Slashdot Mirror
There Is No Safe Web Browser
Michael writes "David Sheets has up an interesting article on browser security, and I have to agree with his conclusion: no web browser is safe. The article details the recent Netscape fiasco, and touches on the whole Firefox/Internet Explorer debate. From the article: 'So if it sounds as if we're all at the mercy of hackers just looking for some new challenge, that's partially true. As law enforcement officers will tell you, crime finds you if it wants you bad enough, no matter what preventative measures you take. But the vast majority of criminals have an Achilles' heel: They prefer convenience to challenge. For now, it's more convenient for them to pick on Internet Explorer.'"
As is telnetting to port 80 and interpreting the HTML in your head.
While I understand the point that Mr. Sheets is making, however, I disagree with his definition of safe.
The implication of this article stems in the absolutes of security: can it ward off intruders or not. This is a flawed approach, and while seemingly a logical one, denounces another reality of this level of breach: the lion's share of these breaches are not of the most malicious sort (read: that stupid data miner which causes popups, search bars from hell, etc). These kind of easily hackable sections of Internet Explorer are less prevalent in Firefox. Market forces of the sheer user base would dictate that if this were not so, more spyware would have been ported to Firefox by now. 25 million downloads, right? That's a sizable chunk for any malware vendor, or aspiring intruder, to infiltrate.
One must acknowledge the reality of security by statistics alongside security by absolutes.
The Crimson Dragon
I'd say this one is fairly safe...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
David Sheets has up an interesting article on browser security, and I have to agree with his conclusion: no web browser is safe
No program that accepts input is safe. Even some programs that don't accept input aren't safe either. It is the nature of how complex software really is and how little of it we understand.
...at least not one you'd want to use. Sorry people, Linux is not "safe." Mac OS/anything is not "safe." There are a very few OSs that are pretty safe, but the only reason Mac and Linux fans can brag right now is that they're ignoring all the patches, hacks, etc that already exist for their OS of choice.
TW
I think you could easily transfer these findings into the OS world. Mac's and Linux are generally safe because they are a much smaller target. It wouldn't make the news as quickly, or as widespread as it does when they hammer Windows with viruses. It is not only more convenient, but more damaging to flood Windows with viruses.
I would be willing to wager a very large bet that if Mac OS X was the industry leader there would be the same difficulties with viruses, and other criminal activities that are currently associated with Microsoft's products.
It also definitely comes down to how adept the user is too, and how knowledgeable they are in internet/computer security (such as not opening email attachments unless you know how sent it, or using up-to-date virus protection).
I think that this author has finally gotten it right. Note the increasing instances of popup ads that are tailored for firefox users etc.
As firefox gains in popularity, expect that the number of exploits aimed towards it will continue to rise.
That being said, the nice thing about firefox (and OSS), is that lots of eyeballs can look at, and fix, the code in a timely manner.
I'd give this article an Obvious -1 simply because it is axiomatic, and everybody should have realized by now that There is no 'safe' web browser. Especially how after it was demonstrated that a Firefox exploit allowed infection of IE when IE itself would have blocked the malware site. Cute!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Perhaps it needed to be said, but it seems to me like this post is a statement of the obvious.
I'm sure I'll be modded down for just posting my blunt thoughts in responst to the post.
Newsflash! There's no such thing as perfect security, who would have thought it? Whether it be through a flaw in the code (which we all try to fix, when they are found), or stupid users running crap they oughtn't.
I for one use Firefox, because it is MUCH more secure than IE. It may not be perfect, but it's by far good enough for regular use.
That's like saying that houses aren't secure, even the new model homes with electronic alarm systems. No crap, but that doesn't mean sell the alarm systems and leave your front door unlocked (like IE).
-Jesse, disliking alarmist poop articles.
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
When a webbrowser is integrated with the OS, this greatly increases the ways a hacker can damage the system. Hence, while no browser is secure, one can is MORE secure simply because it is NOT woven into the OS. Of course, having updates frequently and being in more active development are good things as well.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Don't forget to wear a condom for safe browsing...
Lynx had its fair share of vunerabilities also ....
Every had a user download a rootkit and mess with the system?
Only a sith lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.
Browsers can be totaly safe, as much as I hate to say it, IE can be pretty safe too. just follow these rules:
1:USE A FIREWALL
2: update your browser
3:disable ActiveX, any site that uses it is a site you should learn to live without.
4: (the one most often broken) DONT CLICK YES ALL THE TIME, warnings are there for a reason.
5: Dont DL and run STUPID executables
Most Browsers do a decent job of protecting you fron the bad stuff, but NOTHING can protect you from yourself, short of cutting the cable, and if you do that, dont run with scisors
A "manual" web browser is safe. That is, you print out and manually inspect all the data being transmitted, including all the HTTP headers and the what not. That way, if you see anything fishy, just burn the print out :)
Yeah, it's really hard to animate the flash stuff and streaming media though. Brings a whole new meaning to dropping frames.
Nobody is perfect => there is no perfectly safe browser, or any other type of application. What app, besides maybe "hello world", has never ever needed a security patch?
v =270
http://www.vrlteam.org/home.asp?vrl=advisories&ad
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
There's no safe browser? Wow, the next thing this guy will discover is that secure software doesn't exists and that all software has bugs. Welcome to the world of software development, dude.
AFAIK, Firefox has quite good security track and fixes things fast. That's what matters. Firefox is a "secure" browser by any measurements, and unlike other browsers, they deserve the reputation they have.
And one of the reasons why Firefox has security bugs is because it's a evolving product. Internet explorer however is a 3-years-old code base which has not changed almost nothing. Mozilla and firefox have been being updated for years to support modern standards etc, Internet explorer has done nothing.
(Actually, it's suprising that after so many time people still finds bugs in internet explorer. It shouldn't have so many bugs left - look at sendmail, bind etc, they're crappy software from a security POV, but their code base is _so_ old that it's very hard to find more security problems. Internet explorer must be really buggy to keep such bad security track)
Actually, it's more secure if you travel to the server where the information is stored, remove the hard drive, and perform forensics on it to determine what the data you are seeking is.
I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
Another bozo who sees security only in absolutes. Saying that there is no "safe web browser" is like saying there's pick-proof lock. Technically true, but should you secure your valuable with a $2 lock? Security is not about absolute guarantees, it's about making life as hard for the bad guys as you can manage. Mozilla-based browser have security holes, but at least their designers attempt to design them with security in mind. Internet Explorer, by contrast, does not have security designed in, and has cruddy QA to boot. Which is reflected in the dozen or so reported security problems in Mozilla, and the hundreds of reported security problems in IE.
It strikes me that the turnaround time for patches to Firefox is significantly quicker than many other options. After these little bugs were found, they had patches out in short order. While it may not be impregnable, at least they are plugging the holes faster.
If you mean: ``not the easiest target for the bad guys'', then most browsers are safe, most of the time.
I'd say that any browser which consistantly avoids being the lowest-hanging fruit is as close to safe as most of us need. To achieve that, all you need is a development team that emphasises security, even at the expense of convenience, and gets useful patches out, fast.
I can think of one browser with a large market share which fails both those tests, and I suspect there are several with smaller market shares which do fairly well on both those criteria.
See what I've been reading.
if you don't do proper bounds-checking on your "hello world" array, then you need a security patch...
[ducks and runs...]
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
What app, besides maybe "hello world", has never ever needed a security patch?
Hello World uses the C libraries. printf has been patched before, plenty of format string vulnerabilities.
All these "IE vs. Mozilla" or "IE vs. FireFox" or "Netscape vs. IE" or "Opera vs. IE" discussions (pick your poison) are irrelevant.
First off, it amazes me that I have run across paranoid *NIX sys admin friends who are very mindful of what runs as "root" on servers they control but then turn around and operate day to day on Windows desktops as an administrator.
Well, gee dip sh*ts, no wonder you're screwed if rogue code enters your system.
If people used limited accounts and then used impersonation (ever hear of "runas") under Windows, all of these discussions would go the way of the dodo bird.
More to the point they would be TRULY irrelevant. Sure send me to some baddie site, won't do much on my system. Whatever malware sent down the pipe to me can't do anything to change my system (C:\WINDOWS).
This is how I operate, i.e. a limited account desktop. The admin account is just that, for ADMINISTRATION, e.g., setting up new apps.
Amazingly, this approach is "novel" among even tech types since I keep hearig these discussions even on Slashdot.
The principle of least privilege is ANCIENT. Impersonation is part of Windows. Just as it is with other OSes.
The Windows NT kernel has had security since its inception. On the file system, registry as well as synchronization mechanisms such as mutexes, semaphores, etc.
Do you want to know why MS doesn't leverage it? Cost. Plain and simple. If WinAmp (which doesn't work under a limited account) stops working for someone on account of MS automatically setting up limited accounts for people, guess who is likely to start receiving support calls? "But it always worked on Windows 9x!!!"
Yes, it boils down to money. This is NOT a technical problem. MS alongside companies peddling its wares (Dell, Gateway et al) simply do not want to deal with the potential legacy costs of supporting misbehaved apps and/or apps whose designers were myopic and assumed the ability to write to any part of the file system and/or registry.
The great thing is, even with a limited account desktop you can still readily run WinAmp. You just have to know how.
All of this seems like "rocket science" to everyone. And I guess it is, since this discussion keeps rearing its head, namely browser security. The point is, a browser is another app that inherits default credentials from your login. Don't operate as administrator geniuses (sarcasm in case you didn't figure that out).
In the case of WinAmp. I simply defined an admin account that I leverage to run that application on my limited desktop (use the command line "runas" facility or change the properties on the shortcut through the "Advanced" button). I might mention that Shoutcast servers are capable of sending URLs (think JavaScript) that WinAmp will readily execute via IE totally disrespecting your browser choice. So taking another page from what Windows has offered from the start, I changed the ACLs for the IE executable such that my "WinAmp User" has absolutely no rights to the IE executable. Not even the ability to read that file. In this manner I short circuit this potential threat vector. In addition I changed the ACLs on C:\WINDOWS and some other directories so that this "WinAmp User" could only read from these directories.
Here's the moral of the story folks, use a limited account. Plain and simple. End of story. End of this not very worthwhile discussion (among tech people).
Yes I use LINUX, I use Cygwin's X server and readily use LINUX Mozilla complements of the latter. Not just a little, a lot. This IN ADDITION to the fact that I use a limited account for day to day activities.
I have never had spyware or a virus on my system. EVER.
-M
Sure lynx is safe, but let get serious for a moment. Does anyone think that your average user is going to switch to an all text browser that is no where near user friendly, loose their ability to view pictures, flash, and all the webs multimedia goodness for the sake of being safe? Don't get me wrong I have used lynx quite a bit but you won't find me on lynx when I just want to mindlessly surf and entertain myself. I want graphics, DHTML, JavaScript, CSS, and pretty layouts just as much as the next person. Call me not as hard-core but then, the whole point is trying to get your average users to use a "safer" browser right?
Perhaps the article should have concluded: There is no safe PRACTICAL browser.
0.5 percent of all web browser market share agree!
...
Plus, by turning off all those nasty things and having a non-standard browser, it's a lot harder to become infected - unless you actually click that link and save the file
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So.... I guess i should just change my browser identification string to say FireFox 1.04
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
A large number of browser exploits seemed to be based on buffer overflow issues, which is a result of manual memory allocation in lower-high-level languages such as C/C++. Perhaps if a web browser would be written in a language with automatic memory allocation and management, like Java, Perl, Tcl, and the like, we would see fewer security problems. C/C++ is good for systems programming, like low level graphics and OS libraries, but I dont think it is the ideal choice in many cases for applications.
"Market forces of the sheer user base would dictate that if this were not so, more spyware would have been ported to Firefox by now. 25 million downloads, right? That's a sizable chunk for any malware vendor, or aspiring intruder, to infiltrate."
If 1 hack hits 90% of the market, spending more money to get a hack for the rest may not be worth the effort even if Firefox has as many holes as IE. Simple economics.
Vote for Pedro
Microsoft agree upon some standards... it just happens that those standards disagree with other people's standards... :)
The source code for Firefox and Netscape are available. How much more convenient could it get for the hackers?
Deleted
just plugging a network cable into your computer suddenly makes it "unsafe". But Mac and Linux are significantly safer, which is an important distinction.
I've been managing Macs on the network for almost a decade, and have yet to deal with spyware. Viruses, I think I've had 5 or 6 incidents, and most of those were Word macro viruses, which are relatively benign on the Mac because of the different file system structure.
It's really rather sad that we've given in to the idea that writing secure large-scale software is essentially impossible. It's not. It's only impossible in the paradigm we use.
Here is how security works on every major OS and in every major programming language today:
Here's how it should work:
This is called Capability-Based Security. Hopefully it is easy to see why the latter would make security much easier to manage. If not, you can read this discussion of the concept.
CBS allows you to execute code without trusting it. In Unix, you'd have to create a new user with no permissions to run your code, which is way too much work for most purposes. In CBS, you can set up every single program to have a different set of permissions based on that program's needs. Furthermore, the program can internally manage those capabilities to insure that only a small amount of the program's own code has access to them. Then, as long as that code is secure, the program is secure, but even if it isn't, the worst it can do is abuse the capabilities you explicitly gave it.
How does this relate to web browsers? Well, a web browser really only needs the capability to render to its GUI window, read its install files, and read/write its config and cache. So don't give it any capabilities beyond that. Voila, now it does not matter what malicious program takes over your web browser, because it can't do a thing to your system.
Konqueror mostly, Mozilla on ocassion, Firefox on lesser occasions. I tend to like the swiss army knife abilities of konqueror (ftp, fish, far better tab control than Firefox without installing extensions, overall integration with kde, etc) over Mozilla and Firefox. I guess I pick Mozilla over Firefox because of composer and I'm just used to Mozilla a lot more than Firefox simply due to familiarity and length of use.
What I can state is that since I've been using Konqueror (khtml, like Apple's browser) on Linux, I've never had an issue with spyware or adware. Never. I've never had a problem with security, even though there have been security alerts for konqueror as well as the other browsers. Konqueror makes it simple to surf without images turned on (one button click on top of window without going into drop down boxes to turn images on), makes it simple to surf without javascript turned on (simple and fast two step process to turn it on for a web site, can specify in settings which web sites to turn on javascript by default if needed regularly), and makes it a satisfying all-around experience in using the web.
I help adjust/maintain/bugfix windows for another user and I just can't understand how windows users can possibly put up with the spyware/adware. Taking a look at server logs, I can't believe how many people's browsers are infected with FunWeb, something else "Fun", and other spyware.
If you are a windows user, do yourself a favor and visit a friend's website (after alerting them) and ask them to send you a copy of the log entry from your visit. If your browser is infected with spyware, it just may show up as part of the browser identifier.
The ability of spyware/adware to infect a windows computer is a serious security problem. If you've been infected, you are running a system that is insecure. Please re-read that last sentence. If you've been infected with spyware/adware, you are running a system that is insecure.
I telnetted to port 80 once, and interpreted the HTML in my head.
Unfortunately there was a infinitely recursive Java script function on there.
I'm still not quite myself.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Ways to browse safely:
1) Use a browser that has no design or implimentation bugs. Not gonna happen with any modern full-featured browser.
2) Browse in a "disposable" sandbox environment - possible with adequate firewalls, but not going to happen on most home PCs any time soon.
3) Browse in a read-only environment, with output limited to the screen, legitimate requests for web pages, and temporary disk space. A firewall will need to reject any illegitimate port-80 outbound traffic. This is the best solution for kiosks.
Even these conditions aren't immune from server- or DNS-level compromises to hostile fake web pages that trick users into revealing personal information.
#2 is the most realistic medium-term home-user solution - the OS should put the web browser in a "jail," restirct its network permissions, and only let it and its helper programs read and write to certain directories while browsing, limit CPU utilization, and otherwise protect the machine. Configuration changes and other "out of jail" activities can be done by an auxilliary special-purpose (less code = less change of bugs and general weirdness) process in a separate memory space. Jails is they should be easy to "terminate with extreme prejudice" should the need arise.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That's one serious difference, you can turn off Java and Javascript in all the browsers, but when you do it to IE, you kill all the other Microsoft apps that also use scripting, which leads you to turn it back on and leave it.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
The FIRST aspect of "security" is limiting the avenues of attack. You sort of touched on that, but I'll say it explicitly.
If FireFox doesn't run ActiveX, then that is one avenue that is NOT available for an attack.
As others have pointed out, lynx is very secure and that is because it completely blocks so many avenues of attack.
Exactly. Now, from TFA:
If they say that, then they are wrong.
Look at the typical junkie on the street. He's be happy to rob a bank. But the bank's security system is beyond his capabilities to SUCCESSFULLY attack.
So he picks easier targets with LOWER payoffs (mugging pedestrians).
Which brings me to the SECOND aspect of security: Build the defenses on the available avenues to defeat the attacks.
Sure, there are criminals out there who can pick any lock and defeat any alarm system. But they are very few and very far between. The odds that you, specifically, will be targetted by one of them is less than the odds of you winning the lottery.
So, contrary to what TFA says, crime will NOT find you if it wants you bad enough. It has to want you bad enough AND be intelligent enough AND be skilled enough.
Sort of. More accurately, they're lazy. The "vast majority" will NOT spend time and effort to learn how to bypass alarm systems. If there's an easier target, they'll go for it.
If your (and your neighbor's) defenses are more than they can bypass, they'll leave the area.
No. While it is more "convenient", that is NOT the reason that IE is subject to all the attacks.
The reason is that the level of skill/intelligence required to successfully attack IE is SO VERY LOW. ANYONE with a bit of programming skill can write an exploit for IE.
Sure, any junkie can get a knife, and a knife is good enough for a mugging. But that knife isn't going to get you very far in a bank robbery.
Again, it isn't about the POTENTIAL targets.
It's all about the AVAILABLE targets in your SKILL RANGE.
Which is why Open Source has such a great security rep. There aren't any market forces or deadlines to deal with. It's ready when it is ready.
This gets back to your statement on statistics and "the absolutes of security".
Sure, my system is vulnerable.
An attacker has to get to Seattle.
And into the office building.
And disable the cameras.
And disable the alarm system.
And break into the office.
And blow the server room door.
And then steal the server.
I'm not losing any sleep.
Now, if well we can say that no matter how unsafe is to climb the himalaya with beach clothes compared with staying in your house (a meteor could fell over you, after all) you are not complelely safe, these are very different kind of probabilities, and experience tolds us that in average you are i.e. far unsafe playing with MS IE/Outlook/Windows than with Firefox/Opera/Thunderbird/Linux.
The safest web browser is the one nobody else is using.
Isn't this missing the point. Just because the Windows/Firefox combination has some insecurities does not mean Firefox is equally insecure on Linux/OS X. How can it be? The exploits attributed to Firefox so far are largely confined to the Windows platform. That's the real issue. I'm tired of listening to claims that OSS is insecure simply because there are problems with the Windows version. OSS should be evaluated in its natural environment - Linux/*BSD/OS X.
What about lynx?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
They prefer convenience to challenge. For now, it's more convenient for them to pick on Internet Explorer.
It's not really a question of convenience, it's that Internet Explorer is on a majority of Windows systems. If you're a criminal trying to exploit a browser vulnerability, wouldn't you pick the most-used browser? It's a better return on investment.
Is anyone aware of any Safari (OS X web browser) vulnerabilities, especially exploited ones?
I think the fact that OS X throws up an auth login whenever any app tries to access a directory that the current user doesn't own, pretty much makes casual takeover difficult, even by an insecure web browser...
I agree with you, you shouldn't need tons of experience for running various appslications. However you can BLAME companies such as Nullsoft, Trillian and even Intuit for not taking into consideration the platform their software is operating on and adjusting accordingly.
These misbehaveed applications is the critica reason MS doesn't push the use of limited accounts more (easy enough to setup when a contemporary version of Windows was being installed).
It all goes back to what I said in my original posting, MS and PC companies do not want to absorb the cost of supporting legacy and/or misbehaved applications.
Plain and simple.
This computer "weenie" makes his living educating the uninitiated about this stuff... and Lord knows, there's no shortage of laziness in this world (generally speaking). Getting people to learn anything (not just computers) seems to always be a challenge, e.g., the USA still suck under the English system of weights distances, volumes. And yes I live in the USA.
-M
PS: The gene pool could use some chlorine.
There is such a thing as safe programming.
There are safe languages.
There exists formal methods.
There are best practices in programming.
There exists tools for source code verification.
If you program and don't care about any of these things, hey, guess what - you're 20 years behind in your programming practices and your reading list. Even if you program in C, you can adopt better practices (*).
90% or more of the problems related to software security spring from C/C++ hacking without any method of program verification for correctness. Just read a security site vulnerabilities list.
If only people were to program: medical; military; aerospace software like Firefox or IE programmers, the we'd all be dead one way or another by now.
(*) see OpenBSD for instance and compare their security advisories with Linux or Microsoft.
PS: Just one such example of a little used tool: CIL - Infrastructure for C Program Analysis and Transformation
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts