Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 2.0 Password Manager Bug Exposes Passwords

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the be-careful-out-there dept.

zbuffered writes, "Today, Mozilla made public bug #360493, which exposes Firefox's Password Manager on many public sites. The flaw derives from Firefox's willingness to supply the username and password stored on one page on a domain to another page on a domain. For example, username/password input tags on a Myspace user's site will be unhelpfully propagated with the visitor's Myspace.com credentials. It was first discovered in the wild by Netcraft on Oct. 27. As this proof-of-concept illustrates, because the username/password fields need not be visible on the page, your password can be stolen in an almost completely transparent fashion. Stopgap solutions include avoiding using Password Manager and the Master Password Timeout Firefox extension, which will at least cause a prompt before the fields are filled. However, in the original case detailed in the bug report, the phish mimicked the login.myspace.com site almost perfectly, causing many users to believe they needed to log in. A description of this new type of attack, dubbed the Reverse Cross-Site Request (RCSR) vulnerability, is available from the bug's original author."

29 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. But but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...secure by design!!

  2. I sense a disturbance in the force... by LordEd · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...as though millions of Firefox users were laughing at IE users, and were suddenly silenced.

    Cue "still more secure" arguments now.

    1. Re:I sense a disturbance in the force... by LordEd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I tested the proof of concept attack on IE7 before posting. The attack failed. TFA even says
      RCSR attacks are also actively targeting Microsoft Internet Explorer, however a flaw in Firefox makes the attack much more likely to succeed.
      Go RTFA (the proof of concept one) using IE and reply if you get a different result. I didn't try it with IE6.
    2. Re:I sense a disturbance in the force... by ticklish2day · · Score: 5, Funny

      I switched to IE7 a week ago after Vista RTMd. I don't miss FF. I've also been running without anti-virus for the entire week. I ran a system virus scan today and ZILCH - no viruses. No spyware or adware either. It might have to do with the fact that my machine isn't connected to a network...

    3. Re:I sense a disturbance in the force... by LordEd · · Score: 3, Informative
      Didn't even think of the 'response time' end.

      Please look at the bug report. Submission of testcase file is November 12 (9 days ago)

      From TFA:
      It was first discovered in the wild by Netcraft on Oct. 27 (25 days ago)
      The clock is ticking... will Firefox beat IE's response time?
    4. Re:I sense a disturbance in the force... by zootm · · Score: 3, Informative

      HTML forms work just fine without Javascript. And yes, you're effectively tricked into clicking an action button. If you look at the sample "injected HTML", they make it look like the user is clicking a Flash movie when in fact they're clicking a blank image-type <input> on the page. This submits the GET-style form. So long as the user is "tricked" into clicking something, and forms are allowed, this could steal the password from the password manager.

      The code is available in the text box at the bottom of the this page. Neither Flash nor Javascript is required to trigger the exploit, just a click from a user in a attacker-defined position on the page.

  3. passwords have failed by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Now that its 2006, can we now use a better form of "authentication" than a few ascii characters?

    Every website wants you to have a password. You know, for important stuff like making a purchase because you use a password for a purchase at a brick and mortar store, right?

    Well, since its a good practice to use unique passwords, and users get forgetful, then they use the web browser tool to store their passwords, then they forget their passwords, and when they use another computer or update their existing one, their tool does not work, and if it does work, then the browser gives away your passwords.

    I don't use a password to get into my home, I don't start my car with a password, I don't use a password to get into my work. In fact, I don't even have a key for my work, server room, nothing (RFID). But all day at work, these programs continually ask for my password to the point that I dont consider my password secure because I have to change it, and use it so much, I'm desensisized (sp?) and say who cares?

    Can we get over passwords soon?

    1. Re:passwords have failed by AlXtreme · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't use a password to get into my home, I don't start my car with a password, I don't use a password to get into my work. In fact, I don't even have a key for my work, server room, nothing (RFID).
      Locks get picked. Cars get stolen. RFID can be disrupted, tampered with or your card can get stolen (I'm assuming you don't have RFID tags in your arm). Likewise, passwords can be sniffed. Hell, it doesn't matter how good your encryption is, all it takes is a videocamera pointed at your keyboard.

      How far you go, it doesn't matter. There will always be a trade-off between security and convenience. Personally, I trust a good lock more than I trust RFID. But even if you go all the way to biometrics, there will always be way a to hack the system.

      Even so, this Firefox security flaw is a nasty one.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:passwords have failed by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I strongly hope so. My recommendation would be public key authentication, the way SSH can do it. You'd need a private key (possibly on a crypto card, but a thumbdrive or floppy or whatever works fine) and a password for that. You authenticate to the key when launching your encryption agent, then any website that wants to verify who you are contacts your agent and does the authentication there.

      Infinitely more secure than our current password system, a lot more convenient (think Microsoft Passport's bragged about convenience, except none of your data is stored on a central server), and all around the BetterWay(tm). The main downside if when roaming to another machine if you don't have your key, you don't have access. This can be addressed with either being able to fall back on a password (removing a lot of the security), or some means of authenticating to your home computer.

      You could also add some sort of spec for feeding VCard info into the agent so that sites could use it to do a sort of shared profile feature, where you'd authorize a site to receive certain info and save you a lot of time filling stuff out.

      Unfortunately this is just yet another thing on the list of "tech the way I think it should be", not anything on anyones todo lists.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    3. Re:passwords have failed by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Passwords work great for me. I, however, use them with care.

      Any site that uses financial information (my bank, eBay, PayPal, Amazon, or whatever I'm buying, my own servers, etc.) doesn't get the password stored in any form of password manager. On the other hand, inconsequential services like news sites, LUG sites, aquarium discussion groups and the like may have the passwords stored. If it's important, don't store it, don't write it on a post-it note, don't tell your friends.....people cannot be trusted.

      It seems that any security protocol can be circumvented by exploiting the end users who use them poorly or rely on something other than common sense for security.

      It took all of about 5 minutes to explain phishing to my girlfriend. Now, she's almost 1/104358506th as paranoid as I am, which is a good start.

      Now, I'm out of tinfoil......off to the store.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
  4. Is it used? by oyenstikker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People actually let their browsers remember their passwords? I have never trusted my browser that much.

    --
    The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    1. Re:Is it used? by Firehed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not your own browser to worry about. It's others browsers. My roommate decided to borrow my machine and was stupid enough to have Firefox remember his password on my machine to the main school portal. No biggie, except that the 'reveal all passwords' button exists (and, last I checked, required no authentication to use).

      Of course, the truly telling moment was when I found out how lame his password is. Not that I'd expect anything different from someone dumb enough to store their password on someone else's computer in the first place.

      So, in other words, passwords continue to be useless for people dumb enough to leave them lying around. I've used the same password for years and it's by no means secure (only just a bit more secure than using my first name) but it's never been an issue for me. The only time I've been concerned is when websites force me to come up with something that fits their requirements, because that means that I do end up writing it down somewhere. The sooner webmasters realize that setting specific requirements for passwords makes them less secure (my bank requires an alphanumeric PW 6-8 letters long with mixed case - that massively narrows down a brute force attack), the better. In the end, most of it comes down to user stupidity, so we might as well not limit the complexity of good users or force them to use something too obscure to remember (or, worse, say 'write this down in a place you can easily access').

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Is it used? by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

      > No biggie, except that the 'reveal all passwords' button exists (and, last I checked, required no authentication to use). Firefox, for as long as I can remember, has allowed you to set a master password, without which the password manager will not populate any password feilds and will not allow the viewing of any stored passwords.

    3. Re:Is it used? by makomk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use Konqueror/KWallet to remember most of my password. It's encrypted (requires a password to access), only fills in the forms on the page you originally hit "Save Password" on (inconvenient, but helps reduce the security issues), and closes the wallet (requiring re-entry of the password) when I lock my screen, my screensaver starts up, or after 10 minutes of non-use of the wallet. Slightly paranoid compared to Firefox, but it works.

    4. Re:Is it used? by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saving passwords should not be a browser feature. I am ashamed that such a big bug could make it into firefox.

      Saving passwords absolutely should be a browser feature; it's a feature I use all the time.

      However, I too am ashamed that such a big bug - or rather, design flaw - could make it into Firefox. I understand the usefulness of being able to use the same saved password information across multiple login forms on one site, but surely someone should have realized the danger here. I mean, these are browser developers. They should have known better.

      Hopefully they'll figure out a solution soon.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  5. Arrrrr by Peyna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The flaw derives from Firefox's willingness to supply the username and password stored on one page on a domain to another page on a domain.

    Worst idea ever. The question isn't why wasn't this discovered earlier, but who decided this was a good idea in the first place?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Arrrrr by jesser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When browsers added password management features 5 (?) years ago, there weren't a lot of sites that required passwords, included user-generated content, and allowed that user-generated content to include password fields. But there were (and still are) many sites where loading just about any URL on the site could give you a "you need to log in" page.

      I'd be perfectly happy with this becoming part of the accepted security model for web applications, just like "don't let user-generated content include SCRIPT tags with arbitrary content".

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  6. Not just Firefox 2.0, also IE6/7 and earlier F'fox by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the Bugzilla link, this bug is also present in pre 2.0 releases of Firefox, and IE 6/7.

    So much for me being smug about going back to Firefox 1.5!

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  7. stopgap measures include... by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...using Microsoft Internet Explorer. AAaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  8. Dis-satisfied with v2.0 by macdaddy · · Score: 3, Informative
    I don't know about everyone else but I am generally dis-satisfied with v2.0. Frankly I felt that the memory leak in FF was significantly amplified in 2.0. I noticed back on 1.5 that every time I put my laptop into standby with FF running and then woke it up that FF would slowly increase it's memory consumption to about 30% more than what it was before being put into standby. Ie, if it was 100MB when it went to standby it would be around 130MB after waking the laptop, switching focus to FF, and clicking through my opened tabs. In FF 2.0 I have to literally shutdown FF every day or two or FF will easily consume upwards of 500MB of my RAM. I usually have about a dozen windows open and in each window I have 5-15 tabs. That's a fair bit but it didn't cause me much grief in v1.5.

    It also took me a while to figure out how to remove the close button from each tab. The tab scrolling "feature" was also a point of great annoyance that took up more of my time to find a fix.

    In short I'm just not jumping for joy over FF. This new flaw happens to come to light the day after I search Google for a way to manually add userids and passwords to the FF DB (any ideas?). This was to address the problem of FF not picking up some text fields as userid and password fields. One solution I found was RoboForm, though I'm not sure I want to pay for what I think should be a fairly easy thing to do inside FF. FF is getting better but personally I'd rather be using Mozilla 1.7.x.

  9. Not a lot of better options by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have 50-100 passwords at various sites, established over years, there's really a shortage of other good options. You can go the old-school route and just write them all down on a pad of paper, or the slightly more sophisticated route and put them in a text file or encrypted database on your local machine, but that doesn't help you when you want to log into a site from another machine.

    I was disappointed to hear of this vulnerability, because I use Google Browser Sync pretty heavily for keeping track of cookies and trivial passwords, and to be honest I'm not really sure what I'd do without it. More important passwords I keep in an old Palm Pilot using a GPLed password-management and generation program on it, but recalling passwords from it is a pain (takes several minutes to get Palm out, type in master password, etc.).

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  10. no need to save passwords --generate em on the fly by caseih · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a neat little piece of javascript at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jlpoutre/BoT/Javascript/Pass wordComposer/ that lets you just think up a master password in your head and then use this applet to automatically generate a site-specific, unique hash and fill in the password field automatically. This way you can remember the passwords easily, you never have to save them or write them down. And if one site gets compromised, that password (the hash) won't work with any other site. The drawback is that if you don't have this piece of javascript then you can't get into your sites.

  11. Java ring? by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember the Java ring? It had a processor and stored the private key in a tamper resistant case (erases instantly when case is compromised). PC programs would ask the Java ring to sign things. A virus could get bogus signatures while it was connected, but couldn't compromise the key. Unfortunately, it used a funky "One Wire" adaptor to get power and talk to a PC. If only they would reintroduce it in a USB format!

  12. Many FF fans would say... by patio11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... this is just because IE6/7 have poor compatibility with the rest of the world. They can't even support the exploits, anymore, honestly.

    OK, jokes aside, someone just released an exploit into the wild which *can't work on IE*. And they presumably still thought they were going to get something of value on it. Hiya, FireFox, welcome to the "visible enough to be a target" club. And it only gets worse. I hope your million bug finding eyes are bright and perky because it only gets worse and it never, ever stops.

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
    1. Re:Many FF fans would say... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think this is, per se, a bug. If you save a password for www.myspace.com, and there's a password field on www.myspace.com/*, the password manager should fill the field in. When they added the auto-fill feature (as opposed to, say, click a toolbar button to fill in passwords) they should've considered this.

      And thus I think the million bug-finding eyes will be considerably less bleary if there are a million exploit-writing fingers. When you have anything that turns security into convenience like this, you should say "Hm. This could be exploited by foo method, and if this exploit becomes viable - if there's some popular website that allows arbitrary HTML - we should remove this feature for our users' sake."

    2. Re:Many FF fans would say... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The password manager should only fill in the password on the actual page you have entered it on before. This is just common sense. There's many situations where you might enter different credentials at different parts of a site, or where entering your information at one page under a certain domain might actually be a bad thing. This is why I have password manager turned off on all my browsers. It's a littl more work to remember passwords, but it's a lot safer.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  13. WARNING by tezbobobo · · Score: 3, Informative

    DEERPARK 1.5.0.4 is also vulnerable - based on firefox 1.5

  14. Alternatives to browser stored passwords by natet · · Score: 3, Informative

    I for one only use the browsers store password feature for the most trivial of sites. For more important sites, I use Password Safe. The program and the database fit easily on a thumb drive, and requires a master password to access. It has a user configurable time out, and a double click on an account copies the data to the clipboard for later use, allowing you to foil keyboard based sniffers.

    --
    IANAL... But I play one on /.
  15. Re:Why I'm not using FF 2.0 by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but editing in about:config is nearly as fast

    Editing about:config is nearly as fast, but finding out that there is a value to edit, what it's called and what to set it to is a damn sight slower...

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.