Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla / Firefox Memory Exposure Vulnerability

Posted by timothy on from the mine-sure-is-vulnerable dept.

JimmyM writes "Secunia has a story regarding a new severe vulnerability in the Mozilla Suite and Firefox browser, which can be exploited by any web site to read all memory, which the browser process has access to. No patch is available from Mozilla. A demonstration is available here."

4 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Confusing write-up by cjsnell · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can a remote site actually get access to this information, or is it only displayable on the screen?

    The data is being displayed within a TEXTAREA box, so it's probably as simple as adding an onClick="javascript:document.form.submit();" (or onMouseOver, etc.) to the document.

    Yes, this is very dangerous.

  2. I'm shocked! by samael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to recall that every time an IE bug appeared people would say that Mozilla was much more secure, and that it wasn't just that IE was targetted by hackers because of the popularity, but that the software was inherently more secure.

    But now it seems there are patches for Mozilla every few weeks for _exactly_ the same kind of problems that IE used to get slated for.

    Is Mozilla actually more secure? Or is it just as bad as any other piece of software?

    --
    My Journal
  3. Re:Did the Mozilla/Firefox guys ignore a warning? by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the bugzilla bug report (copy it, they disallow /. links):

    Opened: 2005-04-01 13:40 PDT
    Last modified: 2005-04-01 22:39 PDT
    Resolution: FIXED

    So yes they did, it was fixed in under 10 hours, and published 3 days later.

  4. comma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    which can be exploited by any web site to read all memory, which the browser process has access to

    I don't normally complain about the grammar and punctuation of submitters and editors, but in this case it is too significant. The difference between

    read all memory, which the browser process has access to

    and

    read all memory which the browser process has access to

    Is profound. The first form says that the browser has access to all memory. The second form says that the web site has access to all the memory to which the browser also has access. Catching and fixing stuff like this is what an editor does. If Slashdot's people can't do that, then don't call them editors. Call them "Dudes Who Click Approve," or something like that.