Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3.5's First Vulnerability "Self-Inflicted"
CWmike writes "Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5, saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company's newest browser. A noted Firefox contributor called the situation 'self-inflicted' and said it was likely that the hacker who posted public exploit code Monday became aware of the flaw by rooting through Bugzilla, Mozilla's bug- and change-tracking database. The vulnerability is in the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine that debuted with Firefox 3.5, said Mozilla. '[It] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code,' Mozilla's security blog reported Tuesday."
Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5, saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company's newest browser.
Just a note, I think Mozilla tries to shirk any idea of "company" or "corporation" from the open source development side of things. Instead, they are a non-profit foundation and recently created a separate taxable corporation with the intent of distribution and productizing Firefox & Thunderbird.
I think the word 'company' implies commercial interests and the developing part of Mozilla--the Foundation--does not have any commercial interests. While this may seem unimportant to you, I believe it to be a pretty important concept to clarify when you're talking about open source from a non-profit and open source from a company.
My work here is dung.
Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5? Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down. Yet when all the tabs load, they all respond snappily.
And sometimes certain sites act sluggish when opening the same exact site works fine in Safari.
It wasn't like this in 3.01
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
They already had a standing policy of hiding security related bugs (I.e. those that they figured were exploitable; It is even discussed in the log linked in the summary!).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
What do you mean there is a security exploit in a brand new version of a web browser? This is crazy, new versions of software should always be more secure then the previous versions.
Personally I'll be sticking with IE6, I never bought into this whole "Firefox" thing.
'[It] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code,' Mozilla's security blog reported Tuesday."
Oh sure, I'm definitely going to follow that link now.
I only use IE 5.5!
"Looking at the exploit code and our test cases, I think this is self-inflicted and we should have hidden the bug earlier"
Nice attitude, guys...
Go on and mod me troll but, IMNSHO, this is just a display of the expertise of the full disclosure movement: Just post a test-case from an open bugtracker as your own exploit and enjoy your 15 minutes of fame amongst all the other skript-kiddies.
Well done, hacker!
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
If you had read the bugzilla thread (I know, I know) you'd know it's already fixed ;)
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
They haven't released an update yet though, which is probably the more interesting event.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
According to TFA, the temporary fix is to disable TraceMonkey (JavaScript will still work). Set 'javascript.options.jit.content' in about:config to false until the patch is released.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Mod Parent Up "this should have been in the summary, Taco".
Who cares if they do? Security through obscurity is a perfectly valid strategy, as long as it is used in conjunction with other strategies, so when someone criticizes the mere use of secrecy, they can be disregarded.
(Think about it for a minute; passwords, keys, access codes, hidden safes, etc.)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
is Google Chrome...
Nope:
http://chromekb.com/vulnerabilities/
The attitude that some platforms are simply immune to attacks is foolish and counterproductive.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Why not post in the summary the simple fix?
In lieu of a patch, users can protect themselves by disabling the "just-in-time" component of the TraceMonkey engine.
To do that, users should enter "about:config" in Firefox's address bar, type "jit" in the filter box, then double-click
the "javascript.options.jit.content" entry to set the value to "false." The popular NoScript add-on will also ward off attacks.
No-Script has never been spyware. Adware, on the other hand...
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it?
I don't know. Why dose it take you that long? I takes me seconds. Maybe the issue is you?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
They haven't released an update yet though, which is probably the more interesting event.
That's true of course. And I don't want to split hairs but point out the open source nature of the Firefox browser:
The patch is already available.
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
Careful.
The official NoScript site is http://noscript.net/.
To anyone who doesn't already know: NoScript prevents Javascript scripts from running unless they are chosen from a menu. That even protects against vulnerabilities that haven't been discovered yet.
But, the majority of users only update firefox when it pops up a "hey, there's an update. Click here!" prompt.
The issue is unfixed for 90% of users until that occurs.
Sometimes it's better to just hold back and wait until my distro decides it is time to update my versions.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
fixed, but not pushed out yet. For the 'days to a fix' count, you need to count all days from the time the hole was discovered to the day a fixed version / patch is pushed out to users. (if I have to go looking for it, it's not 'fixed' yet) Most people are trained to only respond to Firefox's Update popups.
Ended up going back to noscript recently but it really is an ugly solution, yesscript is only helps against tracking. What is really needed is a good guide for using controldescripts (or a similar extention) allowing all sites to access a list of known safe fucntions (to let you browse the web without it getting in the way), some to be blacklisted (to protect you from tracking), an easy GUI way to allow a greater subset of functions to be accessed (for trusted site) and an security workarounds to stop any vulnerabilities working in the wild.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
NoScript got buried after the incident with it fucking around with AdBlock's settings, then once that was discovered and pointed out, them adding an AdBlock filter set to bypass blocking on NoScript's author's site.
As far as I know, it does neither any more, but it pissed off a lot of users, myself included, and its author's reputation went through the floor.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
It's called fdisk
Of course, NoScript can also be configured as opt out. It might make a lot of sense to incorporate it defaulted to opt-out and let the user make it opt-in if they like.
The browser's job is to do what the user wants it to do as it relates to browsing.
Is it just me who remembers the days when the only way to browse safely was to turn off Javascript? Now we're all drinking the web 2.0 kool aid it seems we've forgotten how many browser vulns are Javascript-related. Websites should never depend on Javascript to function properly but now we have point 'n click JQuery, Dojo etc. it seems websites are built on Javascript foundations with all the security issues that implies.
323 // 0: no restrictions - divert everything // 1: don't divert window.open at all // 2: don't divert window.open with features
324
325
326 pref("browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction", 2);
See http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/94909af358c4/browser/app/profile/firefox.js
such as assuming that nobody will ever guess that putting in a password of "&aR4q=Xj9_n½" will give them administrator access.
I would have edited in a password like "12345", but I had to enclose it in "strong" tags so that felt kind of cheap.
"Security through obscurity" means that lack of information is the only thing keeping something secure
yeah, kind of like lacking my username and password is one of the few practical things keeping you from using my online identity, and lacking my credit card number keeps you from running me into debt. Things like that. ;3
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.