Slashdot Mirror


Firefox and IE Still Not Getting Along

juct writes "Heise describes a new demo showing how Firefox running under Windows XP SP2 can be abused to start applications. For this to work, however, Internet Explorer 7 needs to be installed. This severe security problem promises another round in the 'who-is-to-blame-war' between Mozilla and Microsoft. Mozilla currently is leading the race for a patch, as they have one ready in their bugzilla database. 'The authors of the demo note that there are many further examples of such vulnerabilities via registered URIs. What is so far visible is just "the tip of the iceberg". They state that registered URIs are tantamount to a remote gateway into your computer. To be on the safe side, users should, in the authors' opinion, deregister all unnecessary URIs - without, however, elucidating which are superfluous.'"

7 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Obviously firefoxs fault by brunascle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firefox is the one that told Windows to execute the command
    except, a URI with a scheme of mailto, nntp, news, or snews does not tell Windows to launch a command. it tells windows to open the application that handles that scheme and give the URI to that application. what the application does is up to the application. if calc is loaded, there's either a bug in Windows or the application that handles the scheme.
  2. Survey says - "All of them"? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be on the safe side, users should, in the authors' opinion, deregister all unnecessary URIs - without, however, elucidating which are superfluous.

    I can answer that one for ya - Everything that FireFox doesn't handle internally; So basically, kill everything except "http", "https", and "ftp".

    If you want to send email, open your email program and paste the address in. If you want to read newsgroups, open your newsreader and select the desired group. If you want to use some specialized protocol that requires a dedicated app anyway (like many P2P URIs), open them in the appropriate program.

    Your web browser should not serve as a no-click interface to every network-enabled app on your machine. Period.

  3. Re:Obviously firefoxs fault by miffo.swe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It is Firefox's fault. They're invoking a Windows API directly without doing any sanity checking on the input." According to your masters its the receiving application that should do the sanity check. There was a rather heated debate on this a while ago when it was IE who forwarded malicious URLS to Firefox. Also, Firefox told IE to open an URL for all it knows, not some random application. The error is in IE7 no matter how you spin it. Dont forget any application besides Firefox can forward this kinds of URLs to IE7. In short any application you use that connects to web pages is a threat to IE7.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  4. Kinda cool by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, while incredibly insecure, it is kinda cool to be able to slap in any program path in that malformed string and open any program.

    For example, try this one if you have EVE installed on your PC: (You will have to copy-paste it as the Slashdot filter prevents the links from working.)

    snews:%00%00../../../../../../windows/system32/cmd ".exe../../../../../../../../Program Files/CCP/EVE/eve.exe " - " blah.bat

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  5. Re:Obviously firefoxs fault by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should the browser be able to run privileged commands on the OS? Why should it have access to anything other than the cache directory?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  6. Re:Yea, pretty much. by stonecypher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are times when it is more elegant to use the word that has the exact nuance of meaning that you're trying to convey, but for the most part it's a lot more effective to use a word that everyone will understand.
    Yeah, because if there's one thing that makes language easier to understand, it's changing your usage of a word depending on to whom you speak. Did it occur to you that the root of the problem is your fix? The only reason these people don't know these words is because other people around them are wrapped up in the fantasy that language is defined by usage, and that therefore it is somehow correct to be incorrect.

    If you'd just speak formally _all_ the time, that'd be one less source of confusion for the unwashed masses. It turns out these things aren't inbuilt; they have to be learned from exposure. By denying exposure in the desperation to be understandable, you rob them of the chance of understanding in the long term.
    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  7. Re:A simple solution... WAKE UP! by jmv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a solution. Look at your status bar. If you see some wacko, malformed mailto: address appear when you hover over the link, don't click on it. The damned thing is longer than my arm! If it doesn't say joeuser@domain.foo, don't click. That simple.

    Not that simple. Many browsers allow the remote site to change the string in the status bar by default (that's the first thing I disable). Until browsers show you the real destination by default, you can't expect people to notice the malformed mailto: