Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 DoS Exploit
An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust Security are reporting on a new exploit for Firefox which apparently affects all versions of the browser from 1.0.7 down. From the article: "If this exploit has made it out into, or indeed been retrieved from the wild is unknown at this time. However it is clear that this exploit will indeed need patching as soon as possible.""
I checked out the Mozilla site -- not a peep about it. I made a post there. I figure this one totally right hooked them. It's a pretty massive crash. Just makes the whole browser lock up. At least I know they'll fix it fast though...I think in 24 hours we'll see a turn around. Anyone try this with version 1.5?
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 is also vunerable.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Why are there so many nice hackers in the world? Willing to spend their time finding exploits, post them, and even a "safe" example. Do they take pride in helping the surfing community? Why don't they just hijack the world's browsers and make us choose between "Yes" and "Okay" on their PayPal deposit sites?
Where are the evil hackers, or have they all converted, scared about stiff http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4249780.stm penalties?
~jennifer.k~
. . . RTFA,
milw0rm.com have released proof of concept code for a denial of service exploit which apparently affects all versions of the Mozilla Foundations popular Firefox browser from version 1.0.7 downward.
Remember, on Slashdot always read the article, it is generally only a coincidence if the summary has any bearing on the actual linked text.
How long has a webpage that makes a browser crash been called a "Denial Of Service Exploit".
A browser that can be crashed is a very bad thing, but suggesting this is some sort of "Denial Of Service" attack, is just semantics. It doesn't crash the box, and it doesn't flood/break the network. Every other service on your machine runs as normal. That's not a Denial Of Service by the usual definition of the term.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
What follows is the source code made avaliable on the site.
:(
Mozilla
# milw0rm.com [2005-10-16]
I have 1.0.7 and it caused me to crash
Have you metaroderated recently?
There isn't much incentive for malicious people to crash people's browsers.
The wording from the security company has me thinking they're just trying to make a name for themselves.
This can freeze your browser.
Wheres the vulnerability? when does the spyware attack? Do I need to reinstall Windows?
Should I buy a virus checker?
Anyone stupid enough to host this "exploit" on their site are just dumb,
"oooooh it makes your firefox freeze" BFD - stay away from dodgy parts of the net
(goatse is a bigger "exploit" and generally leads to complete machine shutdown/restart as you attempt to hide it from your colleagues)
liqbase
And after I clicked on it, nothing happened, the browser just said: mozilla
Apparently firfox 1.0.7 on linux is not affected. So not all versions of firefox are affected.
Advisory: Install linux, then restart your browser and have fun.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
The exploit is:
t ml>
<html><body><strong>Mozilla<sourcetext></body></h
and it also makes Mozilla suite 1.7.12 hang.
The sourcetext tag is used when a parser error occurs; the Mozilla DOMParser will accept any string and always returns a valid XML DOM object, but in the case that the string was malformed, it returns something like this:
<parsererror xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </strong>. Location: file:///1253.html Line Number 3, Column 37:<sourcetext> (text here) </sourcetext></parsererror>
which you may have seen formatted before in a nice red-on-yellow page.
I guess I'll just stick with Konqueror.
Despite the article summary if you click through and read it you'd find that there is code out there.
Danger Will Robinson test your firefox Danger Will Robinson
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
By fixing the article summary I imagine .
The patch seems to have been in the full article since conception , but apparently it hadn't passed down the line .
these exploits are dangerous as many Slashdoters refuse to update their knowledge by reading the full article and not just the summary
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
So clicking on a link can lock up the browser. So what?
How is this any different from this, which effectively locks up *all* current browsers?
<script>
while(true){
alert('Haha!');
}
<script>
This is hardly important. I don't see any way this can crash my machine or infect me with a trojan.
PS if you want a fix for the above vote for bug 61098] at bugzilla.
Any ideas as to what is going wrong?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
I think the poll at the top of the page should ask, "Do you trust WhiteDust security?"
Oh, wait - that's what the 'Test the exploit' link is for.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
It's hardly news to be able to DoS a browser. I DoS both FF and IE regularly while working on DHTML scripts, often when I use a debugging "alert" in the wrong place. Try this one and see how much farther you get during your morning browsing:
<html>
<body onmousemove="while(1) alert('ooooh');">
</body>
</html>
Watch out before you run it! You wouldn't want to lose that Xanga post you've been working on.
This crasher bug has no effect on my post 1.5 beta 2 version of firefox on Linux. Gecko/20051017. A new crasher bug is also not news. There are hundreds of ways to crash mozilla. Lets face it most browsers aren't at a state to jump every time there is a new bug to crash or "DOS Them" as the article states. Just another security site trying to make themselves look good at a products expense. How much money does it cause companies like the Mozilla Organization to release a new version of their browser, just to put an end to the bad press of a so called "exploit"?
And let's suppose it is in the wild and to get infected I don't have to go to some Russian site selling stolen credit cards. Can anyone see how that could be possible? You'd have to go to a site knowingly and maliciously designed to exploit this, right?
Although I agree that it's pretty trivial to update Firefox, some users don't notice the icon, or don't recognize what it does. If they RTFM or just hovered over it they would, but many don't. Another con is the fact that you have to download the full Firefox installer and run it all over again. That is not very friendly.
Thankfully, the Mozilla folks have recognized this and have improved the update system significantly on the upcoming Firefox 1.5. The update system downloads a patch, not the full installer, and installs it on the background. Then it just notifies the user that the new version will be installed when he restarts the browser. That way even the average Joe can stay updated.
Favorite quote: "
Since you have to go to a specific web page, with a specific browser ... and the only thing that will happen is that your browser will crash ... is "attack" the correct term for this kind of behaviour?
If you crash your car into a tree, did that tree "attack" you?
If you crash your car when driving over ice, did that ice "attack" you?
If you drive your car off a bridge and into a lake, did that lake "attack" you?
Since you cannot use your car immediately after a crashes, are trees considered a DoS exploit?
Ok, this isn't really a security bug. It's a crasher. If this is a security bug, so is this one (you'll likely need to cp/paste into new window to open) that I discovered a few years ago.
IMHO "security" bugs are for ones that have an impact on "security". If it doesn't fit that criteria, it's not a security issue.
A JS permissions exploit would be a security bug. So would the IDN issues, and buffer overflows...
but a crasher? I think that's pushing the benchmark. It's not really a DoS... it's a crash/hang.
It would be a security issue if say, it caused 911 to become unavailable, or killed US Radar systems... but not for crashing a web browser.
I think people have been pushing for a while in hopes of getting new security bugs. And that's all products, not just Moz. There are legitimate security bugs, but I don't think this qualifies. IMHO you need to be able to do something that violates security to be a security issue.
When will they wake up and stop releasing buggy software.
I will not have any of their software on my computer. I ONLY use Microsoft products.
OK, the IE fanboys are really stretching now. If crashing the browser is an "exploit" then that opens a whole new avenue of attack on IE. IE crashes like this (for me) far more often then firefox, and firefox crashes just about every time I visit a site with really involved flash or those really annoying smiley face banner ads (those are firefox killers).
ctrl+alt+del kill process is a good workaround for this "extremely dangerous" exploit. Again if this is a security vulnerability, then flash is the greatest hacking tool against firefox. Java is probably the greatest hacking tool against IE.
People are just really desparate for Firefox to have more bugs than IE. Thanks for finding some code that should probably be cleaned up, but crashing the browser is not in any way violating the security of the system on which the browser is running.
This hardly counts as a DoS attack in its traditional meaning. However it is an annoying bug. I am glad to read that it has been addressed in the latest beta.
What follows is probably an ad hominem attack. Moderate accordingly.
I decided to spend a little time on the Whitedust site. The site is advertised as "The Leading Independent Security News Portal".
The site is run by a group of former crackers. Of course one has to wonder about their cracking, security, and business skills when:
In short this web site has no redeeming value.