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?
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).
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.
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.
Oh, yes. Let's remove a spyware infection by "wiping out the home directory" because that "would usually fix you right up." Excellent solution. It's like using a flamethrower to get at that pesky mosquito. No, the proper solution is anti-virus style threat control systems for Web browsers. Systems that scan incoming traffic and look for malicious code, then say something like "I've detected what looks like malicious code. Please think carefully, and go forward only if you trust the site sending you this code." It won't be easy, but it's not a bad option. Snort provides an excellent model. Think of a browser or browser add-on that constantly updates threat signatures from a central repository. Or just think of the current anti-virus software model.
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.
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.
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.
First thing--I disagree with the tactic of calling anything one disagrees with "FUD." If there was ever an overused term around here, that one would be it.
/usr, /usr/bin/, /usr/shared/bin, /usr/local, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/local/bin...and that's just the executable, not even getting into whatever configuration files it might have left which could be in /etc, a .directory in ~, and so on. Thankfully, most Linux users don't run as root, but there are still PLENTY of ways a program can exploit someone without needing root access. If Linux was #1, we'd see all kinds of crap getting installed on people's Linux systems, and you'd have fun exploring the entire UNIX filesystem hierarchy fishing it out, possibly even dealing with self-propagating shell scripts to keep moving it around. Fun for everyone.
Second, Linux would most definitely have exploits galore. We've already seen outright kernel exploits and holes in the 2.6 series of kernels. I don't know about you, but I don't even remember there being a Windows security flaw that used the kernel. Go to LinuxSecurity and witness the stream of security advisories that are announced for each Linux distro, much more than the Windows patches we get on the second Tuesday of each month. These advisories very rarely make Slashdot front page news.
And no, it's not an unfair comparison to put a Linux distro and a Windows install on the same level. Just because the Linux distro ships with more software doesn't matter. If someone buys Mandrake, uses the software it came with, and then gets exploited, that is an exploit of the Mandrake software distribution that they bought with their distro.
People like to compare a single kernel to the entire Windows operating system, and in the next breath argue about how Linux is "just a kernel." So it's all the more amusing when some people argue that there's a difference between a Linux distro and Windows. There's not.
On a *nix based system, wiping out the home directory would usually fix you right up.
Bollocks. The UNIX "filesystem standard" fragments things way more than Windows does. With Windows, you know a few places to look for a malicious program to get rid of it--\Windows, \Windows\System, \Program Files, and so on. There aren't a lot of places. Linux, on the other hand? Where do you look?
Believe me, malicious software writers would find a way you haven't thought of to screw people. That's what they do.
Well, I had mod points to use, but I thought your comment merits an explanation rather than modding you down, so here goes. In Windows (2K, XP), if you are running as a normal (non-admin) user, then deleting the users profile should always remove any spyware infection. In fact, due to the way most spyware is written it will not even be able to infect your system if you are not running as an admin. I suppose there could be exceptions that take advantage of escalation exploits, but I have yet to see one. The root of the problem is that most people don't even know it's possible to not log in as administrator. The inherent advantage on a un*x system is that account and privilege separation is ingrained into the mind of the operator and the design of the system. Any un*x user with the smallest clue does not run regularly as root and is suspicious of anything that requires root privilege. The modern (not 9x based) Windows OS's all support this functionality also, but you really have to be an experienced admin to run a system this way. This is without question a deficiency not in the base OS, but in the policies of software developers (MS is very much included). Simply put, as long as the user browses the web at the same privilege they install software, these kinds of infections will continue. This is regardless of your browser.
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.
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.
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...