Slashdot Mirror
The Java Popup you Can't Stop
An anonymous reader writes "In his brand new hackademix.net blog, Giorgio Maone, known as the author of the NoScript security extension for Firefox, reveals how popup blockers can be easily circumvented using Java. Worse, popups opened this way are really evil, because they can be sized to cover the whole desktop (the wet dream of any phisher) and cannot be closed by user (the wet dream of any web advertiser).
Impressive demos available, all cross-browser and cross-platform, in the best Java tradition: 'Write once, hack anywhere' "
is to get their phone number, call them up, and inform them that they will never buy/use whatever it is they are selling, and will be telling 25 of their closest friends in person because of this practice. Certainly, you aren't limited to 25, but that is the old saying.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
You'd think so, but spam is apparently still worth the risk and effort too.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Only promoting it and having it become a threat to them (i.e. lawsuits, users uninstalling Java on their systems, webpage designers moving away from it) will motivate them to fix the problem. If the threat is kept under wraps, they have no real motivation to move on it until phishers are already using it in the wild.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If he were selling his software commercially, or people were being directed from the Slashdot front page to a page full of ads, then you might have a point, but that's not the case here. The guy has made an obviously useful tool, gives it away for free, and is warning about an obviously relevant threat. The most he's likely to get out of this is a few small donations or a few more page hits on his site, perhaps making enough to cover the server costs for hosting a popular Firefox extension for a while and a bit of beer money. I think your post is way over the top.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Getting it to close was simply a matter of right clicking on Firefox in the Task Bar and closing it down. It's certainly an annoyance, but it's not as bad as the article makes it seem to be. Anybody with a brain (which admittedly excludes about 60% of the population) can figure out how to close Firefox and thus the Java App.
In my experience the vast majority of windows users don't right click on anything, unless they have been specifically instructed to.
And they certainly don't intuitively know that they can right click on task bar icons to do anything, let alone close the app.
For most regular users (no doubt the intended target of the sort of sleeze who would use this for advertising and other nefarious purposes)there is only one way to shut down an app, and that's the rex X in the top right corner.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
NO
Ban them from going full screen unless I, the owner of the machine where it wants to go full screen, agree to applications having the right to go full screen.
I don't care about signed code. I do care about my preferences!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
True, full disclosure is needed as the ultimate Damocles sword to force companies to fix problems. If Sun acts slowly on this one, I'm all in favour of plastering it all over the front page of the WSJ.
/. frontpage or not. The only thing that will change is the number of people that are made aware of the issue before the fix is available, and in consequence the number of phishers/spammers/etc that have the opportunity to exploit it. That is, increasing the Window of Exposure
Sun was made aware of this problem 10 days ago, and nothing seems to suggest that they don't take the issue seriously. The time it takes them to write a fix, do regression testing and push a patch out the door will likely not change due to this story reaching the
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I believe you mean JavaScript viruses (very common) not Java viruses (extremely rare). Javascript viruses tend to be mostly harmless (stuff like, a popup you can't close) and are generally overblown by virus software. That's why your autoprotect software wasn't catching it: It wasn't that important. And erasing the files from your browser's cache after the fact is not really helpful either. You're not really "infected" per se. (Though some of those JS files are vectors into bigger and badder viruses.)
That has to be the worst reason in existence to use IE. If you don't want Java, don't install it. FireFox won't do it automatically, nor will Opera, nor will Safari. Sticking with IE because it doesn't install a JVM by default is nothing more than a false sense of security.
parent rating: -1 FUD
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You're setting up a false dichotomy, those are not the only two options available. In order to minimise the Window of Exposure, it is best to have it not blow up in media AND have it fixed as soon as possible.
I'm all for letting security issues blow up in media if the software vendor ignores them, there's nothing like a little public shaming to make public companies get their act together security-wise. But as long as the software vendor fixes reported problems in a timely fashion, the only thing that is achieved by a media blow up before a patch is available is that more potential exploiters are made aware of the issue.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I don't see an obvious "fix" except the following hurdles that can be presented to unsigned applets (and hence breaking a lot of hobby games, apps etc)-
1. Validate applet size to be always significantly less than screen size
2. Remove support for "System Modal" for unsigned applets for "setAlwaysOnTop". Application modal is fine, system modal is not.
I would expect that "System Modal" should be forbidden from any applet, even if it is signed. After all, it is running in a browser, not directly in the OS, so Application modal should be sufficient. In fact, one can argue that if you are writing an applet and you need System Modal functionality, then you are probably using the wrong technology anyways and should consider alternatives.
Applets were designed to be sandboxed. System Modal should have been forbidden from the beginning anyways.
HA! but N00bs will click on stuff, SO WHAT, their computer will still not be infected...
You're right, N00bs WILL click on stuff. You've missed the point. There are plenty of ways to take advantage of people on the net without infecting their machine with a local virus. Not to mention that not everyone knows how to use CTL/ALT/DELETE and end processes (cause N00bs really need to be screwing with the task manager... riiight). EVERYONE is a N00b at some point - which leads me to my next point...
1. They deserve whatever they get.
That's an ignorant and callous statement. Just because someone focuses their learning on a subject other than computers/networking doesn't mean they deserve to get screwed. I hope your wife/grandma/parents/friends/yourself end up getting taken - maybe then you'll have a little respect for those who have other interests in life than learning everything there is to know about tech.
2. I'm pretty sure their computers (presuming they deserve to be called that) are already turned into spam zombies
So be part of the solution and help educate rather than whine about how dumb everyone else is. The worst kind of geek is the one who thinks somehow they're super-human and everyone else is dumb. Did you get beaten up by too many jocks in school?
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
All the online banking systems I've used in the UK are also (X)HTML and JS over SSH. Methinks the Australian banks might have over-thought this one a little too much...