people to specify and login and password in the URL. I believe it was used mostly for FTP.

      Somewhere in my collection of bookmarks I have a page that goes through most of the techniques for obscuring the URL, but I am afraid I couldn't find it. Other options include writing an IP address in hex or in as a single number.

      --
      meh
    33. Re:Opera won't fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How bloody annoying is THAT for the users who actually want to use IDN?

      Who the fuck cares. These IDN idiots are the ones who broke the fucking Internet, let them deal with whatever problems they caused.

      If browser makers had a brain they'd yank this fucking IDN bullshit immediately and blacklist the dumbfuck fools that promoted it.

  14. I'm waiting the patch from MS by gustgr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, it doesn't work in IE... so when the patch will be released? I mean... it is IE, the exploits HAVE to work. Microsoft should be worried, they are not doing their job properly.

    1. Re:I'm waiting the patch from MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, someone will get fired for this! Especially given Billy's comments about interoperability lately.

      Imagine, an exploit that IE is not vulnerable to... who'd a thunk it?

    2. Re:I'm waiting the patch from MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually since it is a broken standard that should be fixed, just goes to show M$ not following standards onece again. This is of course, the singular time that it's not that bad.

    3. Re:I'm waiting the patch from MS by lucidvein · · Score: 1
      Looks like it should be out tomorrow...
      On February 8, 2005, the Microsoft Security Response Center is planning to release:
      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/securit y/bulletin /advance.mspx


      They are even holding a Web Conference to discuss the quickness with which they supported this...

      Information about Microsoft's February Security Bulletins (Level 100)
      Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:00 AM-1:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). We are extending this webcast by one hour this month to allow additional time to answer customer questions about the details and deployment of the updates.

      --

      "I have a cunning plan..."

    4. Re:I'm waiting the patch from MS by ceeam · · Score: 1

      There are tons of alternative software packages providing the same user experience for Microsoft Internet Explorer. (Cough). Come on, people! One URL spoofing technique less, dozens more... If slashdot weren't so sensationalistically-oriented lately there would've been nothing interesting about it really. I wanted now to find that fake MS KB page recommending update from MSIE to Mozilla (with spoofed address looking like a real deal). Can't find it at whim - anybody help me? Also - don't forget that MS in past has been saying that URL spoofing is not even really a bug in MSIE and there's nothing serious about it (with which I tend to agree).

    5. Re:I'm waiting the patch from MS by kminchau · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is getting sloppy, they should have had this exploit enabled long ago.... and then here, Firefox, and ALL of the other browsers beat them to it... tsk tsk tsk... talking about falling behind the times...

      --
      "Never underestimate the power of the Slashdot!"
    6. Re:I'm waiting the patch from MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ok, it doesn't work in IE... so when the patch will be released? I mean... it is IE, the exploits HAVE to work."

      Well you could just install IDN capability in IE...

  15. Known for years.... by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, it's been known for years that adding international character sets was going to cause the problem of multiple identical (or almost identical) characters.

    On the other hand, no-one really seems sure of the best way to fix it... One option is obviously to mark somehow when non-ASCII characters are used, but while this will help the people who only want ASCII URLs, it will still leave the problem for everyone who wants to use this extended system, making it effectively useless....

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    1. Re:Known for years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem has already been solved in Unicode: there are well-defined normalization techniques which ensure that strings that look the same end up being the same.

      The fault lies squarely at the feet of the IDN committee for not including normalization in the standard.

    2. Re:Known for years.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, no-one really seems sure of the best way to fix it..

      Is it too much to ask for registrars to by default deny domains names mixing language sets, especially when they're obviously meant to be visually confused with ASCII names? Even if not for phishing, every half-way popular domain is going to be cloned with one, or several, such substitutions. Names where all the glyphs are, say, Japanese, would be fine, but ones mixing Cyrillic, Greek, Latin characters should NOT be automatically accepted. But one can't help but think that Verisign et al are just drooling at the idea of every dot-com having to defensively buy all similar-looking domains. It'll probably be an option, the way buying the .net, .org. .info. .biz...etc is; instead of providing a means of dividing up addresses into affinity groups, it'll become just a method of extorting more money from domain owners.

    3. Re:Known for years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue comes down to visual similarity between character 1072 and 0061 ('a'), much like '1' and 'l' often render similar, or '0' and 'O'. With Unicode there are many(!) more such simiarities and the issue is further complicated with local variances in fonts that may or may not render certain characters similar or even the same.

      Any real solution would have to focus on first analyzing whether the mix of certain characters constitutes duplicity. I don't know if rule sets can be constructed to cover all cases. Certainly a mapping might be a start that begins with "1072 looks like 0061 ('a') and should be considered suspect."

      This would have to be fairly smart, because endlessly popping up alerts, or highlighting every third URL with red or blinking background or such is only going to numb the users to the real danger.

    4. Re:Known for years.... by groomed · · Score: 1

      This is insane. It's like extending the phone system to also use base-60 (to appease the ancient Babylonians, should they ever return) and Roman numerals (can never be too sure).

      Not only does it cause issues like this one, it also makes it impossible to reliably visit websites from one computer to the next, which may have different input methods and/or keyboards. Not to mention that it basically kills the possibility of reliably transcribing URLs.

      Domain names should just be ASCII.

    5. Re:Known for years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Not to mention that it basically kills the possibility of reliably transcribing URLs.

      Not in countries that already use a non-ASCII glyph set; such countries would find this no trouble at all - only you ASCII-only (and probably English-only at that) users will have the troubles you describe.

  16. IDNs were a bad idea anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except when implemented in their own country code namespace of course.

    There are so many characters that look alike, that it is trivial to register a domain name that will look the same as another one. Typically the different character would only be recognised by a native that used that character, although using it alongside normal English characters would probably throw them off as well.

    Solution? Maybe an "IDN" icon in the URL bar, or a warning if an IDN uses a mixture of normal English characters with some foreign characters in an IDN.

    1. Re:IDNs were a bad idea anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when implemented in their own country code namespace of course.

      What do you mean "their own" country code namespace? There is only one Unicode character set.

      Furthermore, even if you could pick out bits and pieces from the character set that belong to a single language, languages don't have a 1:1 mapping to countries. Consider English, which is used by Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, etc. Or consider Switzerland that has four official languages.

      Even if you could restrict it to particular countries, that doesn't help the people in those countries, does it? Your suggestions just sound like "all I care about is ASCII, the rest of the world can be insecure so long as I'm not".

    2. Re:IDNs were a bad idea anyway by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I was not even aware that IDN had been approved. It seems a terrible idea to me... possibly even within country TLDs, but certainly within .com.

    3. Re:IDNs were a bad idea anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is on the right track, but still not enough.

      I'm guessing you're a native English-speaker. Nothing wrong with that, but you're unnecessarily grouping together all foreign charactersets.

      In my view, the ideal way of doing this would be to assign different colours for every character set. That way an URL which uses all kinds of character sets to get the just right similar-looking characters would look more or less like a christmas tree.

      One of the good things about this would be that your local n00b would probably be alarmed by the different-looking URL bar and probably ask someone about it, in addition to you noticing.

      Also, if you would have just this "IDN" icon, it wouldn't help people who use other character sets and constantly would have it "lit". Granted, you might have thought that different areas would have different systems, but this isn't a good idea when we can have an universal system.

    4. Re:IDNs were a bad idea anyway by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      I vote for a twofold change:

      First, modify the standard a little bit. Only allow characters from one language set to be used in a given domain name (No mixing Swedish characters with Russian)

      Second, clearly show next to the URL what "language" it is written in.

      Another possible workaround (also involving changes to the standard) would be to only allow the use of the German-specific charcters in domains in the .de TLD and so forth.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  17. Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

    IE wasn't relevant to this article, yet you found a way to wedge it in and smear it regardless.

    The browsers the exploit WAS found for weren't even mentioned by name, yet IE was.

    How is this anything except nasty propaganda?

    1. Re:Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by TheIndividual · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful?
      IE is the most used browser so it is very important if it is vulnerable.
      Given that IE isn't vulnerable, there may not be a critical mass of victims for phishers to try this.

    2. Re:Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Troll

      You work for Billy, don't you.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it was said before it is not a browser bug. It is a bug in the IDN spec. The said browsers have correct implementation of the standard. That's the reason they are affected by the problem.

    4. Re:Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by strider44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IE wasn't relevant to this article, yet you found a way to wedge it in and smear it regardless.

      What about to the people who have the plugin for IDN? This is a place for geeks, and there are bound to be people that have that sort of plugin. Saying IE isn't affected is pretty much false in that light.

    5. Re:Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      I'm all for being fair, but you're way off the mark here. IE is very relevant to this discussion (and any browser discussion) and not only that, the "smear" is that it's not affected by a vulnerability!

      If there was a fire in the Whitehouse, would you tell the media to stop "obsessing" over Bush if they reported that some were hurt, but the president was not?

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    6. Re:Stop obsessing over Microsoft, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

      IE wasn't relevant to this article, yet you found a way to wedge it in and smear it regardless.

      The browsers the exploit WAS found for weren't even mentioned by name, yet IE was.

      How is this anything except nasty propaganda?

      It mentioned that it worked in every other browser--which isn't accurate (at least to my knowledge) as Links doesn't support IDN either.

      It's important to know what the issue was, and that while a stock IE is not 'vulnerable', with the correct plug-in (probably popular in certain locales) it could be.

      And fwiw, in my version of firefox, the unicode 'a' is in a distinctly different (smaller?) font than the ASCII characters.

  18. network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by openSoar · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 'fix' they mention (setting network.enableIDN to false via about:config) only works until you restart the browser - when you reopen the browser, things are back to the same even though the setting is still false..

    1. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by finkployd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was fully prepared to test this myself, find out you were either full of it (or a troll), and let /. know you were wrong.

      My plan was going perfectly, right up to the point where what you said turned out to be 100% correct :(

      Shame on Firefox for taking a bad situation and making it worse. If about:config reports that a security related setting is X when in fact it is Y, this is worse than not providing a fix at all. A false sense of security (from a browser that is supposed be better) is worse than being aware of the security problems and reacting accordingly.

      Finkployd

    2. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by sabit666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Totally untrue. What version of FF are you using?

    3. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

      It is true for me, this does not fix the problem at all. That is after clearing the cache, restarting, double checking the setting, and making sure I am not behind any kind of cache.

      Look around in this story, it is not working for a lot of people.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by openSoar · · Score: 1

      sorry - i shoulc've included that information in my original post - "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0"

    5. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by grouse · · Score: 1

      You should log a bug at bugzilla.mozilla.org.

    6. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      I have had the solution to that problem implemented for a long time now.

      I never shut down firefox.

      ND

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    7. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Try restarting your browser then checking it out, you will find it to in fact be true.

      Finkployd

    8. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by DeepCerulean · · Score: 1

      Works fine for me... Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0 Restart doesn't revert to the default...

    9. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure you kill all instances of Firefox.exe.

      The problem is worse. The setting stays as "false" but it doesn't stop the malicious behavior.

    10. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fix still working after I close and re-open my browser (Firefox 0.9.1).

    11. Re:network.enableIDN doesn't fix things by smahesh · · Score: 1

      A temporary working solution has been posted on the mozillazine forums. In particular this link: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2152 21 has the solution.

  19. less dangerous than some IE exploits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is far less dangerous than some of the recent IE exploits. IE is simply an invitation for trouble whereas Mozilla/Firefox can still be considered secure browsers.

  20. Ha Ha! by gowen · · Score: 1

    Since I haven't got any half-decent Cyrillic fonts installed, the "homographs" don't look remotely the same on this machine.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  21. Not Lynx by OECD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It doesn't seem to work with Lynx, either. The URLs are obviously different from what they're supposed to be, and they don't point to any site at all.

    Lynx does try the URL, though, so it may be possible to set up another domain to catch it, but the URL would still be obviously wrong (something like p%a%y%p%a%l.com)

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:Not Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The URLs on the spoof page wouldn't load for me in Lynx, and the links were obviously wrong www.p[][]pal.com (with the [] as square boxes.

      Could this simply be the same thing as IE, where it doesn't support the characters?

    2. Re:Not Lynx by TheLetterPsy · · Score: 1

      I tried it with links, and rather than get directed to the 'meoww' page, I got sent to the true www.paypal.com.

      Strange.

    3. Re:Not Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Not Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I haven't used Lynx in a long time.

      I bet Arachne is safe too!

  22. Spoofstick plugin by Halvard · · Score: 1

    This is defeated as well. Normally, you see the real domain name in Spoofstick under Firefox on Windows. As another poster stated, you do indeed briefly see the real URL in the status bar.

  23. konkeror less vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    konkeror fails with http, but with https it warns about the certificate.

  24. ICANN is worried too by Peter_Pork · · Score: 5, Informative
    From ICANN's log:
    There are many technical problems with this change. It essentially undermines IDNA, which is now on standards track, by adding a level of guessing to the DNS that IDNA is explicitly designed to avoid. Further, it makes it appear that IDNs are only useful in domain names for web sites (and only for sites in .com and .net), and only at the second level. VGRS has said that their plug-in will not work with most of the ccTLDs, for example.

    For example, if you enter .com in Internet Explorer for Windows, where "" is the single hex octet 0xE5, you see the screen shown in the attached file called "[lynn-message-to-iab-06jan03-]e5.tif". (Sorry about the TIFF image, but it's the only reliable format for PC screen dumps.) As you can see, VGRS makes wild guesses about what the user wanted, some of which are very clearly impossible. Worse yet, they do not include all of the legal guesses that they could have made. And, just to make it completely confusing to the user, not all of the choices work.

    The DNS is not supposed to be a best-guess service, yet VGRS has turned .com and .net into this just before IDNA is to be an RFC. VGRS should not be allowed, through its monopoly on the .com and .net gTLDs, to destroy the coherence of the DNS for its own short-term profit. ICANN should demand that VGRS immediately stop giving incorrect answers to any query in .com and .net, and should instead follow the IETF standards. If VGRS refuses, ICANN should re-delegate the .com and .net zones to registries that are more willing to follow the DNS standards.
    See this also.
    1. Re:ICANN is worried too by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Neither of those are about this concern (homographs between Cyrillic and Latin alphabets). That's a concern about Verisign using non-IDN methods to do DNS-lookups, and (like the late, unlamented SiteFinder) doing fuzzy matches in the case of unrecognised UTF domain names.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  25. Strength from weakness by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Funny

    The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

    IE is safer because it doesn't support a feature? Don't worry, I'm sure the plug-in will be installed with the next security update!

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  26. Propaganda by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Propaganda" being anything someone says that you do not like. Mentioning IE is quite relevant. My first thought on reading such a thing is its status in regards to MSIE. Also, in case you have not heard before, MSIE has a reputation for being subject to such exploits in the past.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Propaganda by bersl2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Can we please get that headline changed to read "Shmoo Group Find Exploit in All IDN Implementations" or something like that? The headline really gives the wrong impression, despite there being a note at the end of the write-up.

    2. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Propaganda" being anything someone says that you do not like.

      Nice evasion. Actually, that's the Slashdot definition of "Flamebait" or "Troll".

      "Propaganda" explicitly means "the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause," which is precisely how I meant it in regards to the adding of IE's name -- and no one else's -- to an article about exploits found for non-IE browsers.

    3. Re:Propaganda by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Can we please get that headline changed to read "Shmoo Group Find Exploit in All IDN Implementations"

      It would still be incorrect. The Shmoo Group is one group, so it should read "Schmoo Group FINDS...."

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    4. Re:Propaganda by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends on how you want to treat the noun "group." You can treat it as a singular noun, since that is the grammatical construct, or a plural noun, since the idea of a group implies pluralism (e.g., "The enemy are retreating."). The latter is more commonly British, but it is surely valid in all English.

      pwned

  27. konqueror by j0nb0y · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've confirmed that konqueror is vulnerable. Anyone know how to disable this in konqueror?

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    1. Re:konqueror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my Konqueror 3.3.2 the first a in paypal.com uses a different font. It is clear that this is not the normal paypal.

      Looks like it is the time to update to a newer KDE version. (I hope you aren't using stable Debian. ;) )

    2. Re:konqueror by FAdmThiago · · Score: 1

      It's not, unless you recompile kdelibs without libidn being installed.

    3. Re:konqueror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a font with only your encoding characters, then an empty square will show up..

  28. Character apparances by remahl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought this was a well-known attack -- using Unicode characters that look like latin but aren't. As more and more web sites start accepting unicode in user names without policing, I think we'll find more interesting applications for this type of attack.

    This is not that different from "spoofing" using this address:

    http://www.paypaI.com I.e. replacing the lower-case L with an upper-case i. (except that paypai.com appens to be taken already, by an annoying site that maximizes the browser window no less.)

    1. Re:Character apparances by dveditz · · Score: 1
      I thought this was a well-known attack

      Yes, two years ago Slashdot had a thread http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/28/014224 8 discussing a paper titled "The Homograph Attack" http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/papers/homograp h.html

  29. New Microsoft Security Mantra by IvanHo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Security through inutility

    1. Re:New Microsoft Security Mantra by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Thats been everyones elses montra for years. That is why Firefox dosen't nativly come with active-x support.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:New Microsoft Security Mantra by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      ActiveX is inherently insecure, so no sane browsers implement it.

      It seems IDN is also inherently insecure. It should be ditched and a better standard developed (wtf is wrong with UTF8 anyway?)

    3. Re:New Microsoft Security Mantra by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      The problem is in Unicode.

      The IDN just extends it into domain names.

      We should go back to ASCII.

      (not 100% joking)

    4. Re:New Microsoft Security Mantra by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Well, la-dee-da, you with your fancy-pants ASCII. In my day, we had Hieroglyphics, and we liked it just fine! You and your slashdot.org, all I need is a good old-fashioned browser and I can troll on noodle-lion-arm-river-ovenmitt-bird-rock.org just fine!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  30. No, add new color codes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so right now white is plain ascii, yellow is secure ascii. Let's add gray for plain international, and orange for secure international.

  31. Not all non-IE browsers by P-Nuts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Links is unaffected - it goes to the real paypal site.

    1. Re:Not all non-IE browsers by eobanb · · Score: 1

      That's just what they want you to think.....haha okay bad joke.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    2. Re:Not all non-IE browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confirmed.

      Links (2.1pre15; FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE i386; 80x25)

  32. Rebuttals by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 4, Funny
    • Oh, come on! Even I saw the differences between those two a's!
    • Move your pointer to the padlock and you'll see that the certificate was signed by the UserTrust Network instead of the usual suspects (Verisign, Thawte etc.).
    • Certificates from the UserTrust Network are not to be trusted anyway. They don't check anything and you cannot trace back the owner of the domain.
    • CAs should rejects CSRs with these characters.
    • The CA should revoke those certificates. (You did enable OCSP, didn't you?)
    • It doesn't work with links/lynx.
    :-)
    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
    1. Re:Rebuttals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) I didn't
      2) Probably to create a cheap demonstration of the flaw
      3) See above, anyway what users care, Firefox didn't say "dodgy certificate vendor" did it?
      4) Rubbish, what if you have a valid IDN?
      5) It is still a valid certificate for the IDN
      6) Yeah, but you get arrested in the UK for using Lynx, so ...

    2. Re:Rebuttals by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1

      On my WinXP box using Firefox 1.0, the two letters are PIXEL IDENTICAL, so there is no way to tell the fake "a" from the real "a". This will, of course, depend completely on the font you are using, but for most people, this exploit should work. You could probably do the same thing with cítíbank.com without too many ppl noticing, although there is a one-pixel difference per "i".

    3. Re:Rebuttals by josh2112 · · Score: 0

      And you expect the average PayPal user to know all this... how?

  33. Mozilla 23 X IE 1 by michelcultivo · · Score: 1

    Here in Mozilla there's a little diference on the "ay" of "paypal". It's so hard to a user see on the browser windows that I'm scared of IE not exploitable this time, maybe it's the time of IE developers celebrate one victory.

  34. Advice by Living+WTF · · Score: 0

    You should never go to an important site like a homebanking webapp by clicking on links (from Emails or unknown Webpages). Just type them into the address bar by hand or use bookmarks created by yourself.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  35. Relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Relevant" being whatever your first thought on reading something is, apparently. IE had nothing to do with this exploit, yet it's in both the article and the headline. The author had to weasel some way in that IE was affected too.

    Face it, you guys are obsessed with Microsoft. Get lives.

  36. meh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been known for years as most /.ers know :/

  37. The sad state of headline writing by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

    Don't you think that "Shmoo Group Finds Exploit in IDN domain names" would have been more informative?

    Alas, "Shmoo Group Finds Exploit For non-IE Browsers" is more likely to catch people's attention.

    What a world!

    --
    The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
  38. notepad by leuk_he · · Score: 5, Informative

    If i copy /paste the link into notepad it just looks right And if i copuy /past it back to firefox i get the "spoofed" page back again.

    next:

    Trolls can have a couple of days fun on slashdot.

    And verisign van sell a lot of domains to phishers. (profit!)

    1. Re:notepad by stuntpope · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting... I copied the link from Firefox (Copy Link Location), pasted it into scite editor, and got http://www.p?ypal.com/. Pasting it back into Firefox gets me http://www.paypal.com/

    2. Re:notepad by dewboy · · Score: 1

      I tried copying/pasting the link into notepad, but found that the first "a" of Paypal is an extended character (shows up as a block in notepad). So I'd argue it _doesn't_ look right.

      Not that I want to try this method with every link I click on...

    3. Re:notepad by Myen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably depends on Windows version - on 2k/XP at least, Notepad is a Unicode app and can handle non-ASCII characters; not the case in 9x.

      Use the command prompt; by default that wouldn't be able to handle the right characters and should show up as '?'. Actually, I think the default raster font for that just doesn't have the character.

    4. Re:notepad by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      blockquote>Trolls can have a couple of days fun on slashdot.

      I'd like to know your definition of 'troll'. In this case, it looks like Microsoft got something right and everybody else got it wrong. In fact, the fix for Firefox is to make it behave like IE (disable support for IDN). I'm guessing anybody who makes mention of this is a troll. I've only been modded down one time, and it was for saying something negative about Firefox even though it was completely true. I just recently got modded up for saying something negative about Microsoft. I would tell you what I think about that but I'd probably get modded down for that.

    5. Re:notepad by kerrle · · Score: 3, Informative
      Microsoft didn't "get something right", they just don't support the feature that this takes advantage of.

      IDN support is probably a good thing - we just need a way to show the user the difference between URLs if international characters are used.

    6. Re:notepad by Grotus · · Score: 1

      The other guy was most likely referring to trolls making use of the IDN exploit to fool people with goatse.cx mirrors hosted at domains looking like nytimes.com or other legitimate sites.

      The real question is whether or not the slashcode which puts up the "real domain" is capable of handling this exploit.

      Let's see:
      Bogus link to paypal

      Well, the preview shows the "real domain" as [www.p], so it would appear that trolls won't be able to use this very effectively.

      --
      "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
    7. Re:notepad by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps refraining from adding a feature until it can be done right could be considered "getting something right". And it would be easy to change "Microsoft got something right" to "Everybody except Microsoft got something wrong". But I would agree that in this case Microsoft didn't make their browser safer through actual thought. They just got lucky.

    8. Re:notepad by kerrle · · Score: 1

      Actually, after really looking at IDN, I'm no longer sure it's even a good thing; obviously people would like names in their own language, but there are other attempts to do it which might be better.

    9. Re:notepad by Grotus · · Score: 1

      Interesting, on closer examination, it appears that Slashcode replaces the & in the link at the beginning of the а with a slash. But it only does that with the а in the link, if you do it as text like this www.pypal.com, it just drops it.

      --
      "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
    10. Re:notepad by Doc+Ido · · Score: 1

      I know it's immature to poke fun of spelling, but I just pictured a Verisign van handing out lists of domains in a back alley.

    11. Re:notepad by contagious_d · · Score: 1
      It doesnt work because of this. Is there a way to encode an ampersand without using one? I know
      &
      and
      &
      --
      - /home is where the food is.
    12. Re:notepad by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They didn't implement something that fucks everyone else over, and yet you still manage to find a way to spin it to try to make Microsoft look bad.

      Just admit it -- Microsoft got it right. You don't have to cry about it, it'll be ok.

      --
      evil adrian
    13. Re:notepad by mibus · · Score: 1

      So does this mean that Slashdot can't link to IDN'd names at all?

    14. Re:notepad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any evidence they didn't implement IDN because it is an incredibly stupid feature?

      Hey, if they really did think IDN was too stupid to implement, then I applaud them! IDN is incredibly fucking stupid as this exploit proves.

      I can't believe this bullshit.

      Thanks for breaking the Internet you IDN dumbfucks!

    15. Re:notepad by poincaraux · · Score: 1

      XEmacs didn't want to be left out. If you copy and paste into XEmacs (SuSE 9.2 .. dunno about Windows), it still says paypal. The "a" looks a little larger than normal, though.

    16. Re:notepad by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence they didn't implement IDN because it is an incredibly stupid feature?

      http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842848

      "Internet Explorer does not currently support IDNs, but we are investigating the integration of IDN support in Internet Explorer and in other Microsoft products."

      At least they looked into it, right? But you know... we can't give them credit, this is Slashdot after all.

      --
      evil adrian
  39. Propaganda definition by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Informative
    "the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause,"

    This can apply to any time anyone says anything. However, in practice, the word "propaganda" is only used when someone does not like being said. It is similar to "rhetoric" in this regard.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  40. Re:LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you even know what a watermark is? How the hell did you hit the 100000 watermark?

  41. Not on Mozilla Mac OS9 by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

    in Mozilla for Mac OS9 i get p?ypal.com , pretty obvious to me. Not that I don't want to use something newer then Mozilla 1.21, just that MacOS is no longer supported. (OSX is though)

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  42. There is a good reason why MS doesn't want IDN by McNihil · · Score: 0

    Mcrosoft this one is much harder to spot than the PayPal one. Unless using mono space font which nobody does on Win.

    1. Re:There is a good reason why MS doesn't want IDN by McNihil · · Score: 0

      Bwahahaha upside down "!" is filtered out by slashcode... Lame Lameness LAME I tell ya! Anyhow Microsoft can be spellt with an upside down exclamation mark and it makes it very hard to see with most fonts. So there... if they do have IDN then it will be simple and utterly trivial to phish microsoft.

    2. Re:There is a good reason why MS doesn't want IDN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does IDN have to do with a missing letter?

    3. Re:There is a good reason why MS doesn't want IDN by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      Unicode character 0x0456 is a Cyrillic character which usually uses the same glyph as the latin lowercase I. That would be a much better substitution than the inverted exclamation mark:

      <a href="http://www.m&#1110;crosoft.com/">Microsoft!< /a>

    4. Re:There is a good reason why MS doesn't want IDN by McNihil · · Score: 0

      But you lose the elegance of just needing one character.

  43. Non-empty subject line by Cmdr+TECO · · Score: 1
    Not new. If you're going to have character codes for the likes of ο and о -- slashdot won't let me include the actual characters -- you've got to realize that they both look a lot like o. (I've misused this a couple of times, not for phishing, but to hide words from search engines.)

    So, are people grateful that Unicode's Unified CJK has prevented thousands of similar phishing possibilities? Guess.

    --
    echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
  44. Maybe this is why... by simon+hughes · · Score: 0

    ... there isn't IDN support in IE yet.

  45. Visual cues could be more refined than that by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the other hand, no-one really seems sure of the best way to fix it... One option is obviously to mark somehow when non-ASCII characters are used, but while this will help the people who only want ASCII URLs, it will still leave the problem for everyone who wants to use this extended system, making it effectively useless....

    I think you're on the right track here.

    Perhaps the best approach is to use a different font/different color for particular ranges of characters, or characters outside of one's locale setting, so e.g. if my local is Germany, and cyrillic or french accent-grave or what have you characters are loaded, then display that character in bold, or in red, or what have you. Also, tint the background of the URL pink or something, so if the offending character is scrolled off the end of the URL field, the user still gets a visual clue that something is wrong.

    I'm sure there are other possibilities, like putting a little warning at the top whenever characters are in the URL that are strikingly similiar to characters in the default local OR standard ASCII, specifying what the character is and perhaps stating something like "http://spo0furl.com IS NOT THE SAME as http://spoofurl.com".

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Visual cues could be more refined than that by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps the best approach is to use a different font/different color for particular ranges of characters"

      Or just display the certificate details in a "popup blocked"-style banner when visiting an HTTPS connection for the first time in a session. Since that would improve the security of a whole lot of other things too.

      (and your suggestion as well for IDNs, sounds quite sensible)

  46. Your Microsoft Obsession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This can apply to any time anyone says anything.

    No, it can't. You're glossing over to relativize the word so that you won't be wrong -- but it's too late, you already are. "Systematic propagation" means something specific, and is directly applicable in this instance.

    1. Re:Your Microsoft Obsession by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Systematic propagation" means something specific"

      What does it take to be "systematic"? Perhaps just by saying something twice. I am glossing over nothing. Time and time again, the term "propaganda" is used to mean nothing more than something someone says that someone does not like, and perhaps would see censored.

      I recently was in a long discussion in which my opponent demanded that the government censor media outlets that express what he termed to be "propaganda". He only reserved this term for arguments and opinions that he did not like. Arguments that are identical in factuality, tone, and other aspects, but were different in political content he called "reasoned arguments.".

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:Your Microsoft Obsession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am glossing over nothing.

      I thought it was funny that after this statement you proceeded to do nothing but gloss over.

      I think you're just a clever troll. But for that, I give you props.

    3. Re:Your Microsoft Obsession by AtariAmarok · · Score: 0, Troll

      It is pretty clear that it meets your definition of "propaganda" because you did not like what they said.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    4. Re:Your Microsoft Obsession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think you're just a clever troll.

      He's known to propagate his own "BSD dying" bullshit. Don't be surprised!

  47. Talk About Asking For Trouble by sp3c1alK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comments like this worry me. We really have to be careful about letting our guard down just because Firefox is more secure. The whole point of the article is that the exploits DO exist.

    On one hand, we (the /. community) love to talk about how Firefox's market share is growing quickly but then minimize potential problems. So how is this problem 'less dangerous than some IE exploits'?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all about Firefox, but we can't get lazy.

    1. Re:Talk About Asking For Trouble by mytec · · Score: 1

      You are so right. I've been reading a lot of past exploit articles to post a reply similar to yours to make sure I get my thoughts straight.

      I'm amazed at the generally casual attitude when exploits are found with Open Source software. The criticism towards OSS and/or the developers is rare even when a piece of OSS has multiple exploits in a short span of time. The ranting about how MS developers suck and whatnot is sorely lacking when it comes to OSS. Sometimes I get the feeling that exploits are "OK" so long as they aren't MS related when reading /.

    2. Re:Talk About Asking For Trouble by ssj_195 · · Score: 1

      What's even worse are the apologists, who will go through the most amazing mental contortions to try and persuade others (and themselves) that this is not a bug or that people will be able to tell that the reported URL is fake (usually after going through some ridiculously obscure/ impractical series of steps) or that it is not at all serious. I believe that OSS is an exceptionally good model for creating secure software but please, let's not bury our heads in the sand: this is a serious problem, and "Joe Sixpack" (ugh) would not realise anything was amiss in a million years.

  48. Relevant means relevant by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    It is certainly relevant to mention the browser that is used the overwhelming majority of the time if you are talking about browsers, even if it is just to mention that it is not affected.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  49. Douglas Hofstadter: When an A is not an A by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This brings up the amusing problem of character recognition by human and non-human intelligences. Douglas Hofstadter discusses this issue in on seeing A's and seeing As.

    In the case of this exploit, a deep flaw in IDN and computer fonts means that character #1072 is rendered typographically as an "a". The irony is that this is one of the few cases in which a computer can readily tell the difference between "a" and #1072 and a person cannot. The only solution would be rules that prohibit isomorphic characters in typefaces or a in-browser warning system that analyses the potential for ambiguity and alerts the user.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Douglas Hofstadter: When an A is not an A by brunogirin · · Score: 1

      You can't prevent isomorphic characters in typefaces without completely dropping support for entire alphabets. #1072 is a perfectly valid character in the Cyrillic alphabet that happens to have the same shape as the Latin "a". So if you want a Unicode typeface that supports Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, characters #97 ('a') and #1072 will have similar or completely identical shapes. What you could restrict though is the use of characters from different Unicode subranges in the same address part. E.g., all characters are part of the Latin sub-range or the Cyrillic sub-range but not a mix of both. But even then, you could come up with some combinations in one alphabet that are isomorphic to combinations in another.

    2. Re:Douglas Hofstadter: When an A is not an A by Kanasta · · Score: 1

      so grandma opens paypal and the letters are in pretty pink.
      and then???

  50. "Shmoo" didn't find anything. by baafie · · Score: 1, Informative
    Shmoo Group Finds Exploit For non-IE Browsers

    Actually, they didn't find anything. They demonstrated how the IDN character support could be used to trick users. A virtually identical demonstration can be found in the original paper/advisory. Thanks for the FUD, slashdot editors.

    Furthermore, whether this is actually an exploit or not remains a subject of debate, as is evident from Opera's response ("It's implemented properly"). Fact remains that people can be fooled, though.

    1. Re:"Shmoo" didn't find anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point, is that back in 2001, you needed a plugin for this demo to work. These days, 'it just works' (and works poorly).

  51. Paypal SSL gave certificate error by grahamm · · Score: 1

    Trying the SSL link with Konqueror, it popped up an invalid certificate dialog box, which is at least some warning that all is not well.

  52. Re:LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    They're what I get in my basement when the sump pump fails.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  53. Safari affected + Mail.app flaw = phishing heaven by sjonke · · Score: 1

    With phishing on the rise, this is a major problem. Let's hope Apple and the others can address it quickly. When you combine this problem with the ability for imposter emails to have a link that looks like an address to, for example, paypal, but that really goes to another site, the potential for phishing scams is substantial. Indeed that Mail.app (and other non-text-only mail programs, not just Apple's nor just Mac OS X) flaw ought to be recorded somewhere as a security flaw so it would be addressed. Recently I've received two fairly realistic bogus emails that purported to be from ebay and had fake URLs that led to an obviously-not-an-ebay-URL site (once you got there), but if they had taken advantage of this IDN flaw too, they could much more easily trick people into thinking it was legit.

    It seems to me that the Mail.app flaw could easily be addressed by having a check to make sure that any link with anything that looks like a URL in the text of message matches with the actual link, and if it doesn't, putting up a warning when you click on it, displaying the actual URL and asking for verification that you want to visit it, noting that it may be a scam.

    --
    --- What?
  54. It's sensationalist and pathetic by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    Hemos, please change it now before the wrong impression is given. If IE were to have implemented this, they surely would be vulnerable too.

  55. Yeah but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....porn is a whole lot less interesting using Lynx:)

    Unless you're into transcripts of Penthouse Letters....then I guess it's OK:\

    Ummm...what's Lynx?

  56. I wouldn't call that an exploit... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's merely a "trick".

    Anyone should know better than to base their trust on being on a particular, secure web page only on the address shown in the address bar! Everyone should know that they shouldn't access secure web pages from external links.

    If you write "Pope" on your forehead, do you think people will believe you're the pope? An by the way, funny that for once, the lack of a functionality actually "saves" IE, for one of the biggest security concern is ActiveX...

    1. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by mattACK · · Score: 1
      If you write "Pope" on your forehead, do you think people will believe you're the pope?


      No, but if you add the big hat you are well on your way.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
    2. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by eobanb · · Score: 1

      If you write "Pope" on your forehead, do you think people will believe you're the pope?

      Well, no, but what if you look like the pope, talk like the pope, and are wearing the pope's clothing? It would be trivial to create a paypal clone that looks like paypal, feels like paypal, and seems to have the same URL. This is a most seriously problem.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    3. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Anyone should know better than to base their trust on being on a particular, secure web page only on the address shown in the address bar!

      Why should anyone know this? They see the correct address in the address bar, they see that the ssl lock worked and didn't kick back any cert errors, what more do you expect Joe Computer User to do? Hell half the time we would be thrilled if we knew they just did what I mentioned.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

      As I said, if you only access Paypal via its main address and not via a dubious link, you're fine. It can't happen. And people *must* begin to learn to be cautious on the Internet. And double check things when they access a "sensitive" site. How hard is it to check the "page properties"? And since someone talked about Paypal, Paypal itself says on its site never to access it via an external link. Now if you don't bother to read stuff written for your own security, what else do you expect?

      And last but not least, people should know this. People should get some kind of basic education on using Internet, otherwise it's going to become Hell personified. Do what you wish, but if you don't give a damn, nobody will. You've been warned.

    5. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the Pope, you insensitive clod!

      John Paul II

    6. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by lxs · · Score: 1

      If you write "Pope" on your forehead, do you think people will believe you're the pope?

      Don't be silly! You'd have to show the popecard before they are convinced.

    7. Re:I wouldn't call that an exploit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And last but not least, people should know this. People should get some kind of basic education on using Internet, otherwise it's going to become Hell personified. Do what you wish, but if you don't give a damn, nobody will. You've been warned.

      Such a completely academic viewpoint. You've never worked with real users, like at a help desk, have you?

  57. misleading commentary by jaiyen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will probably lose me major karma for going against groupthink, but the statement that "The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable." does seem ridiculously biased.

    While it may be technically true, it's like suggesting Firefox is susceptible to IE's infamous ActiveX vulnerabilities, just because there's an ActiveX plugin for Firefox too. Everyone is quick to jump on MS when there's new IE exploits, but we've got to accept that this seems to be one they got right. Making excuses about plugins doesn't really change that.

    1. Re:misleading commentary by soulhuntre · · Score: 1

      "but we've got to accept that this seems to be one they got right"

      You do know you're on /. right?

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    2. Re:misleading commentary by HolyCoitus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A standard for accessing international websites using special characters is not comparable to a programming language that is horribly designed. Are you suggesting that dragging your feet for five years before implementing a standard some feel is required is proper security?

      The issue at hand here is that Firefox did not create IDN. Microsoft _did_ create ActiveX. The blame falls in both cases on Microsoft for being slow to implement something and absolutely ignorant to create ActiveX.

      In other words, if there is a spoofing exploit in css3 and Microsoft has not implemented it, is it the people who implemented it who are at fault or the people who created it? You're looking towards the wrong people for this problem I believe.

      --
      That's scary.
    3. Re:misleading commentary by falsified · · Score: 1
      If you use Firefox, etc "out of the box", then you're vulnerable to this exploit. If you use IE "out of the box", then you're not. Note that I am a Firefox user; however, in this circumstance Firefox is less secure than Internet Explorer. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Don't complicate the situation. This is a major exploit that can bring down Firefox users.

      There have been previous posts pointing to the fact that this exploit was known long ago. Mozilla (and the others) should have taken this into consideration before including a feature that very few people would need. It's a classic cost vs. benefit analysis that wasn't done - while very few average computer users need this feature (at least English-speaking ones, which most computer users are), ALL computer users, including expert users, can fall prey to this exploit.

      Another complaint: Firefox's fix doesn't work. This is a big deal.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    4. Re:misleading commentary by runderwo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a vulnerability in a standard, not in any particular browser. If IE implemented this standard (which it does, with a plugin), it would suffer similarly.

    5. Re:misleading commentary by HolyCoitus · · Score: 1

      Numbers I've read have said that 35% of internet users, in fact, do not have their native language as English. This also does not count English speakers accessing sites in a second language. Unicode characters had this issue before, however it was supposed to have been resolved. The unicode that is used in Firefox for this is dependant for how it is displayed based on fonts outside of the program.

      This is a security bug. This is bad. No doubt. It will end up having to be fixed on the browser end. In my opinion though, that is a major kludge.

      --
      That's scary.
  58. Spin again by Burb · · Score: 1
    The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

    And, as usual, Slashdot puts a negative spin on a piece that would otherwise put Microsoft in a positive light. Come on guys, I could say that FireFox was vulnerable to VBScript security holes if someone wrote a VBScript addon for it.

    --

    1. Re:Spin again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Slashdot puts a negative spin on a piece that would otherwise put Microsoft in a positive light.

      Wrong. IDN is supposed to be a standard. IE does not support it, but this is not really a positive thing.

      Note that IE (just like the other browsers) does not do anything to warn you when you are going to www.paypaI.com instead of www.paypal.com. This is exactly the same old trick as the one described in this advisory, except that it relies on similarities between ASCII characters (capital i and l) instead of ASCII vs non-ASCII characters.

    2. Re:Spin again by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you see, you are missing the point. The IDN system is flawed, not any particular browser.

      By making browsers an issue in the headline, there could be an immense amount of spin generated from this, where there didn't need to be any. Anybody who reads only the headline will thing an entirely different thing from someone who actually reads the comments and gets a perspective.

      To give an example of this that swings the other way, do you remember that announcement of the SP2 vulnerability in the stack overflow checking or something like that, that happened a week-or-so ago? And then Microsoft later said that no exploits have been found for it? That's the kind of thing that this headline can induce, because there is no perspective.

    3. Re:Spin again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't think it is relevant at all to mention that there could be a problem in IE under the right circumstances?

  59. How to fix it in Firefox by chromium · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Go to about:config in the address bar.

    search for the property:

    network.enableIDN

    Change this to false as per the advisory workaround in http://www.shmoo.com/idn/homograph.txt. "V. Workaround You can disable IDN support in mozilla products by setting 'network.enableIDN' to false. There is no workaround known for Opera or Safari.

    1. Re:How to fix it in Firefox by NtroP · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah. Now quit Firefox and restart it.

      Doesn't work so well now, does it?

      This fact (IMHO) is more dangerous than not being able to make the setting at all. At least with Safari (et al) I know that I always have to be vigilant, instead of being lulled into a false sense of security.

      Clearly, Firefox has a major BUG in it. Fortunately, they seem to be pretty quick to fix these sort of things.

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
  60. Flag mixing character groups. by oneiros27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's intentional that there are multiple glyphs that look the same, but represent different characters in Unicode. (for sorting order, spell checking, etc.)

    So you just need to work off of that strength, and flag when someone's mixed any two groups of characters. (I'm not sure what the official Unicode name is for them ... the different sets assigned to each language or function).

    Anyway, you start with the assumption that a domain name is going to contain only characters from one of those groups, and you report if it's otherwise. Now, there are still problems with people not looking closely, and confusing 'resume.com' with 'résumé.com' or something similar, but you'll fix the problems with identical glyphs.

    The important thing to do is to not assume that ASCII is the only 'good' form, as that would make it rather english-centric (I'm not sure what other languages can map all of their characters into ASCII)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:Flag mixing character groups. by greed · · Score: 1
      Anyway, you start with the assumption that a domain name is going to contain only characters from one of those groups, and you report if it's otherwise.

      You'll probably have to restrict that check to only a single element of the hostname, as the "www." and TLD codes will continue to be in ISO 646 (ASCII).

  61. IDN pain in the but anyway by spectrokid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here in Scandinavia, the letters Å,Æ,Ø, are actually quite new. It is acceptable to spell them as AA, AE and OE respectively on non-scandinavian keyboards. With IDN adresses now becomming available, you constantly have to remember which spelling is used on which website. It would be a hell of a lot more practical if only the 26 alphabeth was used and software would automatically expand ingeniøren.dk to ingenioeren.dk. This way you could use whatever you want. And websites will not be too happy about using special characters, because it makes them almost impossible to reach on non-scandinavian computers.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:IDN pain in the but anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Denmark, eh?

      Here in sweden we typically spell the letters ÅÄÖ as AAO in domainnames. ...but I agree with you, it would be easier if we could continue with the 26-letter standard.

    2. Re:IDN pain in the but anyway by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      You mean Denmark, eh?

      Or Norway. Or both. :-)

      Here in sweden

      And Finland.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:IDN pain in the but anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AA AE and OE representation of Å Ä Ö respectively are very common in Sweden too. It used to be some sort of standard, but as you say it isn't common nowadays, especially not in domains for some reason.

    4. Re:IDN pain in the but anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem lies in cyrillic, namely:
      a, b, c, e, h, k, m, o, p, t, x, y are in the standard character set, and
      , , , , , , , , , , ,
      are in cyrillic.

      This is noted in URLs, namely, Paypal (Legit) and Paypal (Fake, using Russian characters

  62. Bobsmith Group finds Virus!! for non-Linux OSes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Middle coast script kiddie con Bobsmithcon ended today and they had a nasty virus to show off... using Dimodular Intertext Macros (DIM) to compromise entire systems. Their examples use Open Office and this looks very useful for making computers explode remotely. Interesting note that it works in every OS *except* Linux (which makes this virus a lot less dangerous in the end, I suppose)." The reason Linux isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support DIM; but with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

  63. So why not just put in an alert icon by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    every time a URI contains more than one writing system: if you've got the same URI with both Cyrillic and Latin in the domain name, pop up a question mark, and even add in (maybe by default?) a pref to disable opening URIs with multiple writing systems in the domain name.

    1. Re:So why not just put in an alert icon by http101 · · Score: 1

      An icon is too easily dismissed... I recommend a flashing red URL line - just the way it turns yellow when you're in an HTTPS site. Your idea is definitely valid and hopefully will be integrated into Mozilla. I'm surprised something like this slipped past the development team. It's not necessarily a bug though since there is an option to turn it off. A bug is typically an undocumented software "feature" that not checked and can be used for purposes other than for what it was intended. Too many people are screaming "witch" at the sight of a simple problem.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  64. Bug or feature? by AndyElf · · Score: 1

    I, honestly, fail to understand how this is a "bug" -- domain name may look like it is valid, having characters embedded in it that are from a different code page. I believe there was a story a year or more ago about spoofing of microsoft.com with first 'c' actually being Russian letter 's' that looks like latin 'c'.

    Quite frankly, I always thought that IDNs is a Bad Idea: it will create more ambiguity and benefits (domain names in your own language!) are very much questionable... Do tell me how am I going to have to type in a Chinese or Japanese domain name if I don't have keyboard layout (not to mention that I amy not even know *how* to input all these gliphs...).

    --

    --AP
    1. Re:Bug or feature? by Dionysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do tell me how am I going to have to type in a Chinese or Japanese domain name if I don't have keyboard layout (not to mention that I amy not even know *how* to input all these gliphs...).

      Do tell me when you became the world. Just because you personally likely won't use a feature doesn't mean it isn't useful for someone out there (what's the population of China and Japan combined?)

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    2. Re:Bug or feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, do you think that you would be able to read a site with a url in an asian language? I would give an example, but /. doesn't seem to like my japanese input.(".co.jp" which isn't a real site anyways)
      If you don't know what those kanji mean, why would you expect information about manga to be there?

      If you can't even read the url, maybe you don't speak the language the website is written in?

    3. Re:Bug or feature? by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

      Just because you personally likely won't use a feature doesn't mean it isn't useful for someone out there (what's the population of China and Japan combined?)

      Both the Japanese and the Chinese have been able to understand English letters and numbers as a common part of their languages for a long time now, as well as being able to pronounce them roughly correctly (given the respective sets of phonemes of the languages). I don't know the details offhand, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a language that didn't understand English characters now. I think that as this is the case, dropping international support in domain names is actually a very good idea for the security it brings.

      --
      One good turn - gets all the covers.
    4. Re:Bug or feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, but it's gotta be at least like 50,000 or something.

    5. Re:Bug or feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think that as this is the case, dropping international support in domain names is actually a very good idea for the security it brings.

      Very good for you, the English-only speaker, you mean. Fortunately, other, wiser views prevail.

      Or, we just ignore yours in the wider world that commonly uses other character sets.

    6. Re:Bug or feature? by patio11 · · Score: 1
      Both the Japanese and the Chinese have been able to understand English letters and numbers as a common part of their languages for a long time now, as well as being able to pronounce them roughly correctly (given the respective sets of phonemes of the languages).
      You are just plain wrong with respect to China. With respect to Japan, yep, the majority of the population can make sense of romaji (Western character set), although it gives many older Japanese a bit of a problem. Its funny, on the one hand web-accessibility is making it possible to get your favorite newspaper in a format possible to read without eyesight -- but if you ARE sighted, you need to be able to phonetically spell out the name of your local newspaper in a foreign language.

      Compare it to Americans and Spanish. Everyone in the US might not speak Spanish, but we all understand the vowel sounds, right? Can you write a Spanish bastardization of "New York Times" without having to consciously think about it? No. Are you confident that your bastardization will collide correctly with the official bastardization? No. There are no less than three common ways to spell the capital of Japan, and the only reason most Japanese know why its Tokyo and not Toukyou or Tokio is because that word is common enough to be standardized. Its rather harder to predict a word that the rest of the world hasn't romanized for you, like Chuo Shinbun (Chuou, Chuuou, Chuo, Shinbun, Shimbun -- simple combinatorics gets you 6 possibilities for their URL right there).

    7. Re:Bug or feature? by AndyElf · · Score: 1

      My point was not to force the rest of the world speak/type using Latin characters, but to point out numerous other potential issues that IDN brings on top of the a.m. spoofing. I fully understand your point(s) above -- and I had to deal with a very similar issue for *my* native language which is not English and is not using Latin character set. I am just not convinced, still, that IDN *is* the solution.

      Pulling in China's population into this argument is wrong -- I'd venture that a vast majority of Chinese, the ones living in rural areas, are not likely to be much interested in Internet and domain naming at all (off hand, about 700-900 million people at least). That alone tilts the the balance more towards a wider-spread of latin characters.

      Lastly, my statement was made in the context of security vulnerability (or rather "possibility to mislead a user" -- IMO it is not a browser issue), and in *that* context I do think that IDN is a really-really Bad Idea (TM).

      --

      --AP
  65. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing new. The only new thing is that someone actually made an example showing the "feature" in use. It has been known that this is a possibility for a while, even before IDNA was introduced.

    There's not really any way for browsers to know if a domain name is "wrong". Perhaps greylisting could work ... I.e. registration of domain names in a central list, and making browsers emit warnings when accessing those sites. Would be painful to manage, though.

  66. Isn't this an easy fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if this doesn't work in IE, and IE had 90%+ share of the market for all these years and no one complained about IDN not working, why not just disable it by default in other browsers? It doesn't sound like users will be breaking the doors down wondering why their beloved feature got disabled.

  67. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Microsoft has just released an update to IE ; The following statement was issued :

    We as Microsoft are market leader with IE and exploits : We would gladly keep it that way !

  68. Worst Bug Ever ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the worst but I ever seen in Mozilla/firefox.

    I hope that it get fixed very soon!!!!

  69. we only had 8 bits, and we liked it by syrinx · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is why we should just stick with IBM's 8 bit extended ASCII characters.

    Who needs Cyrillic when you have all those lines and stuff? And the cent symbol?

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  70. fix doesn't fix it - mozilla 1.7.5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    huh?

  71. Every browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    every browser *except* IE

    Come on all those lynx users out there, bring on the trolling. I dare ya.
  72. Nothing to see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't new. I've seen domains like 'cops.com' advertised on eBay, except they seller says that the 'o' or something isn't the regular O, it's some other O way out there in ASCII land, but it looks identical (for linking purposes, I suppose).

  73. Good idea, but a problem with non-US users. by khasim · · Score: 1

    People who routinely hit sites outside of their "local setting" will get used to www.paypal.com showing up in red.

    Perhaps:
    The url has a pink background if the url is 100% characters outside of your locale.

    The url has a right RED background if the url is composed of characters from multiple sets.

    Also, put a bright red, flashing fish icon (or the phrase "possible phishing site") in the upper left (by the magic circle of dots) or somewhere on the bottom bar when a site uses questionable links (as in your spo0furl.com example).

  74. Re:IE and Firefox by Mattcelt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Spoofstick is a useful tool, too. I don't know if it protects against this particular attack, but it's good for the casual browser (i.e., mom/aunt gert/the cranky old guy down the street who always asks for computer help) to help protect against phishing.

  75. One simple way to fix this by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1

    Browsers should display non-ASCII characters
    in URLs / statusbar in a different colour, bold,
    flashing or some other distinctive way. eg.
    They could display p<font color="red">a</font>ypal.

    Rich.

  76. Why? by thundergeek · · Score: 1

    Can anyone please tell me why people "hack" or "phish" or anything that is used for malicious activity?

    I'm not trying to start an argument, I seriously want to know why some people spend so much time trying to make others lives miserable.

    Can't that intelegence be put to good use and make software that competes with the big guys? I know you are smart, esp if you can crack that stuff. I can't, and I'm considered smart by my peers.

    Please fill me in on this.
    Thanks

  77. SSL Fails on Konqueror... which is what I use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so I wouldn't be pray to this.

  78. A Possible Temporary Browser Solution by ehlertjd · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A temporary browser solution would be to detect links that use mixed unicode character sets, and keep the user from left-clicking to follow offending links and possibly even changing the mouse cursor. Then in a context menu, it should display the actual domain name.
    i.e.
    > Go To www.paypal.com (www.xn--pypal-4ve.com)
    > Help (explain why the link was disabled)
  79. Real programmers ... by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    don't need the source. They edit the binary with a hex-editor.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  80. HTML Entities by UnConeD · · Score: 1

    That's because they use HTML entities to disguise the characters. If they were really smart, they'd have used a unicode encoding like UTF-8 and used plain characters all the way. Then even the source would look normal. The whole script collision thing has been known for a long time. The only way to fix it is to restrict the sets of characters that can be used to register internationalized domain names. E.g. restrict them to characters from one script only.

  81. Re:Safari affected + Mail.app flaw = phishing heav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Recently I've received two fairly realistic bogus emails that purported to be from ebay and had fake URLs that led to an obviously-not-an-ebay-URL site (once you got there), but if they had taken advantage of this IDN flaw too, they could much more easily trick people into thinking it was legit."

    No shit Sherlock. Way to state the obvious.

    That is exactly why the story is fucking posted here.

  82. neither do most browsers. by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    lol, "people"?, most of us are still trying to find a browser that *understands* (read supports) HTML properly.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  83. That'll fix it, with bonuses! by jfengel · · Score: 1

    Because only color-blind users should be the victims of phishing scams.

    And because grandma is sure to notice that one letter, in a part of the screen she doesn't usually look at, is a different color. Just tell her to check every letter of every URL she goes to.

    Not that I've got a lot of better solutions. I can imagine a patch that pops up a warning for suspicious-looking URLs, but dialog boxes are lousy security.

    I can definitely see elimininating IDN, but that's hardly fair to the 95% of the users in the world who aren't American.

    Still, in general I should caution you about using color as an important indicator in your software design. The world is full of color-blind (and blind) users who deserve your consideration. Not only will it help them out, it'll help out your normally-sighted users who will appreciate stronger cues than color.

  84. You're being too elitist by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm planning on taking an airplane flight in 7 years, and am already taking classes on aeronautics, history of flight, airplane engineering, and am enrolled in the technical school for airplane building and maintenancy.^H^H

    Uh-oh, looks like my "delete" key stopped working again. Must need another .5 ohm resistor, with a diode overlay. I'll do that as soon as I'm done casting the waterpump for my car.

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:You're being too elitist by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      It must have been amazing for you to be able to parse out the html in your head to surf the internet before you fully understood the inner workings of a browser.

      All hail "Tibor the GREAT"!!

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    2. Re:You're being too elitist by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1

      Browser? I've seen Tibor in action, he stands outside the window at the net cafe and reads the flashing lights off the cable modem!

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  85. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I wake up in Bizarro World or something?

  86. Re:IE and Firefox by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 0
    but it's so damn big... even when it's set to small..

    Is there any way to make it smaller?

  87. Exploits by Novous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >The reason IE isn't vulnerable is because it doesn't natively support IDN; with the right plug-in, it too is vulnerable.

    Well, if we're going to disregard them on those grounds, we might as well disregard ActiveX exploits too (since FireFox doesn't support it). An exploit is an exploit. Don't play the game of justification.

    p.s. I use Firefox.

  88. Browsers ~!= Linux by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although not a Linux, Windows, or Mac vulnerability, it could become one.

    If the site spoofed were a trusted site for firefox extensions they could get some code to execute on the box. They could package a root kit and take control of a Linux or Mac, or the Buffer overflow du jour to take control of a Windows machine. Granted the Linux would be the most difficult due the the large variation of distros (and each distro differs on opinion where file belong), compiler options, etc.

    For a truly secure OS, you should remove all applications and just run the OS in its pure state.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:Browsers ~!= Linux by tantrum · · Score: 1
      holy crap, who modded this up?p How stupid could you be, if you trusted a unicode site?

      It is not like firefox believes that a site that looks like paypal is paypal, only the user does.

      If anybody manages to do what the parent poster just wrote they must be mighty stupid.

    2. Re:Browsers ~!= Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. Wait a minute. Rootkits? Doesn't that imply, like the name says, uhh, root?

      Have you ever seen a browser running as root? Because I sure haven't.

      But, anyway, if you're stupid enough to run a browser as root, you get what you deserve. If you go jumping out of windows on the 20th floor, you get what you deserve. If you go walking through the freeway, accross 12 lanes of traffic, you get what you deserve. There's no protection against being stupid. It's Mother Nature's way of controlling the idiot population. Survival of the fittest, you see?

    3. Re:Browsers ~!= Linux by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      What you say in no way invalidates the grandparent's assertion that this is a browser vulnerability, not a linux vulnerability. Its a vulnerability that occurs on all platforms on which the browser runs, which includles linux -- but to single out linux is very misleading.

      You could say "its a windows vulnerability" with equal validity. Saying "its a browser vulnerability" is (by Occam's Razor) the best category to classify it as. Many browser vulnerabilities lead to OS exploits (see Internet Explorer), there's no need to suddenly reclassify an application vulnerability as an OS vulnerability.

      thoromyr

    4. Re:Browsers ~!= Linux by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to invalidate his point.
      I was merely pointing out that one can lead to the other. My intent was not to single out linux (as the parent poster did, I'm a linux user), only to point out that the flaw could affect any platform where the browser can run. This wouldn't be much different than using an IE exploint to compromise Windows (as happens every day), although it would be more difficult.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    5. Re:Browsers ~!= Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > holy crap, who modded this up?p How stupid could you be, if you trusted a unicode site?

      As stupid as you are if you believe the vast majority of computer users will know if they're trusting a Unicode site or not. Or do you really believe everyone surfs via the "view source" page of their browser?..

    6. Re:Browsers ~!= Linux by Asprin · · Score: 1


      For a truly secure OS, you should remove all applications and just run the OS in its pure state.

      ...unplug it from the network.... remove the mouse, keyboard and power supply.... seal it in a steel-lined concrete tomb and bury bunker behind armed guards....

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
  89. Firefox 1.0.1 by starwed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has anyone checked to see if this exploit is possible in the recent 1.0.1 builds? Presumably they contain security fixes... perhaps for this issue among whatever others exist.

    1. Re:Firefox 1.0.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am using a Firefox 1.0.1 build and the IDN disable only works the current browser session. When you close and restart the disable is gone - an obvious bug in the implimentation but can be temporarily fixed in user.js

  90. Bug in browser, or in Unicode? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems to be more of a bug in Unicode than in the browsers. Unicode has defined multiple character codes as having the exact same glyph. I thought we'd already run into this in Unicode with multiple long representations of the same character, decided it was a bad thing and corrected it by making any representation longer than the shortest illegal. Shouldn't we do the same thing here, and simply make it illegal to have multiple character codes appearing as the same glyph?

    1. Re:Bug in browser, or in Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The short answer is no. If you start taking away this feature from browser, non-Latin named domain owners will complain (yes, they do exist). The Unicode problem has more to do with the fact that many browsers only check for canonical equivalents for Latin-based code points, not Russian, Chinese, or any other languages. And yet, canonical equivalents for these characters have existed in Unicode standard for a long time. Grapheme cluster equivalence though, is very tricky to implement, which may never be implemented in most software, not just browsers.

    2. Re:Bug in browser, or in Unicode? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Why should they complain? They have their non-Latin name, including all the non-Latin characters. The only thing they don't have is non-Latin versions of the characters they share with Latin alphabets. Now, if two characters are really two distinct characters, then perhaps the inverse question should be addressed: how to insure that no two distinct characters in Unicode have identical glyphs. Frankly, though, I'd prefer to just say that, where two alphabets share common glyphs they use the same common characters and that's that.

    3. Re:Bug in browser, or in Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Why would you complain, T0DD KNARR ?

      What's wrong with 511VERG1A55 as a domain name anyway, it's basically the same squiggles, you can't have those other characters any more, they're too similar and it's annoying.

    4. Re:Bug in browser, or in Unicode? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      If replacing characters with different characters with different glyphs is the best counter-argument you can come up with, you've made my point for me quite nicely.

    5. Re:Bug in browser, or in Unicode? by patio11 · · Score: 1
      I've got a modest proposal to stop phishing -- ASCII should remedy the bug in their standard and unify the 1 and l characters into one canonical representation, since they're identical under most fonts. This has empirically caused FAR more problems than the cross-character set vulnerabilities described.


      Oh, wait, that would be stupid, for the exact same reasons. They're NOT the same glyph, they have different meanings (which software likes to know about, every once in a while), the change would break huge number of legacy applications... need I go on? Even the inclusion of Latin glyphs outside the 00 codepage in Unicode was done for a reason -- hankaku/zenkaku characters are critical to backwards compatibility with several Japanese standards and if force both hankaku and zenkaku L to ASCII L many applications, including several which are sort of key around my office, will break. The fact that software should treat a zenkaku L as a zenkaku L, which follows, say, text formatting rules VERY DIFFERENTLY than the Latin L sitting right next to it (even though they might strike you as looking pretty similar, and your browser might decide to render them identically), needs to be associated with the character.

  91. Typing foreign characters by UnConeD · · Score: 1

    I don't think the average person types in URLs that much, especially not to sites they don't know or visit often. You just Google it.



    However on the subject of typing: the real problem is that typing foreign characters is insanely hard in every OS out there. If you have a US keyboard, you're out of luck completely. Luckily my keyboard has 'dead' keys which allows me to put several types of accents on various letters, but it still doesn't help me with e.g. an Å.



    Typically all you have is some dumb character map which you have to hunt through, and which is buried somewhere deep. That's why I wrote an IME-like app which pops up a small in-place dynamic character map with a keystroke. It allows you to select characters based on a 'base' character. See http://www.acko.net/blog/sprankle. Sure it's Windows-only and it doesn't work on apps that do weirdo stuff with keyboard input, but I blame the Win32 API. It's GPL'd though, so you are free to port it to one of the 'superior' OSes that Slashdot likes.


    1. Re:Typing foreign characters by greed · · Score: 2, Informative
      However on the subject of typing: the real problem is that typing foreign characters is insanely hard in every OS out there.

      This is strongly dependent on both the language and OS in question. For example, Japanese input methods work very well on US keyboards; you key in romaji, and the input method converts it to hirigana or katakana on the fly. When you hit space, a menu of kanji with the given reading is presented. Space again picks the first one, or cursor up/down before hitting space to pick another.

      This is apparently a quite common input method, as a Japanese friend who had never used a Mac told me how to use OS X's input method.

      The dead keys on Mac OS for Western European languages are also quite easy to get used to. (The AltGr thing on X11 I'm not so fond of.)

      But, of course, most Scandinavian users (referring to the grandparent post) will have Scandinavian keyboards, and they aren't entering foreign language sites, they're going to sites in their native languages.

  92. Real hackers use netcat by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    hitting the page with netcat shows the rather obvious buggering of the URL.

    GUI's are for Mac users ;)

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  93. Re:Safari affected + Mail.app flaw = phishing heav by sjonke · · Score: 1
    That is exactly why the story is fucking posted here.

    Hey Sherlock - what do you suppose was the purpose of my message? Was it to report the flaw in Safari? Or was it to report the flaw in Mail.app and many other mail programs on many platforms, that in concert with the Safari/Firefox/Opera flaw makes for a heady brew, and to note one possible, and easy, fix for it? No such flaw is noted on secunia.com, in fact there is no Mail.app listing on that site at all. Perhaps it is noted elsewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. Nor do I see it mentioned in the /. article, but maybe I'm just not enough of a Sherlock to find it there?

    --
    --- What?
  94. Unicode box drawing by UnConeD · · Score: 1

    Unicode range U+2500 - U+257F, box drawing:
    http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2500. pdf

    Enjoy.

  95. I know everyone says this by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    ...but I have long suspected that there was a simple hack, I read about different url encoding support, and realised that a 'a' charcter can be a multitude of actual encodings, and this would allow you to register a name with the similar lexical morphology.

    I thought even using small accented characters (paypal with ^ on the a's) but this obviously uses a's designed to carry an accent, but doesn't secify an accent.

    There are probably hundreds more ways you can register a site that is 100% different to a computer, but 100% the same to a human.

    tsk

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  96. We could just only show the character codes.

    It wasn't that long ago that ALL computer users had to (defacto) memorize the ascii character set, and be able to read it in hex or decimal. Stepping up from 7 bits to 16 (Unicode) or 24 (UTF-8 encoding of unicode) should be a big deal. Its just a few orders of magnitude. Of course, users of the latin character sets will have it easy ;)

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  97. Unicode has already fixed this problem by fizbin · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is already a fix for this IDN problem in the unicode spec, if people would just use it:

    Before resolving, all domain names should be normalized according to normalization form KC. (see http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15/) Once that's done, anything that looks like an "a" really will be an "a", and not something that looks identical in Cyrillic.

    That simple (SIMPLE!) step would avoid this problem, almost completely. There'd still be an issue with people using "paypál" instead of "paypal", but at least then the user has some vague chance of seeing the difference in the URL in the browser window.

    It would also be good if responsible registrars refused to accept domain registrations for domains not normalized according to NFKC, but asking companies to refuse business simply because someone else would get hurt is probably not going to be effective.

    1. Re:Unicode has already fixed this problem by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be possible to enforce registrar standards compliance by having all DNS servers reject noncompliant records, not just the registrar's signup process? If a noncompliant record was not accessible to a large chunk of the net, that would be a strong incentive to make sure legitimate names are compliant and make this type of scam less effective.

    2. Re:Unicode has already fixed this problem by pdc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't claim to be a Unicode expert, but I don't think that normalization form KC will convert U+0430 to 'a', because the Latin small letter A is not its compatability decomposition.

      On the other hand, it would prevent spoofing of Greek names using mu and capital omega, or capital A with ring above, or ff ligatures, since there are characters that have them as compatibility decompositions.

    3. Re:Unicode has already fixed this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please if it's that simple submit a patch to bugzilla here 281365

      Thanks,

    4. Re:Unicode has already fixed this problem by mildgift · · Score: 1

      It's completely legitimate to demand that registrars take up the role of protecting trademarks, particularly under the .com domain. ICANN set up an (expensive) arbitration procedure, but, it would make life easy if the .com, but not other domains, were harmonized with trademark laws. The tradeoff is this: .com domains will cost more, but also become more valuable, because they will become safer. The other TLDs should not conform to these rules, and should develop their own, or new TLDs established with their own rules. .coop is a good example, though I think they charge way too much, given the economics of coops.

  98. 1996 Technology by superyooser · · Score: 1

    IE is not affected. Also, Netscape Navigator and Mosaic are not affected.

    1. Re:1996 Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away you evil anti-semite.

  99. confused by vafada · · Score: 1

    i dont understand why
    == http://www.xn--pypal-4ve.com

    can someone explain.. thanks

    1. Re:confused by vafada · · Score: 1

      omg.. my post didnt turned out right... again... why is http://www.pypal.com/ == http://www.xn--pypal-4ve.com

    2. Re:confused by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      The Punycode standard says that a URL starting with xn-- is actually in an encoded form of Unicode. It takes the "pypal", renders that in ASCII, and converts the "4ve" to the Russian letter identical to the normal (Latin) "a".

      Depending on your browser, you may or may not see the proper conversion. On IE 5 on Win '98, I see it in the status bar at the bottom, but the page itself refuses to load.

  100. Re:IE and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the same problem with it - in fact, I uninstalled it because of that. Hopefully the guys at corestreet will make it a little more configurable in the future...

  101. Re:IE and Firefox by mAineAc · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem to work with mine. It says www.paypal.com but the ssl one also says www.paypal.com which is actually incorrect.

  102. I'd like to disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... with that "every browser *except* IE" there. I tried it with lynx on Linux. Didn't work here.

  103. OT: sig response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like dec2hex(184594917);

    Oooh, and I'll bet you get *lots* of dec2hex(764901) with a sig like that!

  104. Fix underway for Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As already mentioned by others, it's definitly a problem that the suggested workaround for Firefox
    (setting network.enableIDN to false via about:config) doesn't work once you restart your browser (while the flag happily stays at 'false').

    The Mozilla folks have picked it up however, so we can expect a fix fairly soon I think:
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28137 7

  105. Proof according to Dr. Watson ! by gnarlin · · Score: 1

    AHA! This finally proves that internet explorer is a HUGE security risk and should not... erm.. oh darn!

    --
    A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
  106. Use Camino? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shows the caharacter codes of the site it's attempting to load in the bottom left of the window and then pops up a message saying it cannot connect to the server.

  107. Its in Lynx too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This blog noted this encoding issue back June when the author noted it when using a Lynx browser.

  108. Dangerous by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I'd be very wary about putting in a flashing fish icon. Mostly because phishermen would be able to test their urls to find out if they've managed to make one that doesn't match the phishing profile.

    Then users would think "well the fish didn't flash so i'll be safe".

  109. Easy anti-phishing fix by mordejai · · Score: 0

    The browser could display the address bar with an alternative background/border, as Firefox does for https.

    Of course you should be aware of the change, but it preserves compatibility while adding a way to let the user know the site is probably fake (don't forget 99.9% of the sites in the world DON'T use IDN)

  110. IE HAS THE SAME PROBLEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You honestly think this is just a "non-IE" problem?

    IE has the same vunerability (although through a different method) ...

    here is an article about it

  111. Also works with my IE by old_klam · · Score: 1

    I have windows 2000 with unicode support enabled. And guess what? The attack also fools IE.

  112. MOD PARENT UP ...color-coding a good step! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would certainly be a start, anyway.

  113. View Source by bricriu · · Score: 1

    Using Firefox 1.0 on XP, if I do "view source" it shows the correct header: "Source of: http://xn--pypal-4v3.com/"

    But who does that on every page? Easier to disable IDN.

    --

    AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
    - Reakk, Sluggy Freelance

  114. But it CAN be fixed in the browser by fizbin · · Score: 1

    All the browser people have to do is run the domain name through nameprep prior to Punycode-ing it. It's not that hard - it isn't as though there aren't dozens of implementations of Unicode normalization form KC around.

  115. My Firefox was not effected at all by jwd-oh · · Score: 1

    I run all internet requests through DansGuardian and Squid via transparent proxy. DansGuardian caught this as a malformed URL and told me.

    1. Re:My Firefox was not effected at all by praxis · · Score: 1

      Saying "My Firefox was not effeceted at all" implies to me that your Firefox had been modified to close this particular vunerability. It seems that the actual case is that you added a layer of security--which everyone should do as much as worthwhile--so the browser you are using is inconsequential in this case. Specifying Firefox might be misleading in this case. Saying that your proxy servers protected your browser might be more apt and not imply you had fixed the actual vulnerability.

    2. Re:My Firefox was not effected at all by jwd-oh · · Score: 1

      I did not imply that I fixed my browser at all. You may have inferred it.

      I was trying to make a point that it is possible to not be effected by this problem while the developers resolve it.

      This is all about risk. I have mitigated the risk present by engaging in "safer computing". If they never "fix" Firefox one can mitigate this risk easily.

      That was my point

  116. the (in)secure link doesn't fool Konqueror by zr-rifle · · Score: 1

    While the first link fools Konqueror, the second link (ssl https: connection) makes it freak out, prompting a nice warning box stating that the certificates don't match:

    "The IP address of the host www.pypal.com does not match the one the certificate was issued to."

    It's quite frightening that firefox (or Opera) doesn't actually sound the alarm after checking the certificates.

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  117. Re:IE and Firefox by thorjansen · · Score: 1

    Why not just edit spoofstick.css, to change all three font sizes to whatever you want. Change small to 9 point, for instance. Of course, it won't really decrease the size of the extra panel. The makers should put it in the status bar, like the makers of other extensions do.

  118. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a relatively simple and workable fix, and fails only where the normalization method has holes.

    Mozilla just needs to decode the URL from punycode, normalize it, then recode it. This could probably be implemented as a transformation on the punycode URL.

  119. Proxy by Helmholtz · · Score: 1

    Who doesn't run their internet through a proxy these days?

    While my browser may be vulnerable, the page never makes it past the proxy (squid):

    ERROR
    The requested URL could not be retrieved

    While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.www.p%D0%B0ypal.com/

    The following error was encountered:

    * Invalid URL

    Some aspect of the requested URL is incorrect. Possible problems:

    * Missing or incorrect access protocol (should be `http://'' or similar)
    * Missing hostname
    * Illegal double-escape in the URL-Path
    * Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed

    --
    RFC2119
  120. network.enableIDN=true (make it work) ! by Grosvnor · · Score: 1
    Firefox 1.0, doesn't really disables IDN, when user edits the entry in about:config. (Has many found before)

    Solution: Goto: http://www.mozilla.org/developer/

    (no spoofing in here, just plain text ;) )

    At the bottom of the page there's a section called (Nightly Builds), download the file for your OS, and it should work now (don't forget to check the setting again on about:config -> network.enableIDN)

    Tried on the Windows release, and worked fine (even after browser restart) ... Good luck !!!

    1. Re:network.enableIDN=true (make it work) ! by narcc · · Score: 1

      No need to download the nightly build. If you're running Firefox 1.0 on windows, just enter about:config in the address bar, scroll down to network.enableIDN and set it to false. It worked for me, it can work for you.

    2. Re:network.enableIDN=true (make it work) ! by Grosvnor · · Score: 1
      Try this:

      1) Goto about:config change the setting to false

      2) Try to go the page: It should NOT open

      3) Close the browser

      4) Goto about:config again and check if the setting is still disabled (it should)

      5) Now try again the page...

      If it doesn't open again, congratulations ! My browser opened the page, even with the configuration off !!!

  121. Solution: stop registration of ambiguous domains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't the domain name registrars put a stop to this? There's a finite pool of ambiguous-looking letters, so it would be easy to scan each requested domain for ambiguities: "We're sorry, the domain pa0x1234ypal.com contains an ambiguity with an existing domain name. Please try again."

    After all, who except a phisher would really want one of these?

  122. What about Lynx? by delmoi · · Score: 1

    I think what you mean is every modern browser other then IE. Us lynx users are safe!

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
    1. Re:What about Lynx? by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      Safe.. Until you get arrested for hacking!

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    2. Re:What about Lynx? by Corydon76 · · Score: 1

      Not even so. Konqueror isn't vulnerable, either.

  123. probably the coolest... by aneroid · · Score: 1

    hack i've ever seen.

    not that i've seen that many.

    [turns and pisses in the corner]

  124. The old MS spoofing quick-patch... by Curtman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't you just start typing in your URIs from now on?

    1. Re:The old MS spoofing quick-patch... by frizzbit · · Score: 1

      That should be moderated to insightful because it's actually a very good suggestion. It's something simple that people can do and it guards against some other vulnerabilities as well.

    2. Re:The old MS spoofing quick-patch... by Curtman · · Score: 1

      A bookmark is a much simpler alternative.

  125. Previous Slashdot article by rsteele19 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slashdot has covered this problem before.

    --

    This sig is umop apisdn.

  126. yyy by wed128 · · Score: 1

    yyyyyyyyyyyyy

  127. This is a really old spoof by lokedhs · · Score: 1
    Someone registered microsoft.com where the first "o" is a cyrrilic version of the letter, a long time ago. I saw it many months ago.

    And at least in GNOME, that version is extremely difficult to tell apart form the real one, and on other OS'es with better font rendering, it's identical as it should be.

    1. Re:This is a really old spoof by aneroid · · Score: 2, Informative
      u mean this?
      <o:LastSaved>2002-01-31T17:32:00Z</o:LastSaved>
      (dated feb 2002)
  128. workaround for all browsers by hikerhat · · Score: 1
    Type in the url for any site where security is a concern rather than clicking a link on an untrusted web page. They are usually short and easy to type. paypal.com, ebay.com, amazon.com, mybank.com.

    If there is a bunch of state information in the url copy/paste the url into your address bar, hit "type-over" mode, and re-type the host name and you should be ok.

    1. Re:workaround for all browsers by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Tell that to Grandma.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    2. Re:workaround for all browsers by hikerhat · · Score: 1
      It's a workaround. I'm afraid grandma is just fscked until there's an actual fix.

      Of course the "fix" will probably be some popup saying something about "code pages" and other languages, and grandma won't grok that either.

  129. Nothing new here by ramv · · Score: 1

    The designers and implementers of IDNA knew this. I implemented IDNA in ICU and ICU4J. Please see the demo [oss.software.ibm.com]. This demonstrates a way to alert the users of possible spoofing.

  130. analogy breakdown... by decompiler · · Score: 1

    no, i don't understand the deep inner workings of my pharmaceuticals... but then, there isn't hordes of cracker bastards incessantly trying to steal my identity through my medicine cabinet!

    also, i just wanted to point out that for once IE came out on top for being so far behind...

    1. Re:analogy breakdown... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Oh, the security through obscurity argument! If your medicine cabinet had more marketshare, you can bet that there'd be hordes of cracker bastards incessantly trying to steal your identity through your medicine cabinet.

      And when was the last time you ran a port scan of your bathroom?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  131. easy firefox fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Firefox anyway you can highlight the link, right click and choose View Selection Source. That will show you exactly what you are clicking on. How hard is that?

  132. Re:IE and Firefox by iamacat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Don't just talk, donate to Mozilla/Firefox security effort!

  133. You knew it was going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh, IDN is a complicated standard, and as such, creates a lot of room for exploits.

    I can't believe some of the "I thought FF was completely secure! Those Liars!" bullshit comments. As soon as non-IE browsers hit that 10% market threshold, you knew that the exploits were going to start rolling through. The same issues Windows has will start hitting Linux Desktop as soon as it hits a 10% - 15% market penetration, and is dumbed down enough with "features" that will work for the average user, who doesn't give three shits about security and just wants it to be easy to use.

    Browsers and OSes are a bitch to write and develop, and are going to have security flaws no matter how much you wish they didn't. It would take an infinite amount of test time to ensure they didn't. If you want a truly secure system, do not connect it to the internet, or, trade in your machine for an abacas and a slide rule and you'll be good-to-go. This is the name of the game, not matter what you use.

    Rant over

  134. iCab & OmniWeb by Zobeid · · Score: 1

    I found iCab 2.9.8 and OmniWeb 4.5 appear to be immune to the exploit. It does successfully fool Safari, Firefox and Opera, though.

  135. Re:IE and Firefox by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1
    ...cranky old guy down the street who always asks for computer help...

    I don't think this guy knows how.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  136. Spoofstick is no help by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    spoofstick is fooled by this exploit too it seems

  137. A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by Reziac · · Score: 4, Informative

    Where "sees" means "displays it this way on the status line":

    Netscape 3.04 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ -- looks the same in docsource

    OffByOne 3.4a sees http://www.p0ypal.com/ -- looks the same in docsource

    K-Meleon 0.9 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ -- looks like http://www.pypal.com/ in docsource

    IE 5.00.2314.1003 (yes, minor builds can make a *big* difference in how IE displays stuff) sees it as http://www.paypal.com/, but the "a" is about half normal size (this is at 1024x768). Docsource as IE feeds it to notepad looks like http://www.pypal.com/

    Mozilla 1.5 sees it exactly the same as IE5.00 (above), including docsource

    AOLpress (HTML editor with built-in browser) sees it exactly the same as OffByOne (above), including docsource

    Netscape 4.50 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ but displays http://www.pypal.com/ in docsource

    Firebird 0.7 sees it exactly the same as Moz 1.5 and IE5.00 (above), including docsource

    And Mosaic 0.9 can't figure out WHAT to do with the page and wants to save it to disk.

    At this point, I ran out of installed browsers. :)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by donothingsuccessfull · · Score: 1

      What you don't have Lynx installed?!
      You must be a web designer.

      Version 2.8.4rel.1 - Status line:
      --> http://www.p%D0%B0ypal.com/
      --> Alert!: Unable to connect to remote host.

    2. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [hangs head in shame] Alas, you are correct, I are a web d00d... and I don't have Lynx installed... (is there a Lynx for Win32??)

      But -- all is not lost!! I use Mosaic 0.9 as a lynx-alike, since it has very limited image and structure handling. And I do have NetTamer (DOS-based lynx clone) installed, tho it woulda required a disconnect and reconnect using its own PPP thingee, and THEN where would this discussion be? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by sexecutioner · · Score: 1

      "is there a Lynx for Win32??"

      Yes there is! Lynx

      But you've still checked 7 more browser types than most of the web doodes I've worked with, good stuff.

    4. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by dcam · · Score: 1

      You know that you can run multiple versions of IE on the same windows box? See this link.

      --
      meh
    5. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Coolness, it's now in my pending-download list.

      I don't expect every site to cater to MY browser, but it sure does annoy me when a site works ONLY in some specific setup. So I try to avoid that, and keep sites reasonably usable for everyone. -- I routinely test with NS3.04 (my *preferred* everyday browser!) and IE5.00, having found that if a site works okay in those, it'll work in everything else (at least well enough to be functional; differences beyond that are usually purely cosmetic). I don't expect layouts to stay put in Mosaic, but so long as the text and links are still tolerably readable... if you wanted purty, you wouldn't be using Lynx in the first place. :)

      Crap, I forgot to test in NS2.02!! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Cool, good info, thanks.

      On my Win95 box, I have IE3, 4, and 5.00.2314.1003 (the only one I consider a "good" version) all living happily side by side, but quickly found there was no real point in testing (at least what I do -- no js) in IE3/4. OTOH, I've found that IE6 screws up on the damnedest things, including -- M$'s knowledge base pages saved locally. ???!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by dcam · · Score: 1

      Any time.

      I found this when I was trying to do some compatibility testing with earlier versions of IE. The one caveat with this stuff is that I found that cookies don't seem to work. I'm not certain why this is the case, but the all the versions of IE seem to use the IE installation folder, and maybe this causes problems. It is a real PITA if you are testing something that requires cookies though.

      --
      meh
    8. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So far I've avoided having to mess with cookies... :)

      That illustrates a problem with any app that forcibly takes over or disables any prior versions it finds in residence -- screws up the option to run the old version, and can scramble data between 'em if both are still viable. Grrrr.......

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by donothingsuccessfull · · Score: 1
      Lynx is also available under cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/) worth having just for a bash prompt in my book.
      I don't expect every site to cater to MY browser, but it sure does annoy me when a site works ONLY in some specific setup.
      Kudos to you for being aware of the issues.
      The advantage of Lynx is that you can be fairly sure that if a site is usable with it then it's usable with any browser.
      Also there maybe legal obligations, eg in the UK: http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/#part3.
      (Text only browsers being used by the visually impaired.)
      IANAL etc.

      if you wanted purty, you wouldn't be using Lynx in the first place. :)
      If I wanted to be at the mercy of another's aesthetic I'd be using IE. ;)
    10. Re:A few more browser tests (and IE *is* affected) by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I don't do much at the command prompt anymore (other than using the old DOS util LIST, which I leave trails of behind me everywhere I go) but I started life in DOS, so I can still appreciate the CLI.

      I have two computer-support clients who are literally "blind in one eye and can't see outta the other", so when something sucks for accessability, I hear about it! Often the problem isn't that some site/program/whatever LACKS a function that they need; it's that they can't SEE how to get TO said function, because the designer only thought about the function, NOT about how you get TO it.

      One reason I prefer NS3.04, with images and js off, is because that effectively strips a lot of the useless crap, and textifies proper CSS layouts (all too many of which specify microscopic fonts). What, I was supposed to be watching dancing advertisements and flaming flash? Oh dear, so sorry. And which colour did you say your text was supposed to be? Egads!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  138. agreed, not sticky by undercanopy · · Score: 1

    I hadn't been to the site AT ALL.. applied the workaround, went to the site and it was blocked... then restarted firefox and lo and behold there i was staring at a false paypal.

    anyone how how to make it stick?

    --
    -- D-23994, Muff#2613
    1. Re:agreed, not sticky by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

      I tried putting user_pref("network.enableIDN", "false"); in user.js, but that didn't work either. Looking in about:config the value is indeed set to false, but the spoof still works.

      --
      Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  139. Addendum by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Forgot that /. eats some stuff... the "absent" bit in the "docsource" should be

    & # 1072 ;

    without any spaces.

    [hits self with preview button]

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  140. Is Slashdot Affected? by psydeshow · · Score: 1

    How are links like this rendered in Slashdot? Oh, from the preview it looks like they just plain break, never mind. Guess Slashcode doesn't implement this feature, either.

  141. This is not a software bug... by microbrew_nj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... it's an authentication problem

    This problem is not a software bug. Sort of disabling the feature, I don't see a way of fixing the problem in the client software. I mean, I don't see a software patch (or even a standards modification) fixing the problem.

    What it is, is a problem exacerbated complexity. People speak different langauges around the world, often multiple langauges. That rules out an ASCII-centric solution. Even rewriting the standards wouldn't help; the problem boils down to protecting people from tmemselves, or at least human cognition flaws.

    Any solution would have to be a process solution. Specifically, the process determining that you are who you say you are. The current process for doing this is flawed for the average person. Your average person is just going to click through warnings which he or she doesn't understand.

  142. A slightly better explanation of the spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.binrev.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1 0662

    There's more info on how it works and why it works.

  143. I'm against the name Schmoo. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 1

    I'm very against the name Schmoo. There's just no way to efficiently respond to them dismissively. For instance:

    "Slashdot, Schmashdot."

    "Schmoo, Schmoo"

    Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  144. Partial fix for any browser. by xwin · · Score: 1

    You can use privoxy or any other filtering proxy to fix this for any browser. Unfortunately SSL still goes trough. For privoxy place this pattern in the {+block} section of user.action file: .xn--*.*/
    This will block all of the xn-- domains until it fixed in firefox.

    Alex

  145. Its not a BUG! by maxkueng · · Score: 2, Informative

    As I see it, it is not a bug. International Domain Names are a standatd sind a while, already. The only problem is that some unicode characters look exactly like some UTF-8 characters and because of that, people can be "cheated".

    But who needs IDNs??
    In Mozilla/Firefox and maybe also in Thunderbird (if you download the about:config extension) IDNs can be disabled by using the about:config thingie.

    Open your Gecko based brwoser and type "about:config" (without the quotes) and hit return. Search for "network.enableIDN" (without the quotes) and set it to "false" (without the quotes).

    --
    Max

    1. Re:Its not a BUG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god, have you read this thread? Any of it? That does not work! Don't believe me? Restart your browser. Now check if the spoof works again. See? It still does!

  146. Highlight, perhaps? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When you go to a secure page Firefox highlights the URL yellow.

    When you go to a page with anything but ordinary ASCII characters perhaps it could highlight the URL blue, or red, or something...

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  147. Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dammit, I wish I'd listen to those open-source hippies now! I now realise that the open-source model allows quick and easy patching to occur almost instantaneously, the vulnerability was only "just" discovered.

  148. five, what should've been-style workarounds: by mrsbrisby · · Score: 1

    0. someone should've been paying attention when Verisign- the self-proclaimed "leeders" in Internet security- signed a code-signing certificate for Microsoft.... for someone who wasn't Microsoft.

    1. people shouldn't be entering credit card or login information into a page that they clicked on from an email.

    2. unicode should've been arranged by glyph similarity instead of by script family.

    3. people shouldn't cry about having a domain name "in their script." - domain names are _supposed_ to be easy to type, and easy to remember. IDNs are neither to people foreign to that script, and often, neither to people even USING that script.

    4. people should've been less afraid of bookmarks.

    1. Re:five, what should've been-style workarounds: by mrsbrisby · · Score: 1

      ... and one more:

      5. maybe browsers should just display nonlocal scripts in a different, hilighted color (or different background color)....

  149. Firefox has NO security bugs! by dantheman82 · · Score: 1
    To Whom It May Concern,

    I don't know where Slashdot dwellers live, but where I live, I KNOW my Firefox is totally secure! My 14-year-old son (he's really smart in computers) told me so!!! By the way, he's even a Conqueror of Linux, which he said was hard to do. While I don't know all the technobabble, I think you misspelled "spoof" - and probably meant "poof."

    Anyway, you should realize that for my security, Paypal asks for me to update my account information about once every week. I feel very safe now, especially now that I have Firefox! Much more than IE (whatever that is) - I've heard it's the program that's behind the big "E". Sincerely, Evelyn E. Clueless
    --
    This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.
  150. Mozilla 1.3a on BeOS R5 is not vulnerable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take that, all you folks who like to stay on the "bleeding edge".

  151. Re:IE and Firefox by BDaniels · · Score: 1

    As noted by several others, this does not work. Spoofstick shows you as being on www.paypal.com and provides no warning of the fake site.

  152. So where's the real "a" ? Ah, at the liquor store by crashdynamite · · Score: 1

    Not amazing, but a way to see what exactly the evil ukrainian(?) 'a' is.. paste the URL into a term or something that doesnt support those char's:

    p\u0430ypal.com

    Also, checking this out now on firefox on freebsd at home, it is indeed noticible to (me, a geek) however at the con on a mac osx laptop with (i think firefox, could have had safari open) it was not at all noticeable, unless you would copy and paste the URL into a term.

  153. Re:Canned Microsoft Astroturfing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHA! Look at that -- your open standards and peer reviewed code is no match for our closed source, proprietary, slow bug fixing, embracing and extending, spyware enabling crapfeast!

  154. Re:IE and Firefox by thorjansen · · Score: 1

    Here you go. This is Linux-centric but a similar method should work in Windows, just use PKZip or WinZip or whatever:

    1. Download the xpi to your hard drive rather than install it (right click on the "install" link and save). Put it in a temp directory.

    2. Open a shell window and cd to the temp directory where you stored the xpi.

    3. Unzip the xpi, then delete the .xpi file.

    4. cd into the directory it created, called "chrome".

    5. Unzip spoofstick.jar, then delete spoofstick.jar.

    6. cd into the directory that unzip made, called "content".

    7. Edit spoofstick.css as needed with your favorite text editor. Perhaps something like .size1 set to 9 pt, .size2 set to 12 pt, and .size3 set to 14 pt.

    8. cd back one dir and type "zip -r spoofstick.jar".

    9. Delete the "content" directory and its contents.

    10. cd back one dir and type "zip -r $HOME/Desktop/spoofstick.xpi *"

    11. Fire up Firefox and remove the old spoofstick installation, then restart the browser.

    12. In the URL window, type "file:///home/[yourusername]/Desktop/spoofstick.xp i" and press Enter or click "Go".

    13. After it installs, restart Firefox and spoofstick will be there at your new point sizes, and you can click "Options" to set color, etc.

    14. Viola! You're done.

  155. Not pefect, but close enough. by Rgb465 · · Score: 1

    Its a good trick, but it isnt perfect. Char #1072 looks almost like a lower-case 'a', but it does not match. Example

    Granted, this may only be with the particular font that Im using, but Id be willing to bet its like that in most fonts.

  156. LiveHeaders on FF by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LiveHeaders on FF correctly reports that the HOST is not paypal.com

    Looks like I'll have to use that to double check now. Still safer that IE.

  157. The "dice" like thing in the Paypal URL on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am also using Firefox under Linux and when I go to either link there is a big wide dice like thing thing in the URL replacing the "a" in Paypal.com. It does not look even vaguely like a normaly paypal.com URL. The big dice like thing in the URL is twice as wide and twice as tall as any normal character. I did not need to look close to see it.

    I sometimes see those same oversize "dice" like things when I am using Google under Firefox and some of the results have URLs with those non-ASCII foreign characters that do not display properly. Each of those characters always gets replaced by the oversize dice like thing. I am using Firfox 1.0 and installed it from a Slackware package for Slackware 10.0 Linux. Is it possible that when that package was compiled they only included support for ordinary ASCII characters? Or perhaps when I installed Slackware I might have somehow not choosen to include support for foreign alphabets.

  158. Re:IE and Firefox by donothingsuccessfull · · Score: 1

    Was it just me who pasted that link to check for dodgy characters?
    (https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.ph p?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Windows&categ ory=Privacy%20and%20Security)

    I think my tin foil hat is plotting against me.

  159. Interesting, but still ... [yawn] by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1
    I would say that this is not a security hole in any browser but rather a demonstration of yet another way to trick human beings (particularly Anglophone humans in the U.S.) into thinking a URL is what it is not. Sure, the use of non-English characters is innovative, but how does this differ from me setting up a domain like pay-pal.com to fleece people expecting to see paypal.com? (I am sure it would be possible to come up with a more credible example, but I'm sticking with the theme here.)

    I am curious, though, how the certificate authority of the SSL site would respond, and what their liability would be, to the people fleeced by the hypothetical scam.

    I appreciate the efforts of the people who discovered and publicized this trick, but I'm standing pat with Mozilla. No way am I using MSIE unless I have to!

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  160. Konqueror warning by deathguppie · · Score: 1

    KDE's Konqueror browser actually gives you a popup warning that the ssl certificate does not match the IP address that it is being issued from, then you have to choose to accept the certificate in order to continue

    --
    once more into the breach
  161. Fix from Unicode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Unicode consortium has a paper on this and a suggested fix:

    http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/tr36-1.html

    The fix is to "process domain names to convert compatibility-equivalent characters into a unique form;". Opera 8 beta already does this.

  162. this spoof carries thru to bookmarks also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you bookmark one of these spoofed sites in Firefox the bookmark carries the false name with it. If a site were to place a bunch of false banksite bookmarks in your bookmark list you would never know.

    Chances are the average home user would think that it's great that all these links are already created for them...

    1. Re:this spoof carries thru to bookmarks also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also, the network.enableIDN thing has absolutly zero effect on the bookmark text...

  163. Re:IE and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    14 steps? When most people see that, they'll resort to drink out of despair instead of step 1. Then, even if they need a 12 step program to recover, they've saved a step over your method.

  164. You lied to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all said firefox was secure.

  165. the brutality by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    A user clicks on an innocent looking link thinking they will get the lateset and greatest firefox extension. If the link *appears* to go to the place they believe then they might just do that instead of typing the url...

    I appologize for being unclear. I was not suggesting that firefox could do this through the update mechanism.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:the brutality by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      By deault firefox won't let you automatically install extensions from anywhere but I think mozdev.org or something.

      It does make it pretty easy for the user to override that (every time a user tries to install an extension it gives the option to override), and I don't know if in the process somewhere there would be a noticeable warning sign.

      And you could of course just download the xpi and load it into moz/ff/thunderbird/etc. off of your hd/ramdisk/usbdrive/mountedfilesystemofchoice if your browser was being a bitch about doing it automatically (which is what I'd probably do).

  166. Im@an.idiot.com default logging at paypal.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I write www.paypal.com in my address bar in Opera 7.54, I am redirected to what appears to be https://www.paypal.com.

    But what I find strange, is that the in the email address field, the address Im@an.idiot.com is already filled in. This does not happen in IE. What's up with that? Anybody else get the same result?

  167. browser doesn't need to run as root by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 2, Informative

    Generally, these are tools (run as a regular user) to gain root access by exploiting things on the local box that are not accessible via the network. Espicially programs running with the suid bit (cron anyone?)
    If you run linux you will normally see many frequent security patches to protect *local* programs from just such exploits.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  168. Better colours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  169. all.js by Return_of_the_Pyro · · Score: 1

    You can just change network.allowIDN -> false in all.js and restart your browser for a lasting effect...

  170. whatever it is thanks to firefox and opera by camcorder · · Score: 1

    Support of IDN is important. Whatever it is IE's lacking of IDN as default is a real flaw. I for example, really want to use my own language's characters in domain names. I can blame IE for lagging this adoption. Thanks FX and Opera to have support for IDN by default and trying to change the Internet from being US centric.

  171. Re:IE and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worked for me! It wasn't that hard.

  172. I know why IE isn't impacted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the IDN advisory: (emphasis mine)

    The state of homograph attacks

    I. Background

    International Domain Name [IDN] support in modern browsers allows attackers to spoof domain name URLs + SSL certs.

    Remember kids, only modern browsers are impacted.

    On that note, I'll go back to what I was doing with my care-free surfing on Windows for Workgroups 3.11. :)

  173. disable IDN? by mabu · · Score: 1

    Is there an option in Firefox to simply disable IDN?

  174. Dontcha loveit? by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    Don't you just love it how because this is Firefox/Mozilla you guys look for anything to defend your mighty browsers... 'Look! A three pixel difference... everyone can see that... look, look!'

    However if it were IE "Stupid Microsoft, crappy software, get firefox you morons."

    There is no point sticking your head in the sand when these come up and pretending that there aren't holes in Firefox/Mozilla/Linux/OSX etc. etc. There are, of course there are...

    And am I a Microsoft zealot? No... I'm typing this in my favourite browser Firefox...

  175. I've seen a lot of solutions here... by windex82 · · Score: 1
    But not the one that really makes sence.

    The problem seem to come from the ability to make domain names have one or two charecters from a different language set.

    For example (from an example I saw in a post here):

    www.p using the enligsh alphabet
    a using a different set that looks similar
    ypal.com using the original charecter set

    Why not require that the URLS must be of all one set or another? Someone may not notice the A isn't quite the same, but if the whole URL were also in the seperate set it would be a lot easier to notice. If one char is a different set, the entire string should be using that set. Any reason why it shouldnt be "all or nothing"?

    Also if this is considered a browser exploit then using
    <a href="www.notpaypal.com">paypal.com</a>
    should also be listed as a browser exploit.
  176. All Software is going to have holes... by major.morgan · · Score: 1

    I have often discussed with my students in classes (mostly Gov. network admins) that while getting away from Microsoft software in many cases is going to greatly decrease your security risks, it won't actually eliminate it. What the Mozilla group can do now to show corporate folks the strength of opensource, is to quickly produce a patch for the problem. That will be telling to those who have been waiting for extended periods of time with unpatchable holes in IE / Windows.

  177. Old news? by MrLint · · Score: 1

    Umm is this transformatatively any different than this?

  178. didn't fool lynx :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use lynx for about 75% of my browsing since I mainly go online to read text (instead of looking at all the pretty pictures and ads).

  179. Strange URL for me too in Slackware+ Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also use Firefox 1.0 with Slackware 10.0 and get an abnormal looking URL. It has a large dice like character where the "a" should be in Paypal.com. The large square dice like character is twice as large and tall as any other character in the URL. It looks like this:

    "https://www.p[LargeDiceLikeCharacter]ypal.com/"

    I am using the 2.4.26 version of the kernel in Slackware 10.0. I also get large dice like characters whenever I accidently go to foreign webpages which have non-ASCII characters in them.

    I also occasionally get spam with dice like characters in the URL or the main text of the message.

  180. Verisign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And verisign van sell a lot of domains to phishers. (profit!)

    Funny you should mention that! One of their people is speaking at RSA.. Oh look and on stopping phishing!

    Security for Real People
    Phillip Hallam-Baker
    "Security must be end-to-end." "A system is only as secure as its weakest link." "Bad security is worse than no security." Many Internet security experts repeat this sage advice. Unfortunately, none of it is true. This presentation will examine and expose the fashionable nonsense that is the real cause of Internet insecurity.

    Anyone want to pay $1895 to go ask awkward questions??

  181. immediate workaround by changing message box font by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm stuck on a win2k box at work but i think i've found an immediate workaround on at least windoze platforms, may work for others...

    I brought up the display properties by right clicking on the desktop. selected the appearance tab and selected the 'message box' and changed the font to Fixedsys, applied and now when i mouse over to the url, the url on the status bar clearly shows that the a looks different. this is on a 1kx768 display on an 18" lcd.

    now if i can only find a font that doesn't scream at me i'll be happy until there's a proper fix. will try and test this on linux and solaris when i get a chance.

  182. unicode characters that look like alphabets by pikine · · Score: 1

    I guess other troublesome cyrillic characters include U+0435 ("es", looks like small e), U+043e (looks like small o), U+0440 ("er", looks like small p, derived from greek letter "rho"), U+0441 ("es", looks like small c), U+0443 ("u", looks like small y), U+0445 ("ha", looks like small x), U+0455 ("dze", looks like small s).

    Other spoofing candidates are from the latin extended region, for example U+0131 (dotless i) and some characters with accents that are rendered too small to see clearly on screen, for example, double grave or inverted breve.

    The IPA extensions also provide some candidates: U+0251 (an alternative latin a without the top hook); U+0261 (alternative latin small g).

    Okay, I get tired of enumerating the possibilities. Rather than trying to be a karma whore, I just want to point out for the last thing that vast majority of Chinese unicode has already suffered this problem. When unicode produced unified CJK characters, they admitted some variants of ideograph that only have minor difference (perhaps some are in the main unified section and some in the compatibility section). It's impossible to tell the difference in small point sizes. The reason why those characters have so many variants in the first place is because they're both structurally complex and frequently used. Also, there is a separate section for CJK radicals. Some radicals are valid ideographs, appearing twice in unicode.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  183. Jabber? by mibus · · Score: 1

    How does this affect Jabber, which also uses IDN?

    Note that this was discussed three years ago on the IDN mailing list.

  184. Unicode is very very big by UnConeD · · Score: 1

    Regardless of languages that have IMEs for them that happen to be compatible with a plain latin keyboard, there are still thousands of characters in Unicode that are hard to use.

    And I'm not talking about some rare ideographic script used by the lip-stretching tribes of the Amazon. I'm talking about mathematics, currencies, phonetics, arrows, line/box drawing, dingbats, etc.

    People aren't using these characters because they're nearly impossible to enter practically. And in fact, the dead keys on western european keyboards are limited to the combinations found in Latin1. So while I can enter 'â' with '^a', I can't do it with a 'y', even though this character exists (U+0177).

    There is a need for better input methods, beyond 'smart quotes' or replacing hyphens with em/en-dashes based on context. I wrote my own program so I could type a friend's name properly with an 's' in it. Typing it with a plain 's' wasn't the end of the world, but it's not ideal either. In the majority of western languages, accents are not considered to alter the base letter, but are considered to form an entirely new letter. Imagine reading an english text where one of the vowels has been replaced by another.

  185. j0, 3v!l 0n3... by w4rl5ck · · Score: 1

    hm that's really a nice one. It just works exactly as it should, but the way it works itself is a bad thing... :) I can't even think of a workaround that will help everywhere. Even adding a note that this domain is a IDN one won't help because, hey, it's just a matter of time until there's some company that uses strange characters on purpose (especially here in germany...). And they will be open to the same exploit...

    1. Re:j0, 3v!l 0n3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A workaround is simple. Make the IDN plug-in display the domain name of the site to which the IDN name resolves to.

  186. Re:IE and Firefox SpoofStick by solafide · · Score: 0

    DOES NOT WORK! Deception Central - saying it protects when it doesn't!. Though you should write an extension that takes care of the restart problem.

  187. An Actual Working Fix by blazerw11 · · Score: 1
    As reported here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12603456~mo de=flat~days=9999~start=20
    The workaround for firefox seems to be an edit to your compreg.dat. For windows
    c:\Documents and Settings\$USER\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.random\compr eg.dat
    For UNIX
    ~/.mozilla/firefox/default.random/compreg.dat
    Removing the line that references IDN makes the problem go away. Using Find, there was a single reference for the UNIX host and 2 for the Win32 host. Removing the lines and restarting the browser makes the attack fail regardless of the about:config/userprefs.js value. Here's an example entry.
    {4byteshex-2byteshex-2byteshex-2byteshex-6byteshex },@mozilla.org/network/idn-service;1,,nsIDNService ,rel:libnecko.so
    This one DID require me to restart the browser.

    --
    A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
  188. Shmoo Group by techster3599 · · Score: 1

    I have to pat Shmoo Group on the back for this one. Most people don't realize that IE isn't really that bad. Also a lot of people think Firefox is god, but they don't know why Thank you again guys for all your work

  189. Domain squatting by caller9 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that wants to domain squat all of the obvious permutations of this to prevent fraud? Hopefully the pace of the phishing world stays slower than Firefox patches. I am unfamiliar with IDN but made up this domain in about 2 seconds after doing a view source of the schmoo page. So any uncreative simp could use any citybank, bankofamerica...any url with bank and thus an opening for the "magic" a. Not to mention what someone who knows whats up with IDN could do.

    Phishing ebay Seriously how long before this is either a vailid phishing link or an educational page about clicking dumb spam mails?

    I see that slashdot's URL parser has messed up my example, saving the day like an IE incompatibility error? If you view source, put the link in an HTML file locally replacing the eb/ with eb&

    It's not a valid site as of 11:50PM CST 2/7/2005 but you get the idea.

  190. Safari 1.0.3 (v85.8.1) not affected by iowa119900089 · · Score: 1

    I just tried the page, http://www.p/?ypal.com/ is what I got as a link. I felt left out so I tried firefox, and it got fooled. I just keep getting left out when it comes to security exploits on my mac.

  191. Whine, Moan&Bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loser. IE gets bashed, MS gets bashed, BillG gets bashed and you'll get bashed for not getting over that fact.

  192. Re:IE and Firefox by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    The cranky old guy down the street will give up after step 0.5, get a virus on his computer, declare that computers suck, won't care that his computer is now a zombie in danger of infecting other's computers, and will either keep using his infected computer or throw it out. If it is not easy to use for the average guy on the street (or in the office), they either won't do it or won't use it. People on Slashdot will go way beyond what the average cranky guy down the street will do because we happen to like fiddling around with computers, and they just want to use them.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  193. Konqueror by ZonaldRumzfeld · · Score: 1

    In Konqueror, the URL can be spoofed, however, when I try to use the SSL paypal.com, a warning pops up that the certificate does not match (The IP address of the host www.paypal.com does not match the certificate it was issued too).

    At least Konqueror gives me a warning, Firefox doesn't care :P

    An error occurred while loading https://www.pypal.com/:

    Could not connect to host www.pypal.com.

    Yay for Konqueror!!!!! :)

  194. Less annoying would be... by Atario · · Score: 1

    ...show the characters not in your national character set as a different foreground/background color combination. Something even the colorblind could make out, like invert colors or invert-and-shift-a-bit or something.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  195. proxy.pac fix for this vulnerability by scovetta · · Score: 1

    I've posted an advisory/fix for this vulnerability on:
    http://www.scovettalabs.com/advisory/SCL-2005 .002. txt

    You can add a bit of code to the "autoconfig" script that will filter out the bad characters (actually, they'll only allow good characters).

    I'm using this workaround myself, and it's pretty fast, almost un-noticeable, and should work for any sites that attempt to exploit this.

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  196. Correct workaround as reported on MozillaZine by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone else has already posted this link - IDN Spoofing Workaround

    Workaround: This can be worked around by disabling IDN support. To do this, you will have to edit compreg.dat, which is located in your Firefox profile directory (Common profile locations).

    Open this file with a text editor which understands the line endings in it, such as Wordpad (or your favourite text editor on other platforms), and comment out all lines containing IDN by adding # at the start of the line. For example:

    # {4byteshex-2byteshex-2byteshex-2byteshex-6byteshex },@mozilla.org/network/idn-service;1,,nsIDNService ,rel:libnecko.so

    Note that you will have to repeat this edit if you install any themes or extensions, as compreg.dat gets regenerated.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    1. Re:Correct workaround as reported on MozillaZine by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention it works, after restarting Firefox the spoofed sights failed to load.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  197. about:config doesn't work... this does by ellem · · Score: 1

    On Windows:

    Close Mozilla...

    edit C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.q0hcompreg.d at

    replace all instances of idn-service;1 with idn-service;0

    Set compreg.dat to Read Only

    Open Mozilla

    fixed.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  198. They could do something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A potential fix (or at least partial fix) for any browser that supports IDNs could be as follows:

    When a user browses a bookmarked or frequently visited domain a 'star' (or some other simple symbol) appears at the end of the URL (or next to where the SSL Padlock icon appears in the browser). The user could now easily identify that they are indeed browsing on one of their favoured websites. The browser itself is able to know this because it can grab a list of domains from the users bookmarks and look in the users history to see frequently accessed domains, for example sites accessed on more that 10 separate occasions (this figure could be set to something more suitable, it is just an initial guess at a good figure).

    If you are a Paypal user for example you are likely to have Paypal bookmarked or at the very least you will probably visit it regularly. If some website or email links to a fake Paypal then when the site loads the star will be missing from the address bar field since it will be the first time you have used this fake site. Hence it is easy for the user to see something is wrong. Hopefully users would get used to the idea that their favourite sites always display a star in the address bar, so this would start to become obvious.

    Maybe it would require educating the users about what the star is and why it appears there but this had to be done when the SSL padlock was first added to the browser. I reckon people would pick this up in no time.

    I have suggested this on the Opera forums (I'm an Opera user). I may also suggest it on some of the Mozilla forums. Even if Firefox/Mozilla did not make it default perhaps someone could create a plugin (which is currently beyond me).

    I have had some criticisms of the idea. For example someone pointed out that the first time you visit a new safe website no star would be present. Also, not all people use bookmarks extensively. My response has generally been along these lines:

    When you first visit a site you don't know if you can trust the site anyway. I'm usually cautious of new sites the first few times. I am that little bit more nervous about giving them personal data or credit card information hence I check the site out more carefully. I bet most people are the same. Furthermore after you have come back and used that site a few times and hence presumably are happy with it, it would move to one of your most frequently visited sites (or you might even bookmark it). After this point a star would display.

    Regarding bookmarks, it is true that many people don't use bookmarks and in the age of Google you might even say why bother but many people do and if people knew that by bookmarking a site they could later verify it was the same site they had been to previously they may be willing to start bookmarking again, even if only for financial sites. Instead of bookmarking (or even in addition to bookmarking) you might also have the option of clicking on a button to say, "remember this as a known domain name", form that point on it would also show a star.

    Another thought was that "you'd have to be careful as to what you count as hits to prevent sites from tricking the user into a couple of hits to their website, or some javascript to loop pages". I'm thinking of sites being automatically added only after a user has visited them on 10 separate days.

    It does not solve all issues but it makes it a damn sight easier to pick out when you are on a fake version of one of your favourite sites, which is the main issue as far as I can tell. Also, it requires little user effort (worst case, you do the one time action of bookmarking the sites you are worried might be spoofed).

    Finally an extra advantage of this method is that it helps prevent other types of spoofing, for example when fraudsters substitute ASCII characters (e.g. '0' for 'o').

    Anyway if you think it is a good idea feel free to spread it around as a suggestion to anyone who you think might be influential in development of any of the popular browsers. Or anyone good at writing plugins!

  199. For Anyone Interested, Exploit Exposed on OmniWeb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone is interested, this browser vulnerability does not work against OmniWeb, the third party browser for OS X. While it does display the spoofed URL in the PayPal example, it reveals the true server name in the title bar. OmniWeb also displays the true server name in the new "TSG" examples posted by the author.