Slashdot Mirror


Sneaky Microsoft Add-On Put Firefox Users At Risk

CWmike writes to mention that the "Windows Presentation Foundation" plugin that Microsoft slipped into Firefox last February apparently left the popular browser open to attack. This was among the many things recently addressed in the massive Tuesday patch. "What was particularly galling to users was that once installed, the .NET add-on was virtually impossible to remove from Firefox. The usual 'Disable' and 'Uninstall' buttons in Firefox's add-on list were grayed out on all versions of Windows except Windows 7, leaving most users no alternative other than to root through the Windows registry, a potentially dangerous chore, since a misstep could cripple the PC. Several sites posted complicated directions on how to scrub the .NET add-on from Firefox, including Annoyances.org."

18 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Sabotage? by Reyendo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.

    1. Re:Sabotage? by e2d2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that sounds like the most likely scenario. It's not just piss poor code, no no. It's definitely a nefarious plan concocted by the Illuminati and put into action by the secret lab they have at Microsoft. First step - fuck up Firefox. Second step - Destroy national borders.

      Too many movies makes you think strange things. For instance most people see the CIA as a bunch of bad asses with cell phone watches that project holograms of your dossier into thin air while sending you messages via ESP. Real life: rotary phones, paperwork in triplicate, and a gigantic fucking bureaucracy that thinks pagers are still useful.

    2. Re:Sabotage? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a .NET vulnerability, on MS Windows. Firefox being the vehicle is entirely Microsoft's fault as the maintainer of the .NET plugin.

    3. Re:Sabotage? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.

      I'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities (CVE-2009-0090) in this batch that affects Firefox, and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional - the vulnerability itself is a fairly obscure corner case in .NET bytecode validator/verifier, and, so far as I can tell, it has been there for a very long time, seemingly before WPF was even released. All in all, it looks like a genuine bug.

      A testament to its obscurity is the way I encountered it - I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting .NET, and was looking for an efficient way to pass Algol function-type function arguments (which are effectively vararg on the caller side) without having to lift outer locals used by captured functions to heap. Only after coming up with an efficient design and testing that it works, I realized the implications of what I had just done to the verifier.

      I cannot comment on CVE-2009-2529 (the second Firefox-affecting vulnerability), but I don't see how it would be any different. Really, the idea of MS deliberately adding vulnerabilities to its products in hope of marginally affecting Firefox by them (remember that IE is hit much worse...) is pretty absurd - even if you disregard the notion of business reputation when it comes to MS, it poses a very high legal liability. No-one in a sane mind would even contemplate doing such a thing.

      Disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft at present, though not on the affected products. I did not work for Microsoft when I discovered and reported that vulnerability.

    4. Re:Sabotage? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And it is actually quite simple to remove with regedit. For those that want to toss it just launch regedit and go to HKEY LOCAL MACHINE > Software> Mozilla > Firefox > Extensions. There you will find both it and the Java extension, just delete and voila! No more Dotnet or Java plugins.

      Whoa, there partner! There hasn't been even a theoretical remote Java exploit for quite some time. The Java plugin is actually useful (especially on the corporate desktop where there are a lot of enterprise-internal Java apps not made available to the public) so might be worth leaving it on.

    5. Re:Sabotage? by koro666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [...] can't they steal that idea from Apple so it would be basically "regutil --remove HKLM_Software_Mozilla_Firefox_Extensions .net"?

      Isn't this exactly what reg.exe does already?

    6. Re:Sabotage? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it is paranoid. How are you finding out about the vulnerability? Because Microsoft patched it last Tuesday. If they wanted to discredit Firefox they would have shipped something to take advantage of the security hole, not something to fix it. Besides, a security hole that only exists on the Windows version of Firefox (and will inevitably be traced back to their code) just makes it look like it is better to run FF on Linux rather than Windows - which would NOT be what they wanted.

      The sad part is that this could have gone so well for them. This should have been remembered for Microsoft supporting alternate browsers under Windows so it would be one less reason to say how IE has an unfair advantage. I could (barely) forgive them for silently installing it the extension because from Microsoft's point of view they are adding support for Firefox to .NET rather than the other way around.

      What was unforgivable was shipping this without the ability to disable the extension. Even if they had never contemplated the idea that anyone would want to uninstall it, it should have been blindingly obvious that a grayed out Disable button meant that this would stand out from other extensions. They couldn't just say that they didn't notice that it was not able to be uninstalled.

      I would like to know how you disable those buttons. Is there some API call when installing the extension (meaning it is a deliberate feature, for which both Microsoft and Mozilla should be shot)? Is it caused by a lack of uninstall script (meaning Microsoft did a half-arsed job of writing the extension)? Or is it a permissions thing that the update was installed by the Administrator account and limited users were not allowed to delete the files/registry keys (meaning... I don't know what to think of that option)?

    7. Re:Sabotage? by the_womble · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What idiot modded that insightful?

      It is weird how Windows advocates are quite happy to mess about the the Windows registry but claim that copying and pasting a fwe lines into a terminal window is dfficult.

  2. Almost by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I went through the process of removing the plug-in. While I was incensed that it was installed without so much as a by-your-leave, the removal method I used didn't require registry hacks or anything so high falutin.

    That said, I should not have had to have gone to any such effort in the first place.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  3. Re:remember the important part by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing worse than installing without asking is uninstalling without asking.

  4. Amazing by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is from the same people that claimed that the Google Chrome Render plugin for IE6+ will make the browser less secure?

  5. Shouldn't the title read by jayme0227 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Microsoft fixes vulnerability in their own Firefox Addon"? The summary would then point out that this was covered and Microsoft fixed the problem. But I guess calling Microsoft "sneaky," ignoring the fact that this was already posted on slashdot, and then minimizing the fact that MS actually fixed the problem was too appealing to pass up.

    --
    But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
  6. Re:Not this shit again. by asa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are lots of programs that install plugins automagically...Skype, antiviruses, and Picasa are a few that I can think of off the top of my head. The only bad part of this whole thing is that MS screwed up the remove/uninstall feature by making it show up for all users.

    No. Wrong. Installing plug-ins or extensions without asking is bad. Period. Full stop. End of story.

  7. Re:What? Shouldn't firefox fix this one? by asa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So firefox allows a rogue addon to install without any user intervention and the story is all about how evil MSFT is?

    Sure, they did it. Bad Microsoft.

    But isn't the bigger issue that now that this is known....*anyone* can pull this on firefox users?

    No. I am not apologizing for Microsoft. This was "Sony Stupid" of them. We're used to that here, though. What we're not used to (and apparently sweeping under the rug) is the massive, unholy hell of a mess mozilla's extension system for firefox is....

    Anyone that can run executable code on your system can do anything to your system. The "good guys" aren't supposed to do things to your system without asking you first. The "bad guys" can simply replace Firefox entirely with a version that has what ever features they want. If you let someone run code on your system, you lose. Firefox cannot stop that code from doing what ever it wants. The point is that you're supposed to only install software from vendors you trust. You should be able to trust Microsoft and that your trust was abused and abused in a way that caused you to be vulnerable to remote exploits is the story here.

  8. Re:except Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or ... here's a novel idea ... get ready ...

    maybe microsoft could try making good quality products that people want to use instead of spending all their money on subversive, childish, and frankly idiotic, endeavors to stem the flow of users away from their products.

    they have been doing the same crap for years with every piece of software in the market that's not theirs. they release an update that makes it insecure or unstable.

    not that they care, but i have no respect whatsoever for the poor excuses for businessmen that run Microsoft.

    nothing new though i guess ... rather than come out with something useful that makes the world better they just keep churning out the same old crap and bulldoze anyone who gets in their way just like the insurance industry, petroleum industry etc. /sigh

  9. Re:except Windows 7 by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is exactly what makes it outrageous.

    What the fuck kind of business does MS have with patching someone else's friggin software?

    I'd say that MS is illegally making a derivative binary work and should get nailed for infringing on mozilla copyrights.

    Additionally, I also say that MS is engaging in anti-competitive behavior by sabotaging a rival product.

  10. Re:except Windows 7 by srmalloy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To be honest though, parking a crap add-on and then blaming Firefox for any security issues over it would sound par for the course as per Microsoft...

    Well, of course it is... After all, isn't being unable to prevent the company that controls the OS your program runs under from automatically installing unremovable exploit code a severe security hole in your program? So clearly it's a problem with Mozilla, and has nothing to do with Microsoft at all.

  11. Re:except anything but Windoze by bh_doc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know you didn't start this, but I have to say:

    2k10... 2k08...

    What the hell? Are these supposed to be short for 2010 and 2008? What's the freaking point of writing them like that?