Mozilla First To Patch Pwn2Own Browser Vulnerability

Constantine the Less writes "Mozilla has released Firefox 3.0.8 to fix a pair of code execution holes that put users of the browser at risk of drive-by download attacks. It includes a fix for one of the flaws exploited during this year's CanSecWest Pwn2Own hacker contest. The update also fixes a separate zero-day flaw disclosed earlier this week on a public exploit site. Both issues are rated 'critical,' Mozilla's highest severity rating."

Comments

Re:First post.

[MightyYar]

Yeah, but internet browsing just doesn't feel as exciting without the risk. Back to unpatched XP with IE6 for me...

Re:And this is a surprise?

[drinkypoo]

I also thought that open source had a built in Plan B that if a hole was found, anyone could submit a patch and it would get folded in as soon as it was reviewed and approved.

That's funny, this is a story about the Open Source browser being patched before every other browser, and you're not seeing a benefit?

Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seen how insecure web browsers are, what would be a good way to surf under Linux?

I have an account that I use only for GMail and my bank's website (the latter using a physical device answering cryptographic challenge so nobody is abusing that [when wiring money to a new account number, the account number of the recipient itself is part of the cryptographic challenge, there's no MITM, no nothing that can work against that]).

Then I have an account only for browsing. The user owning this account on my machine has user ID 1007.

This user is not even allowed to connect to localhost. I don't want to know. All he can do is surf the web, using iptables like this:

iptables -I OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner 1007 -j REJECT
iptables -I OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner 1007 -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
iptables -I OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner 1007 -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
iptables -I OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner 1007 -p udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT

Are there others simple things I could do to deal with security hazard that these browsers are?

Things I could do about this user's home directory permissions? Disable his SSH? etc.

Basically I think I'd like to have an account that can "do nothing but run Firefox".

Or is there an easy, lightweight (lightweight as in "I don't necessarily want to virtualize a full OS just to run a browser", way to sandbox a browser?

In other words, I consider the "security" of all the browsers to be a bad joke and I regard running a browser basically the same as executing "omgWindozeServer2012Crack.exe" on my machine and I'd like any hint from people who are surfing in a "safer" way.

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[siride]

You could try not freaking the fuck out about browser security, unless you plan on visiting Russian spam sites and whatnot. I use Firefox on Linux and I've never had an issue. I use Flashblock, Adblock and occasionally Noscript. Just exercise reasonable caution and you should be fine. Heck, even under Windows I never got viruses or spyware, and I used IE!

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[0xFCE2]

Or is there an easy, lightweight (lightweight as in "I don't necessarily want to virtualize a full OS just to run a browser", way to sandbox a browser?

Have a look at the Linux extensions like SELinux or AppArmor. At least the latter one can be set up comparatively easy, and is useful to protect a few selected processes such as FF from doing harm. Certainly not perfect, but it should be able to stop an exploit from taking over the whole account.

However, the weak link will then probably be X and your window environment (KDE/gnome), so full virtualization is still much better. Of course, even that doesn't offer perfect protection.

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[Anonymous Coward]

On Windows, i sandbox my browsers using Sandboxie, such a fantastic little program.
The newer versions are much better, more control over what a program can access, file-permissions, network, etc

Not sure of any similar sandboxing programs for Linux, sadly.
I second this request.

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[RiotingPacifist]

how is X the weak link? the weak link is whatever you let on the internet and whatever network aware daemons you have running. once on your system X MAY be the weak link but the pwm2own vulnerabilities dont need root, so X doesn't even matter (much like it matters little in modern security) where attackers don't need root. while SElinux & AppArmor MAY protect against use of these attacks, e.g killing firefox when it executes malicious code, but a fishing scam doesn't need to do anything malicious to your system (and Firefox has already been 'pwned' in the context of this competition).

Full virtulization is useless, if the attack is advanced enough that it can is keylogging a separate user (has root), modifying your Firefox binaries (has root and then some) or modifying what you see (one hell of an exploit somewhere in your xorg stack), then the chances are the attacker can modify your virtualized os when its mounted,( there's nothing you can do that a kernel recompile cant beat and as the attacker has root, he can do that).

you have 2 choices:
1) stop being paranoid
2) run a livecd and update it regularly enough (from your livecd using toram) that there are no known exploits for it. OFC this HAS to be done on multiple cd-rs as a cd-rw could be patched if its exploited. But wait they could actually exploit you and modify the iso before you managed to get it to the disk, so i refer you to point 1.

Now assuming you that you've stopped being paranoid and just want a bit of extra security the GP post is about as good as you can get it protects against all user level exploits.

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[Hurricane78]

Not exactly true. You never got viruses, that you knew of.

Under Windows, with IE, this is no hard thing to achieve. Think of the Sony rootkit. Or about the tons of trash that average people get on their systems, despite having a anti-virus and a firewall software running.
I know of many people who completely turn them both off, when they play games. For performance reasons. Even when the games allow the usage of browsers while running.

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[siride]

I didn't get viruses. I had no slowdowns, nothing showing up in process explorer, no weird behavior, nothing from ZoneAlarm (worthless though it otherwise be). Of course, if you go the route of "you can't ever truly be sure of xyz", then I suppose you are right. I probably did get viruses. And even though I think I'm running Linux, it's probably actually just a rootkit that's infected my Windows XP installation to make it look like some other OS. How can I really know?

Re:Seen how insecure web browsers are...

[0xFCE2]

how is X the weak link?

Even if SELinux/AA are able to confine the actions of a pwned firefox or it is running as a different user, firefox can get access to keyboard and mouse actions and possible more via X (try xev).

Full virtulization is useless, if the attack is advanced enough that it can is keylogging a separate user (has root), modifying your Firefox binaries (has root and then some) or modifying what you see (one hell of an exploit somewhere in your xorg stack), then the chances are the attacker can modify your virtualized os when its mounted,

If the virtualization is good, the attacker still cannot break out of the VM. In practice there will be exploits allowing to break out, but at least now there are many barriers: the attacker has to exploit firefox, then possibly break out of SELinux/Apparmor and get root, after that it has to modify the kernel and break out of the VM. And depending on the VM and the exploit the attacker may then still only have access to a userspace part of the virtualization environment, running as a normal user on the host. So this is much better than just a single defense.

And while most users don't have to be this paranoid, the good thing about virtualization is that it's easy: you can get all this security with very little effort - the "cost" is much lower than e.g. configuring Apparmor, and the protection is much better.

MS already patched in IE8 final build

[Anonymous Coward]

MS patched this on IE8 on Vista already before it published Mar 19. http://blogs.iss.net/archive/chicksdigIE8.html

XP hasn't been patched yet. Doesn't support DEP, so will be a bit more work.

Re:MS already patched in IE8 final build

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't support DEP, so will be a bit more work.

DEP is supported on Windows XP since SP2.

Re:And this is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the IE8 exploit used during Pwn2Own contest wouldn't work on the final release of IE8 published one day later on the 19th of March.

http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2009/03/27/pwn2own-ie8-exploit-foiled-is-the-browser-finally-secure

Re:that's quick

[cbiltcliffe]

Could you get such fast service? Certainly.

With such minimal vetting? I doubt it. Only if you're a trusted submitter to the Mozilla tree. And if you were, you'd only get to pull a stunt like that once.

BAH!

[iminplaya]

The contestants already have next year's winning exploit waiting in the wings. Maybe we should have these contests every month instead of once a year.

Re:And this is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

And did closed source helped ms to make more secure browser?

umm, yes.
the person who cracked safari on osx said that ie8 on vista was the toughest to exploit.

Not only that

[Idiot with a gun]

But Ubuntu has already reviewed it, and pushed it out through the repositories, marking it as critical. I love open source.

Re:And this is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

42

There is a second benefit

[Colin Smith]

Of having discrete components, and of modular operating systems.

Mozilla isn't integrated into the OS, so they can just fix bugs. IE is "integrated into the OS" which means they can't simply fix bugs, they've got to make sure the rest of the big ball of mud OS continues to work as well.

 

Re:And this is a surprise?

[makomk]

Well, it wouldn't work on Vista on the final release of IE8, except on Intranet pages. Apparently, it still works on IE8 running under XP, still works on Intranet pages. The underlying vulnerability is still present on IE8 on all platforms, it's just that there's not currently any way to exploit it thanks to DEP and ASLR.

Re:First post.

[purpledinoz]

You finish installing Windows XP. You connect to the internet and fire up your browser. 4 minutes later, additional processes start appearing in your task manager. You've been pwnd! You frantically try to close the security holes by going to the Windows Update website, but all you get are ads for penis enlargement and free porn. As your PC slows to a crawl, the excitement fades...

Re:First post.

[Vu1turEMaN]

It would have been funny son, but the sad fact of the matter is that probably half of the XP systems out there are unpatched and use IE6...

Re:And this is a surprise?

[icebraining]

On the other hand, Firefox on Linux wasn't exploited at all.

Re:And this is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Charlie: The NX bit is very powerful.When used properly, it ensures that user-supplied code cannot be executed in the process during exploitation. Researchers (and hackers) have struggled with ways around this protection. ASLR is also very tough to defeat. This is the way the process randomizes the location of code in a process. Between these two hurdles, no one knows how to execute arbitrary code in Firefox or IE 8 in Vista right now. For the record, Leopard has neither of these features, at least implemented effectively. In the exploit I won Pwn2Own with, I knew right where my shellcode was located and I knew it would execute on the heap for me."

That has nothing to do with it being closed source.

OSX 10.3 blues

[Dog135]

That's funny, this is a story about the Open Source browser being patched before every other browser, and you're not seeing a benefit?

I'm not. I can't download the upgrade. I'm running OSX 10.3.9, and Firefox 2.0.0.1. Firefox 3.x requires 10.4.

OSS developers should think about those of us that are still happy with their older software! (or can't upgrade) I'm only 1 major version behind the current Firefox.

I'm not sure if I'm in danger of a drive-by download though. I do remember getting a few "exe" programs downloaded to my HD while visiting some shadier sites. I just laugh, delete it, and move on.

Re:OSX 10.3 blues

[Ant P.]

If you're worried about security at all, why are you running a browser 19 security patches out of date?

Re:First post.

[RiotingPacifist]

untrusted extentions are the way of the future. they let YOU choose how much you get pwned.
Only want a mild risk? install a few 3rd party extentions,
Fancy taking your chances? look for ones with spelling mistakes in the discriptions,
Unprotected sex with the internet? well start installing them from 3rd party sites
Fuck it, pwn me already? install greasemonkeys and look for scripts that have the discription written in 1337 sp3/\k

Re:First post.

[iminplaya]

That's because they're bootlegs, and updating will just install WGA

Re:BULLSHIT.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only immune in the internet zone, due to MS disabling .net controls in that zone. The bug still exists and is fully exploitable in the intranet zone. Also, IE has had a long history of cross-zone-scripting bugs which allow an attacker to run js code in a different protection zone than it really exists in. If you trick IE into thinking your code is in the intranet zone, this vulnerability opens right up.

Re:Opera?

[cp.tar]

Who?

Re:First post.

[Thinboy00]

The whole point of Betas is that they have bugs etc. and haven't been tested. If you care about security, you shouldn't use a Beta. If you don't care, why are you asking?

Mac OS X != OSS

[tepples]

I can't download the upgrade. I'm running OSX 10.3.9, and Firefox 2.0.0.1. Firefox 3.x requires 10.4.

OSS developers should think about those of us that are still happy with their older software! (or can't upgrade)

Mac OS X is not open-source software. If you can't install Leopard or even Tiger on your PowerPC Mac, try installing a Linux distribution that supports your Mac model. I'm sure they still exist.

Re:First post.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is nothing. Once, during the second stage of a Windows XP installation, as soon as Windows brought up the network interface to configure the DHCP it got slammed by the blaster worm right in the middle of the installation! (The box was connected to a DOCSIS cable network.) I had to power off the modem, reformat, and restart the install. That is why I no longer use windows.

Re:And this is a surprise?

[Bert64]

Linux on the other hand does have both of those features, and had them long before vista...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization

Turn the tables

[Cyanara]

Bah. My dodgy dial-up connection is so painfully slow that I find it amusing to install trojans and watch "hackers" try and control my computer.

Re:First post.

[Vu1turEMaN]

I know what it makes me sound like, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.