Slashdot Mirror
Spyware for Firefox Coming This Year?
EvilCowzGoMoo writes "One of the main reasons for the Firefox browser's successful seizure of market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer is the desire to escape the inundation of PC-slowing spyware. However, spyware experts indicate that with its increased popularity, Firefox itself will become a target for spyware creators." From the article: "Basically, if you use Firefox today, you're not susceptible to any spyware, other than what you download when you're on Kazaa...The spyware writers target mostly Explorer users because that's the most fertile feeding ground for piranha-like (spyware) attacks. They'll watch as Firefox becomes mainstream, they'll see opportunity there and start targeting them."
IE's spyware problems were largely due to exploits. Someone not up to date with patches could visit a website and have something remotely installed pretty easily.
For Firefox, though, it'll take social engineering. The place to look for the spyware threats is in the brand new extension you WANT to install. Most Firefox users have at least one extension, and many have a dozen. How do you know what each of those is doing behind your back? Most people don't bother to scan the code, and while some may do so and report problems publicly, will you find out about them? A firewall won't even help you in this situation since you've probably given Firefox free access to port 80 (plus 443, etc).
Mozilla should probably create some sort of permission system for extensions. Can it connect to a remote server? Can it write to disk?
How is this news? If Linux was the #1 desktop operating system in the world, spyware authors would be targeting it, too.
Since xpi's are blocked by default, they're going to get there how? By a javascript dialogue that says "You must allow this installation to continue."?
:(
Hmm. That's probably exactly how it'll happen.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
good, help to improve it
Imagine a whole company full of coders looking into code to find loopholes to exploit. [Tt]hat's what they'll end up doing! Sure, the firefox developers will be fast about plugging holes the minute they find them, but people are bound to get a little upset by getting hammered (ie) once every week, then having to patch their browser weekly...
Yeah, I'm a Republican AND a geek. It is possible.
While the spyware makers may initially try to target Firefox... the fact is, Firefox is written to prevent just these sort of things. Is it possible there will be bugs that allow unauthorized code to run? Yeah... but they will be patched, and patche quickly.
Overall, no matter how you slice it, Firefox is more secure and is designed from the ground up to prevent the "fertile feeding ground" that IE offers Spyware writers.
So no, you aren't going to see the same rampant irresponsibility that you see with IE, and the threat is a tempest in a teapot.
Of course, nothing is going to protect your computer from your own stupidity when opening executables, etc... that's all on the user whether or not they authorize code to run or not.
As soon as Firefox supports ActiveX, it supports spyware.
Solution: don't enable ActiveX (duh)
Security is a process, not a product. There is no magical one product or suite of products that will protect you while online. Security is risk mitigation, plain and simple. Far less people would be vulnerable to the tricks of the miscreants out there trying to do people harm if they would just employ a little common sense. But, alas, common sense isn't that common.
The issue isn't really how many people are using it. That certainly does figure into it, but the very basic design philosophy of IE allows spyware to propogate easily.
Firefox has far better controls on what programs can be installed and can't be. Also, the very multi-platform nature of the code makes it harder to write an app that will work well.
I'm not worried. On the IE side, the only people who can fix the code are microsoft drones, and they won't do it. On the firefox side, the people who fix the code are the people who use it, namely us.
Planet-GeekEvent Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
"The only reason why X has $BAD_THING is because the system is popular. I'm 100% certain when Y has such popularity it too will have such problems." -- while ignoring any design differences that make Y less suceptable to $BAD_THING. Firefox is better designed from the ground up. Not saying that it's bullet-proof (it's not...), just less suceptable and less desirable to target. Would you rather target a locked door with an alarm system, or a door that's wide open and no security measures taken?
Karma whorin' since 1999
"Bring it on"
How's Firefox supposed to get even more resistant to exploits if hackers aren't sitting there trying the exploit the heck out of it?
Trial by fire. There's a reason it started out as Phoenix.
Fact is, things won't be exactly the same if FF gets a bigger market share. It's not the same product. Articles like these are written by Microsoft apologists.
If the market is indeed split into two major parts, this is actually a bad thing, because it gives you only two huge targets. That makes it easier and less expensive to create viruses, or take over computers for monetary purposes.
What we need is several browsers that each have a significant part of the market. Not just IE and Firefox/Gecko based browsers, but also Opera and KHTML based browsers. Maybe there would be room for even more as well.
It is good that an alternative browser is growing rapidly, but monoculture or duoculture makes life easier for virus makers. With four browsers, it would take four times the effort to get as much "bang for your buck" for virus authors looking to make money by infecting people.
Clever signature text goes here.
Don't forget-these dire predictions come from AV software makers, who have an interest in keeping you scared.
Heh, when spyware makers really do begin to actively target Firefox users en masse, maybe a toast is in order. Pop open the bubbly! Why? Because spyware and spam are playing a numbers game. Of all the spam sent out and machines infested with spyware, only about 1 percent of those are going to make any money for the exploiter. But because we're talking about total numbers in the tens of millions at least, that 1 percent is good money.
So when Firefox becomes worth the effort, the folks in Redmond will really have to worry. In this game, nothing flags success like being the target of abuse! Tens of millions of Firefox users might just mean ten of millions of people considering something other than Windows. And that affects the bottom line for Microsoft. Hmmm, anyone heard of any OpenOffice exploits yet?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I doubt that this is true. Apache has a greater market share than IIS. There are more exploits and worms for IIS than there are for Apache.
You may be safe if you are small. You are safer if your design takes security into account up front, and that design remains intact through implementation.
Windows is insecure by design. Therefore, there are windows exploits. Unix, Linux, and MacOS X were designed with multi-user security in mind from the beginning; they are more secure than Windows.
Nevertheless, Stiennon also indicated the creators, maintainers, and even users of Firefox will quickly and aggressively step up their anti-spyware efforts along with the increased threat. "The people who use Firefox -- their reaction to any spyware-type attacks will be pretty vehement," he said. "There'll be fast reaction from both Firefox developers and users."
;)
I think this part sums up the beauty of Firefox, and the reason why I don't think this is any sort of cause for alarm:
There is a whole community of brilliant frickin' people out there who have taken a personal interest in making sure Mozilla products are secure & as bug-free as possible. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that they might look at Firefox as "their baby."
More importantly, some of these individuals are well-versed with the shadier aspects of software...so I predict Firefox security holes being patched as quickly as they're found.
Not only that, but I don't see many Firefox users (especially not those that have used it since its early days) taking spyware/adware lightly...turning the other cheek or throwing hands up in frustration don't seem to be personality traits of bastards like us
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
Firefox doesn't rely on security through obscurity. It relies on security through process and architectural improvements, the same way anything should. Nobody has made any claims of perfection, simple of a superior process and architecture coupled with a much faster response time. So far, that has proven to be true.
...same old argument: spyware experts indicate that with its increased popularity, Firefox itself will become a target Like when they say Unix/Linux is just as insecure as anything else, it just doesn't have a large enough userbase for viruses/trojans/spyware/whatever to be fashionable.
I don't doubt snippets written to exploit Firefox's vulnerabilities will pop up, eventually in larger numbers. But that does not make the above argumentation any more valid, nor any less stupid. And we've been trhough argumentations about that, so I'll just skip that one.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
"Their expert is the Vice President of Threat Research at Webroot. That much is from the article. The article doesn't take the next logical step, however, and point out that Webroot is in the business of developing and selling software to prevent, detect and eleminate spyware. So it's certainly in this guy's interest for people to think that spyware is still a problem."
At the same time, to be fair, his current position _is_ researching spyware - it is likely that he has a good understanding of it.
What kind of source would be an "independent third party" that would be reliable? Clearly, Firefox and anti-virus/anti-spyware are out - where does that leave us when looking for an authority on the subject of spyware in Firefox? That isn't a rhetoric question; I'm not sure where I'd go if I wanted to back up my own observations with an authoritative source.
Stats from your personal blog or whatever don't report an accurate display of browser dispersion.
Since mostlikely your site is a geek related site, sure there will be more firefox and mozilla users, geeks are more likely to use them. We need to see stats from non-technical sites cnn.com, expedia.com, etc... to see the real trend.
..isn't the malware authors. It isn't the browser authors. It's the web designers.
Sorry, but it is. The direction is toward more whiz-bang on pages. Flash. Shockwave. More stuff that makes people say "ooh...pretty."
And it all runs off of plugins. So users get used to seeing popups for "hey, this needs a plugin to run. Click here to get it" or warning messages "hey, this site is trying to run scripts. You OK with that?" And they get numb to it.
Sure, a more secure and harder-to-exploit-without-explicit-consent browser is a good thing. But until people stop writing pages that REQUIRE you to run code locally to view them, there will be exploits. The users are always the weak point--this is why e-mail viruses continue to exist.
And until page authors start toning down the whiz-bang stuff, users will continue to "get used to" these warnings and either turn them off because they're annoying, or simply click "OK" without reading them.
That and OSS has coders that aren't being hamstrung by marketing weasels. If something is awesome, but would take too long to develop ("cost too much"), an OSS developer can still do it if he wants.
What guarantee do we have that the people looking at the code are even qualified to review? What insurance do we have against their work if it goes wrong?
None, same as closed source developers. No company will pay you, either voluntarily or in a lawsuit, for bugs in their code; neither will OSS. Read your EULAs.
Who's accountable?
Nobody, same as closed source developers. Both have reputations to uphold, but commercial developers only care about their reputation as a means to profit. If they can make money without bothering to have a good reputation, they will.
One advantage is that OSS developers have a reputation they would like to uphold. If they write crappy/insecure code, people stop using their code. Closed source developers will often say "well, it works, and it sells, so.." and let the developer stay on, making more bugs.
I hate to be an "I told you so", but I could have predicted that XPI would be the first line of attack for people when I first heard of it.
Why can't a browser simply be a browser anymore?
All it needs to do is render html, optionally show pictures, and supply widgets for forms.
That is it.
Clever signature text goes here.
It's *rare* that I talk to ACs, especially ones who present themselves as asshat blowhards as you've done repeatedly (here and to the two responses to your 'question'.) But I s'pose it's fun to stir the poo sometimes, and you definitely count.
Anecdotally, I don't have security issues with my Windows boxes when I use Firefox. When my wife uses IE, I find myself removing spyware. For me, in my experience, Firefox is more secure. You may write that off as a niche user in a niche market, but fuck you anyways, AC.
As far as other people, STFW - there's plenty of other people reviewing the ways and means which make Firefox less exploitable than IE. Type 'Firefox IE more secure' into Google and see which way the order comes out on your links. I know you won't, since you're just trolling, but maybe somebody reading this will and learn something.
Back under the bridge with you, then.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Sure, Firefox will be attacked. But the implications of a successful attack are much less likely to disrupt the whole system - Firefox is a self-contained application with pretty good controls for avoiding non-trusted XPIs from being installed. IE is really just the front-end for a whole series of system-level tools that are, for better or for worse, completely linked in to the OS itself.
So the consequences of an IE exploit are typically far worse than the consequences of a Firefox exploit. This is just how it works with modular applications instead of system-level everything.
Of course, if you run ActiveX within Firefox, all bets are off...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I could download something off of a P2P that, when I ran it, would find my Firefox profile folder, install the malware files, and modify my configuration files directly to turn it on. The uesr would never know, especially if it gave itself an innocent looking name in the Extensions list.
/f /s /q". Would you call that a Firefox vulnerability as well?
You could also download something from a P2P network that replaced your Firefox shortcut with one to a batch file that contained the command "echo y | del c:\*
And how is that a Firefox problem? You can download and execute any old crap, and whose fault is it other than your own? The point is whether the browser allows sites to push executable content to your machine without your knowledge.
I find it's the cumulative effects of lots of XPI extensions that really make browsing with FireFox enjoyable.
I use adblock, the Sage RSS reader, Spellbound spell checker, GMail notifier and FoxyTunes.
If all it did was what you suggest, may as well go back to Mosaic. I really enjoy the customisations I can do to get the browser I want.
I also develop web sites for a living. The reason we have ActiveX, Java, Flash, Javascript, DHTML it because it needs to do more than render HTML.
The fact is that for some things successful and useful website use this stuff, and need to use this stuff to give a good user experience. They are, of course, also horribly abused no doubt about it. Trade off for a more useful web. If you don't think it's worth it, you can run FireFox without any plugins, or a text only browser.
I'll be off enjoying the web, and being careful what I install.
Muslim terrorists are not fighting the Great Satan because of Levis jeans and MTV and American imperialism. They are fighting to establish a worldwide caliphate under Islamic law, through coercive force, using asymmetrical tactics that target civilians with the intent of scaring them into compliance.
i.e., a bully. And it works, too, at least on silly liberals with Pollyanna views of the world and who take terrorists at their word when they claim that it's American imperialism that makes them strap bombs to retarded kids.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Too bad an XPI can't be installed without direct use intervention, eh? Kinda defeats the purpose of spyware. Of course, that doesn't guard against social engineering, but it significantly reduces the problem...
I'd disagree, I am not saying that Mozilla support 100% perfectly the w3c's standards, but then they are constantly working towards supporting as much of it as reasonably possible (some of the more esoteric areas of the CSS specification will probably never be fully supported). Microsoft OTOH had pretty much just left IE to rot until relatively recently (infact their main motivation for modernising it seems to be the rise of FireFox), but even when IE7 is released it will only be made available to either >Longhorn or >XP users (I don't recall which).
I strongly disagree, for the end user propriatary extensions to the HTML/XHTML specifications are not a good thing, it means they're restricted to viewing a site on a particular browser which is unnecessarily taking choice away from them.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...
I assume you're referring about agreeing to work off a single specification telling them what markup and such to support... this is the goal of the w3c is, and they've got many specifications which browsers are supposed to aim to follow. The Mozilla team seem to be trying to follow these specifications but Microsoft seem content to just do their own thing and/or only do a half-arsed implementation of certain specifications.
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
I've been trying to tell people this for years. Whatever browser is the most popular will have the most software attack it. Same with your operating system.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Congratulations, you've reinvented tripwire :)
Granted, I don't personally know of a Windows port of it, but that doesn't mean anything...
In my experience, people who claim such things--that evil American culture is to blame--are just projecting their own trendy counterculturalism onto others. It makes people feel intellectual and clever to criticize mainstream society.
That's why they can defend certain Islamic societies that brutalize women and employ extreme conservative governments, all the while "standing up" for women's rights and liberalism in America. The contradiction in values always confused me until I realized why they did it. It's another way to "go against the grain" and feel enlightened.
Doesn't apply to everybody, but I'd say a good portion.
Who said anything about Levis and MTV? I never said that it was our "culture" that the terrorists are opposed to.
It is not our culture, but rather our FOREIGN POLICY.
Our government propping up leaders and overthrowing elected governments and things like that, ALL OVER THE WORLD, is what has caused Terrorism to flourish.
Ask ourselves these simple questions: Why Did Osama Bin Laden switch sides? What caused him to stop working FOR the United States and start working Against it? Where did Iraq get all the weapons that they are now shooting at our sons and daughters? Why are people starving in Cuba but Castro is doing fine? Why did we really oust the Taliban from Afghanistan? Do people in other cultures really *want* democracy forced on them?
Generally attacks come to places that have American interests or places that help American interests. But also, there is one thing people seem to overlook - How come no one hates Canada (besides Canadians...)? How come no one burns Swiss flags in protest?
The United States government has a long history of meddling and pushing. Both Republican and Democrat. We have pushed with Military Might. We have meddled with covert actions. We have coerced with financial influence. That is why we are targets for Terrorism.
They don't "hate our freedom and liberty" - they hate our government. And they see the American people who continue to support the governments policies, and who pay tax dollars to fund those policies - as enemy combattants.
The Levis and MTV are just icing on the cake. Just one more reason for them to hate us.
People in the USA are just as guilty of religious fundamentalism, and just as guilty of killing in the name of religion. More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than any other single cause. People resent that over time...
System file protection is a joke. It is just a defense against poorly written, but well intended, installers. If you can modify kernel32.dll you can easily make the same change to the two backup copies before SFP gets around to restoring it.