Slashdot Mirror
Hackers claim zero-day flaw in Firefox
An anonymous reader writes "The open-source Firefox Web browser is critically flawed in the way it handles JavaScript, two hackers said Saturday afternoon. An attacker could commandeer a computer running the browser simply by crafting a Web page that contains some malicious JavaScript code, Mischa Spiegelmock and Andrew Wbeelsoi said in a presentation at the ToorCon hacker conference here."
What about NoScript? http://www.noscript.net/whats
Noscript is your friend. Been using it for a year or so now.
Yes, whitelisting sites is a pain, but Javascript is a remnant of a more innocent time and should probably be phased out anyway.
have you guys heard about the supposed vuln in firefox disclosed at toorcon today?
n +Firefox/2100-1002_3-6121608.html
n +Firefox/2100-1002_3-6121608.html quotes me out of context in a way that makes it look like i'm trying to bribe them with $500 bug bounties :(
<Ryan> "Firefox re-entrant threading"?
<reed> http://www.toorcon.org/2006/conference.html?id=13
<Jesse_> yeah, that one
<reed> Jesse_: Did you go to that particular one?
<Jesse_> yes
<Jesse_> i also went up on stage to "debate" "disclosure" with them
<Jesse_> when i said "debate" "disclosure", i didn't mean the usual "how much time should security researchers give vendors to write and deploy patches before making the holes or exploits public" debate
<Jesse_> these guys were *against* disclosure
<Jesse_> preferring to keep the status quo of lots of vulnerabilities, large botnets (so they can be anonymous), etc. or maybe they were joking, it was hard to tell.
<Jesse_> they claim they can make $10,000 or $20,000 selling a vuln in firefox
<Jesse_> compared to $500 telling us about it
<Jesse_> selling to other blackhats, anonymously, using onion networks, of course
<dveditz> TippingPoint and iDEFENSE will pay up to $10K for IE and probably firefox vulns
. . .
<jX> http://news.com.com/Hackers+claim+zero-day+flaw+i
<jX> "...what we're doing is really for the greater good of the Internet, we're setting up communication networks for black hats," How exactly is that for the greater GOOD?
<dveditz> the black hats crusade for our freedom (and credit cards) against the evil fascist empire
<dveditz> they *earn* everything they steal by doing all the good they do keeping "the man" from owning the internet
. . .
<Jesse_> http://news.com.com/Hackers+claim+zero-day+flaw+i
<zach> Jesse_: they dragged you up on stage during their talk?
<jX> Jesse_: Yeah, doesn't reallyt make anyone look good, that article..
<Jesse_> "I do hope you guys change your minds and decide to report the holes to us and take away $500 per vulnerability instead of using them for botnets" is pretty close to the BEGINNING of a sentence i said
<Jesse_> the REST of the sentence was " or selling them to other blackhats for ten thousand dollars"
<Jesse_> with the whole sentence, it's clear that i'm hoping they'll change for ethical reasons, and that i'm not trying to bribe them
<jX> Jesse_: Yeah, but quoting you out of context makes for better copy.
<zach> Jesse_: did they actually drag you on stage during their talk as the article suggusts?
<Jesse_> zach: they left a lot of time after their slides, and asked me to come up
<Jesse_> zach: they told me before the talk that they might ask me to come up
<Jesse_> dveditz: yeah, about 20 minutes before
No, they didn't have a live exploit. The original article is here http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6121608.html, not the site linked to by slashdot.
All they had was a video ... no code to display.
So, maybe they do, maybe they don't ... but you can't tell just from a video.
Also, what sort of drugs do you have to be on to name your kid "Window"? Brings to mind Frank Zappa naming his kid "Moon Unit".
Yeah, right. What they are really saying is, why give away a bug for $500 when we can sell it for much more on the black market?
If CNET hadn't cut off my quote mid-sentence, it would have been clear that that was what (jokingly) saying too. I was not trying to bribe them. I was trying to say that I hoped they would change their minds and report the holes to Mozilla despite the fact that they (claimed they) could make much more money exploiting the holes or selling information about the vulnerabilities on the black market.
The shareholder is always right.
No. Those three bugs were holes I found before ToorCon.
The shareholder is always right.
To be clear:
Firefox had a build switch that allowed folks to build it without branding (and do whatever they wanted to it) or build it with branding (and follow Mozilla's rules to create a consistent user experience).
Debain dev's took that build switch and broke it, so that everyone wanting to modify or adjust the debian firefox packages would have to go through and hand edit out firefox if they wanted to remove branding. They then packaged this broken thing up, and still called it firefox.
Mozilla said that was bogus, and they were right. Having that build switch makes it easier for folks to make changes to the package without worrying about branding. Redhat and others do exactly this with artwork/branding packages. We are ALL better off if such easy build time switches are available.
I've been around a while, but the debian developers are way out of line here.... You can't create some crazy messed up debian distro and call it debian, you can't create a crazy redhat distro and call it redhat, why is firefox getting all this heat? The amount of fuss they are creating is bogus and dissapointing. I read through the snide commentary and it really is depressing. Even Mozilla Foundation suggests that a non-branded version of firefox would work better for them.
Which is why it's smart to run NoScript. A Firefox extention that blocks the execution of any scripts on a webpage without user concent. So, if you're tired of Javascript taking over your Firefox, get NoScript.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/
This exploit (or one similar) was mentioned in an episode of Security Now (about 3 weeks ago, I think). A potential solution was install a plugin called noscript, which allows the user to enable javascript on a per-site basis. I've used it since I heard about it, and I believe it can play a major role in preventing the execution of any rogue javascript.