Fixes Released (and More Promised) For "Clickjacking" Exploits

An anonymous reader writes "As discussed previously on Slashdot, concern has been raised over a class of 'clickjacking' vulnerabilities which affect all major Web browsers. These exploits allow an attacker to place invisible or seemingly legit objects on a Web page that perform undesired actions when a user clicks on them. In recent developments, 'Guya' posted a scary proof-of-concept that hijacks Adobe Flash Player to spy on users with a webcam and/or microphone. In response, Adobe released an advisory with a temporary workaround, and stated that a future Player update will address the exploit. This prompted the original disclosers of the vulnerabilities to post a summary of the exploits. Additionally, Giorgio Maone, creator of the popular NoScript extension for Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers, released version 1.8.2.1 of NoScript, which adds 'ClearClick,' a feature that intercepts clicks made on invisible or otherwise obscured elements on a page. Although issues remain, there seems to be progress in addressing these security problems."

Comments

Re:Has...

[snl2587]

Well, an example is the "Get Add-on" link on the NoScript website: clicking it causes an iframed link from Mozilla's add-on page to be "clicked" instead.

Clickjacking's new in terminology only.

Re:Has...

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's the user clicking on a visible item, simply embedded in the page. It's misleading, sure! But it's not the same as having a user click anywhere and it hitting an invisible item that does something completely unrelated to whatever's displayed.

Original fix

[MaxwellEdison]

I've solved this problem by removing my mouse from the computer. Now I never click anything malicious! Or anything at all... Its all wonderfully frustrating.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Has...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was describing this article to my boss, and here is what he said to me verbatim. My Emp. added.

So, should I be afraid of my web browser clickjacking me off of my normally visited websites to some spyware?

Re:Has...

[Mashiki]

Anyone actually seen a POC of clickjacking? I know I haven't...

Yes. I've run across it on GCW, MSNBC and Wowhead through 3rdparty advertisers. It's already in the wild, the only thing that stopped it was noscript.

The jokes on you, hackers!

[Gizzmonic]

Not only am I an exhibitionist, I'm also unbelievably ugly! You won't be 'clickjacking' to my warped, drooling countenance!

Re:Has...

[Mashiki]

Just because I had to hunt for the image:
http://bay01.imagebay.com/bay.php?view=61388_poshijack.jpg

Re:This stuff is why...

[plover]

I have the Flash plugin, but I also run FlashBlock. It's awesome. No crappy flashy anything unless I actually want it, and then it's only a few mouseclicks away. That plus NoScript meant it took me about half a dozen clicks before I had both the permission and the ability to run the clickjacking demo. I feel pretty safe with Firefox.

Re:Simple solution:

[plover]

Let me get this straight: You recommend:

i.e. for banking.

and you expect us to trust you with security advice? Please!

NoScript

[HTH NE1]

Now if only NoScript, when I choose (for example) "Temporarily allow doubleclick.net", granted that allowance only on the page I'm viewing and its descendants and not in every open tab in every window to every site their scripts are on!

Re:NoScript

[kesuki]

apparently, feature suggestions should be posted to this forum http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=826005

'temporarily allow site in tab' and 'temporarily allow all in tab' are features i'd suggest, but i'm too lazy to sign up for a forum and post there.

being specific to a single tab would be nice, it might add to the size of the engine, but again it would make annoying broken ad supported sites like pogo that require 26 separate sites to be 'allow' to properly load a webgame... no, i don't play pogo, but i disabled noscript from one of my parents computers so she could use pogo. I checked to see if i could just add to the white list, but that basically defeated the point of a white list, so it was disabled.

on windows it's no big deal, she uses ie, and i use firefox, but on their linux system, which she rarely uses, except when there are issues with the other computer... well, it has to stay set so she can play pogo on it if needed.

Are they saying this end-of-the-internet threat...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Are they really saying this newly-uncovered, ultra-hyped, horrible, end-of-the-internet, cross-browser, gotta-fix-the-world-but-it's-SO-hard, threat... ... was INVISIBLE BUTTONS?

Flash and microphones and webcams, oh my.

[argent]

It's always kind of creeped me out that Flash even gives applets access to the microphone and webcam, and I never enable those capabilities in the program.

Yes, I understand the point of it, I just think it's creepy.

Re:Flash and microphones and webcams, oh my.

[cerberusss]

It's always kind of creeped me out that Flash even gives applets access to the microphone

Definitely creepy. One time I visited a page with a Flash-based advertisement from (apparently) a French company. When my mouse cursor inadvertently moved over the Flash applet, some kind of contact was made with the company. This French guy was screaming into his microphone "'ello?? 'ELLOO??". And he obviously saw through my cam because he continued: "Bonjour, sire! Whas arr yous eatingue?" just when I was shoving a sandwhich in my pie-hole.

Re:Are they saying this end-of-the-internet threat

[mr_mischief]

Any form of invisible link, invisible button, link or button in an iframe, getURL() call in Flash, or JavaScript handler for any normally non-clickable item that makes you go somewhere, yeah.

Re:How is this new?

[FLEB]

This attack makes it possible for third parties to trick you into performing actions on third-party sites, by overlaying them invisibly on something you think you want to click. An attacker could overlay a seemingly innocuous game, for instance, with an administrative panel from a common website. The settings panel would be invisible (zero or low alpha), but still would receive mouse clicks. When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points, you're actually clicking the "Delete my account" checkbox and "Continue" button, for instance.

Off the top of my head, it's not a world-ender, just another problem like XSS or XSRF to be vigilant against. Possible solutions (from the top of my head) would be for sensitive form pages to have a framebusting script (although this doesn't help if JS is off), and require a password or CAPTCHA (a password could be phished around, but a CAPTCHA could work, since the fake site still has no actual way to read or write the legit site).

Re:How is this new?

[FLEB]

When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points,

s/random/arbitrary/