Slashdot Mirror
IE Vulnerable to Cross-Browser Spyware Attack
An anonymous reader writes "The Register reports that Firefox can be used to infect IE on Windows. By visiting a malicious site with Firefox, a user can infect their install of Internet Explorer. Other alternative browers may expose the same vulnerability. The article quotes the CTO of ScanSafe as saying that '[j]ust switching away from IE does not give adequate projection. Now that Firefox and other alternative browsers have a toehold in the market the hacking community will get busy exploiting the vulnerabilities that exist in any complex browser.'" VitalSecurity's report points out that this vulnerability can (only) affect Windows users who use Sun's Java Runtime Environment.
IF you're running Java and you click 'Yes' to the security warning...
"IE vulnerable to new attack" - shouldn't we find some sort of shorthand for this, since it happens so often?
I have to imagine Slashdot's bandwidth saving would be enormous.
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
Yeah, I'll get right on that Timothy. Removing IE is so easy on Windows.... Not like it's built into the OS or anything.
This guy is way out there
The spyware installs itself using Java. It's not browser-specific; you can infect IE using Mozilla, Opera, IE, etc.
There _is_ a dialog box, since the applet is unsigned. I tried signing it with my certificate; it installed itself without prompting. I believe it uses some sort of JRE exploit.
The article title/summary focuses more on how IE is to blame rather than the real root of the problem, which appears to be Java. I realize this is Slashdot and its Microsoft, but come on.
It's important to identify that if this is not a browser thing, but a Sun JRE thing, any Java-enabled program that can come in contact with the installer applet could potentially infect your system.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
IE can already be infected by plugins and downloads from other browsers. My sister (whom I have confined to Firefox) likes to play those goddamn Neopets games, which require Shockwave. After installing it, the Yahoo! toolbar had managed to place itself into IE somehow, even when IE hadn't been used for months.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
from the if-you-must-run-windows-remove-ie dept.
f ault.aspx
Really? The microsoft website oftens blocks browsers other than IE from downloading updates and whatnot.
You CAN'T just remove IE. You need it. Just try to update office on firefox for example:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officeupdate/de
1. You can't win
2. You can't break even
3. You can't get out of the game
4. No matter how hard you shake it, the last drop always rolls down your pant leg.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
Sure they'll fix it ... by silently uninstalling Firefox using their next IE "this fixes numerous security flaws" super-updates.
By visiting a malicious site with Firefox, a user can infect their install of Internet Explorer.... VitalSecurity's report points out that this vulnerability can (only) affect Windows users who use Sun's Java Runtime Environment.
So, the attack happens through Sun's JVM, affects IE, and consequently has nothing to do with Firefox, which was inserted into the article for maximum troll capability.
I know there's been a fair share of MS-bashing already but I just can't resist... It's pretty funny that IE is so insecure that its security holes exist in other programs :)
the installer escapes Java's sandbox
No. The user unlocks and opens the door, THEN the exploit escapes.
All the systems are working as designed. It is the user who opens the door.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
This has nothing to do with Firefox or the JRE, nor IE. The JRE's security manager properly issues are warning that the user is about to run arbitrary code. It's like an email worm. The user's interaction and ignorance is need to spread the thing.
Though rather than just asking, "Do you want to trust this applet", they should be a bit more explicit, "Trusting this applet will give it unrestricted access to your machine, and can install or change files, and access other computers through the network."
"Monday".
There are two types of Java applets: signed and unsigned. Unsigned applets run in a sandbox inside your Web browser. A Java exploit would be an unsigned applet that could "get out" and do something malicious. This doesn't seem to be an unsigned applet.
Signed applets don't run inside a sandbox. A signed applet can do anything that any other executable program can do; including formatting your disk or installing spyware. They are not any safer than programs written in C or assembly language.
--Steve
As other people have noted, you still have to say "yes, bone me". But people don't expect a Java applet (since it's normally firewalled) to be dangerous, so they're more likely to say "yes".
If allowing an unrestricted Java applet to run is just as dangerous as installing and running an application, then the dialog box should reflect that. If Firefox is going to make you manually approve sites that you're going to allow XPI installs from, and *then* run a countdown in the warning dialog, they need to be at least as thorough about any other operation that takes you outside the sandbox.
No this is not really a Java issue either. This is a social engineering issue.
The JRE pops up it's "Warning" dialog, like its supposed to . It displays to the user that it cannot verify who signed this, that the cert is out of date etc, like its supposed to . It displays a warning reccomending that you NOT say yes and install the applet, like its supposed to . So when you ignore all of that and say yes, you deserve to get infected. I mean, what do you want, another dialog asking "Are you sure?".
I mean 3 big yellow exclaimation marks? I've never seen that even in the most unstable of development environments.
Oh and BTW, if you say yes to a Java applet in this instance, it runs as a local application without a security manager. This is not a 'hole' it is what it is supposed to do. When you say yes, that's what you're saying 'yes' to.
Now if people were taught not to do that the same way their are taught not to run arbitrary files sent to them via e-mail, this wouldn't be a problem. (That's sarcasm BTW)
In the end, the problem is the goof behind the keyboard that is willing to say 'Yes' to run applications they don't know about and that the JRE itself warns them at least 3 times in 3 ways not to run.
How do you defend against that?
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Never been to Tennessee have you?