Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Suffers Web Interface Exploit

HaloZero writes "We're seeing lots of re-tweets on Twitter.com right now, all containing a fragment of JavaScript, which re-tweets itself when moused-over on the Twitter web interface. This could easily be muted into a more sinister attack, so it is recommended that you use a third party client application, or refrain from social media altogether until the problem is resolved."

165 comments

  1. First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://t.co/@"onmouseover="document.getElementById('status').value='RT test_nau';$('.status-update-form').submit();"style="background:red"/

    Before you mod me down, please consider the fact that I have a sense of humour plus I posted using "Plain Old Text" plus the script does not work on Slashdot.

    1. Re:First Post by blai · · Score: 5, Funny

      RT @Anonymous\ Coward http://t.co/@ [t.co]"onmouseover="document.getElementById('status').value='RT test_nau';$('.status-update-form').submit();"style="background:red"/ Before you mod me down, please consider the fact that I have a sense of humour plus I posted using "Plain Old Text" plus the script does not work on Slashdot.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    2. Re:First Post by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      Requires one word — "ROTFL".

    3. Re:First Post by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Which one of the five words represented by that acronym are you referring to?

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    4. Re:First Post by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's all a ruse. If someone tries to mod him down, he shall become more powerful than we could possibly imagine. Or at least, the script will start working :0

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:First Post by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Naw. ACs have a short lifespan. They were made that way. We need not concern ourselves with them unless they become dangerous.

      What dangerous is should be obvious.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:First Post by somersault · · Score: 1

      What dangerous is should be obvious.

      Able to make their way up the basement stairs?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:First Post by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      How does this actually work? It's usually hard to write a program that can print itself out. And to do that in so few characters would be even harder. However it looks like this one is somehow cheating and asking the containing document to tell it it's own content. But I'm not a good java script programmer to understand it.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    8. Re:First Post by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy. The "innerHTML" bit of the code gets the entire contents of the current element, and the rest of the code puts it into the input box and submits it. It's not "cheating" in any sense of the word. You might be having a hard time parsing the code because it's not exactly pure JavaScript - it's using jQuery.

    9. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not an acronym.. it's an initialism

  2. Well by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    I'm sure glad all the tweets about this have the #mouseover hash tag so I can click on it in my client to open the twitter.com web interface and read about how I shouldn't use the twitter.com web interface.

    1. Re:Well by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Looks like any JS event for anchor tags can be used (I just made one using the sample seen in the article for an onclick handler that returns false).

    2. Re:Well by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh fun, the Chromed Bird extension for Chrome will happily inject onmouseover events into its popup HTML too. Good thing extensions are sandboxed.

  3. Or mobile by bbtom · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you want to use the web interface, the mobile version isn't affected: http://m.twitter.com/

    --
    catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    1. Re:Or mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't use twitter at all, how does that help me you insensitive clod!?

    2. Re:Or mobile by bbtom · · Score: 4, Funny

      The conditional word "if" was included for your convenience.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    3. Re:Or mobile by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, if he doesn't want to use the web interface, then is the mobile version affected or not?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Or mobile by Bonewalker · · Score: 2, Funny

      If a social media hub is infected with a virus and no one is around to mouse-over it, would it still make Slashdot's front page?

    5. Re:Or mobile by JustOK · · Score: 1

      question would be how many dupes would appear.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Or mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a logically valid conclusion. However, if the mobile version is affected, then he doesn't want to use the web interface.

  4. Hmm by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Why, again, should I be using Twitter?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Hmm by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's the best, perhaps only way to automatically retweet. That's a fairly unique service.

    2. Re:Hmm by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I use it to keep up to date on writers, scientists, actors, game developers, etc. As a communication tool amongst people I know "in person", I see no use for it. As a tool for staying up to date with various personalities in the geek, gaming, movie, and scientific communities, it's perfect.

    3. Re:Hmm by grub · · Score: 1

      Yes, for that I agree, should have clarified and meant as a 'tweeter'.

      Still think I nailed it when I wrote "Twitter: the UDP of human conversation. -me"

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:Hmm by kisrael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can't tell you why you should be using Twitter, but some of us have friends or know of folks online who are good at dropping the pithy bon mot, or find it a convenient way to announce things.

      Why again should you be using email? Or SMS txt'ing? Or slashdot?

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    5. Re:Hmm by somersault · · Score: 1

      Can't really tell if that's a joke about the article, or whether that's actually meant to mean something useful. Doesn't really help answer his question either way..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Hmm by grub · · Score: 1

      I've posted it once before, google will prove it. Nice troll, though.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:Hmm by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, so it's really hard to decide if I should reply or just send your obvious bait into oblivion.
      Instead I'll bite though.

      I hated twitter when I first heard about it, I didn't 'get' it. Now, having used it - it's the most powerful communications tool I've ever seen, period.
      It's a perfect replacement to SMS, I can see if events are occuring internationally almost instantly, I can broadcast things to all or keep them private. It's an incredible tool for sharing information and frankly should be the end of SMS, period.

      Once you realise you can respond to some very interesting people at the click of a button you'll possibly appreciate it.

    8. Re:Hmm by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      judging by the media, I'd say you're supposed to use twitter if you're ever in jail/kidnapped in a third world country. Then you'll be set free by a flashmob of justin berbers, only to discover you've just been punk'd.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    9. Re:Hmm by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      Email? Meh, old news. Texting? Meh, newfangled. Slashdot? Ah Slashdot: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, again, should I be using Twitter?

      The more fundamental question is "why, again, should I be allowing Javascript?"

    11. Re:Hmm by kisrael · · Score: 1

      Ironically, your clever (and shibboleth-ish; I had to google UDP to make sure I got it) line about twitter is an excellent example of what twitter is excellent for, as a "tweeter" -- the sharing of an engaging twist of perspective.

      There's a lingering perception of twitter as a "what I'm having for dinner right now" kind of thing, but in practice that's a small fraction of the use of it (YMMV)-- conversely I would say Twitter's "right in the moment" aspect makes such talk a little more engaging and less banal, because there's more a chance of it being part of the shared human experience, distributed across space but unified in time -- but I think most people who "tweet" in that mode don't have big followings outside the group of people they know in real life.

      So I'd say, as a tweeter, if you can come up with lines like the UDP one frequently, then you should be using twitter to increase the sum total of cleverness online and garner some of that old school egoboo. If all you're going to post about is what you're doing right now, then why bother?

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    12. Re:Hmm by grub · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, we're even. I had to google "shibboleth" :)

      Cheers!

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    13. Re:Hmm by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For personal one to one text communications I don't see how you can improve on texts/SMS, and for anything else what does twitter do that a web site can't?

      In fact, I would say it is the communication (real or imagined) with "famous" people that makes it so appealing. When you lo into Film Star A's blog, you know you're just doing the equivalent of reading her diary. But when you get a tweet on your mobile phone, it's sort of like she's talking directly to you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Hmm by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why, again, should I be using Twitter?

      To get redirected to hardcore porn of course!

    15. Re:Hmm by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I use it to keep up to date on writers, scientists, actors, game developers, etc. As a communication tool amongst people I know "in person", I see no use for it. As a tool for staying up to date with various personalities in the geek, gaming, movie, and scientific communities, it's perfect.

      But.. but.. but... it's mainstream! And mainstream stuff, especially things that require 'followers' or 'friends', is dumb and stupid and totally beneath us nerds! I prefer to use email and other less ideal solutions that this thing does elegantly!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    16. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one gives a rat fuck.

    17. Re:Hmm by kisrael · · Score: 1

      "For personal one to one text communications I don't see how you can improve on texts/SMS, and for anything else what does twitter do that a web site can't?"

      It's the one to many thing -- not "many" as in "countless hoards of fans", but many as in "a set of people I know in real life and who I've run into online" -- most people don't generate enough content to make a website worth coming back to on a daily or more basis, but amalgamated with a bunch of other people's thoughts, and now you've got something!

      There are other paths to the same thing -- if everyone used RSS heavily, you could be part of your audience's RSS feed, and still get a proportional amount of timely attention. And Facebook has a similar "fax machine effect" as Twitter -- for close friends, I would hope to get personal email or a call or word in person of important events, but for a big mass of people who I'm not that close to but not entirely distant, FB fills a niche. (That said I barely keep up with FB -- in general it's more "day to day" boring stuff and less people trying to be clever than twitter)

      So that's what twitter does that a website (in practice) "can't" - aggregation is the key.

      "In fact, I would say it is the communication (real or imagined) with "famous" people that makes it so appealing."

      I'm sure this is true for many twitter readers, but it's certainly not universally applicable. I might follow some famous people, but only ones who seem to be trying to write funny or smart stuff.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    18. Re:Hmm by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      I got my job through Twitter. It is social networking. If you use it right, you meet new people.

    19. Re:Hmm by spectro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Twitter is great for those of us with no writing talent: no need to post a whole blog about an idea we can explain in 140 characters or less

      --
      HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    20. Re:Hmm by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Actually, being able to work within strict limitations -is- a pretty good indicator of talent. It's much easier to bloviate for paragraphs at a time without saying anything.

    21. Re:Hmm by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      Nerds have attention span of only 140 characters.

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    22. Re:Hmm by coryking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Twitter is hardly mainstream. Out of a huge assortment of people I know, almost all of them, nerds or technophobes have a facebook account. I have only met one person who claims to use Twitter.

      Twitter is pure, 100% hype. It is the most hyped ".com" I've seen since, well, the dot.com days. Seriously. Twitter is not mainstream in the least.

    23. Re:Hmm by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Twitter is hardly mainstream.... It is the most hyped ".com" I've seen since, well, the dot.com days."

      Heh. Seriously? It's more hyped than any .com and it's not mainstream?

      Two billion tweets in a 3 month period? Every business and their mother advertising 'follow us on twitter!' The word 'tweet' being widely recognized by most Joe Schmoe's?

      Okie doke. Not mainstream at all.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    24. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it different than RSS?

  5. Again? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'd think people would've learned by now that you can't allow random strings of script in user-submitted data. Why is filtering this stuff out not part of standard input sanitization practices by now?

    1. Re:Again? by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      What if its a tweet about programming in JavaScript?

    2. Re:Again? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 1

      Then you escape it so it displays, instead of executing... seriously... same way you handle < and > and all the other naughty characters

    3. Re:Again? by martas · · Score: 1

      then force people to use escaped sequences. i.e. only display "computer.fuckUp()" at the very last step, in the ui. everywhere else it should be "computer\.fuckUp\(\)". [note: toy example. not actually claiming that '.' and parens should be escaped...]

    4. Re:Again? by Deag · · Score: 1

      I think it is half solutions that are the problem. Allowing any sort of tags allows for adding script to various events and the like and even stripping them is quite difficult.
      You either need to use a library that is proven to do this or escape all html.

    5. Re:Again? by cygnwolf · · Score: 1

      So you sanitize it to display characters only instead of a script.

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    6. Re:Again? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Easy. If they escaped double-quotes (") to &quote; then this wouldn't happen because the code wouldn't be able to escape the href section of the link.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Again? by iLogiK · · Score: 1

      From I could tell, the string looks something like this: http://example.com/#@"onmouseover=">"

      my guess is this is come bug related to how they handle hashtags/user profile links

      I think they're regularly running a script that takes out the # from the link from old tweets

    8. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... quite difficult...~

      For your average run-of-the-mill take-your-pick-from-a-grab-bag-of-middle-eastern-countries CS / CE student who cheated (erm, collaborated) his/her way through all the required programming courses... quite difficult indeed.

    9. Re:Again? by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 0, Redundant
      because the raw input should be stored in case additional sanitation processing is required in the future. re-sanitizing might not be feasible as new special characters were introduced to replace old.

      this is about sanitizing OUTPUT... there is probably someone in the company like you that handles output sanitation by completely ignoring it and doing all sanitation on the input side... then they are switched to a different team or a new feature is thrown in the mix that doesn't comply with the standards used in different teams... boom. billion dollar company looks like chumps. children playing on daddy's computer. certainly not to be trusted.

    10. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not allow random strings of script in user-submitted data, and have the server escape it instead of forcing the user to do it?

    11. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That probably sounded wonderful in your head, but it looks retarded in black and white. Sanitizing inputs vs. outputs has no significant difference when it comes to the results. It's not even like the core HTML/JavaScript syntax has changed tremendously since it was ever first invented...

    12. Re:Again? by somersault · · Score: 1

      But what if they used.. single quotes!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!! *gasp* :0

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Again? by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      yes, but NEW SERVICES UTILIZING "core HTML/JavaScript" have their own syntax and internal interfaces... such as the t.co service EXPLOITED IN THIS CASE.

      you are so dumb.

      emphasizing sanitizing output allows you to keep the users originally provided input for reference. if you've never needed such a reference i'd argue you probably don't do this for a living.

    14. Re:Again? by somersault · · Score: 1

      or the server could just convert < and > to &lt; and &gt; when it received a tweet, wouldn't that work to "escape all HTML"?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Again? by Deag · · Score: 1

      That is one way of doing it, but if you have a requirement for rich text for example it complicates things. And the more control you are handing over to the user the more difficult it is to stop javascript sneaking in somewhere.

    16. Re:Again? by gpuk · · Score: 1

      That's what he meant (i hope)

    17. Re:Again? by dkf · · Score: 1

      But what if they used.. single quotes!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!! *gasp* :0

      But what if attackers used single quotes too?

      (Sheesh!)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    18. Re:Again? by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, is your complete inability to interact with others without resorting to childish name-calling some sort of an Asperger thing, or are you genuinely an asshole? Sheesh man, you deserve every ounce of shit these people give you.

    20. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but most of these "fixes" increase the number of characters in the tweet, which could, in theory, put you over the 140 character limit. and that would cause the world to end.

    21. Re:Again? by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      is your inability to not cower behind anonymity or provide any factual insight to any conversation some sort of hypocritical idiot thing, or are you genuinely ignorant?

      you are NOTHING

    22. Re:Again? by iamvim · · Score: 1

      nearly any method of escaping characters creates a longer string. this would most likely result in tweets to be longer than 140 characters. and as far as I know, that would result in the end of the internet as we know it.

    23. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is your inability to not cower behind anonymity or provide any factual insight to any conversation some sort of hypocritical idiot thing, or are you genuinely ignorant?

      you are NOTHING

      How many Slashdot accounts do you have?

    24. Re:Again? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible to store the tweet in 140 characters, while just as easily as escaping sensitive characters on an HTML interface. It's called escaping on demand, and any library that deals with HTML should have that feature already.

    25. Re:Again? by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      how many CAN i have?

      you are NOTHING

    26. Re:Again? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The server shouldn't really store HTML entities. You don't want to receive that junk in an XML API or to have to convert it for a non-HTML desktop client. You store the original and escape for display.

    27. Re:Again? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Good point, that's actually how I already handle this type of situation in my own apps now that I think about it: escape HTML special chars and convert newlines to break tags on the way out, but leave the original text in the database.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    28. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many CAN i have?

      you are NOTHING

      For what it's worth, I am a different AC who asked how many accounts you have.

      You're a beautiful loving person.

    29. Re:Again? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Why is filtering this stuff out not part of standard input sanitization practices by now?

      It is, I'd just guess that whoever is behind Twitter is not as competent as you might think.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    30. Re:Again? by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      for what it's worth, i knew you were a different AC.

      you are NOTHING

    31. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for what it's worth, i am a different AC than either of the above. and you're an idiot.

  6. Hosts file by MidnightPsycho · · Score: 3, Informative

    Add "t.co" to your Windows Hosts file - this will stop the jibberish text.
    Although the web interface is still broke. (The interface goes grey, and
    any click still tries to go to the t.co web page)

    Add this to your Hosts file:

    0.0.0.0 t.co

    1. Re:Hosts file by bbtom · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not a great solution: because Twitter shortens lots of links through t.co - meaning you'll click on links on Twitter and go to 0.0.0.0

      The actual solution: use a native client or the mobile web version ( http://m.twitter.com/ ) until Twitter fixes the exploit.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    2. Re:Hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      But as soon as they fix it, remove it from your hosts. t.co is Twitter's official shortener, so there will be more and more legit links using it.

    3. Re:Hosts file by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      No. Some of the tweets use a different address.

    4. Re:Hosts file by MidnightPsycho · · Score: 1

      Yeah - just saw one with "a.no" .....

    5. Re:Hosts file by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Using NoScript or Google Chrome's Content Settings to block JavaScript on twitter.com is also an option, maybe. Not sure how well twitter.com works that way but onmouseover handlers won't run and AJAX won't work so this exploit is useless then.

    6. Re:Hosts file by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      Spoken to twitter on IRC. It is fixed. Going to take a while to propagate through the servers.

    7. Re:Hosts file by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or don't use Twitter. Seriously.

      Except for this thoroughly informative sentence, including the punctuation, nothing of any real import can be expressed in 140 characters...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Hosts file by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      That won't do anything. t.co is only used in order to trick twitter into creating an anchor tag, to which the onmouseover handler can be attached. Since you're on twitter.com the only place an AJAX call can be sent to retweet is... twitter.com. example.com can be used instead of t.co and the exploit would still work the same.

    9. Re:Hosts file by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm having a lot of fun distilling what I want to say down to its bare essence in order to fit the 140 char space.

      Then again, I mostly use twitter to see my elected officials make fun of each other(and egg 'm on a bit at times).

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:Hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you run a botnet

    11. Re:Hosts file by asdfington · · Score: 1

      The actual solution: use a native client or the mobile web version ( http://m.twitter.com/ ) until Twitter fixes the exploit.

      or simply retweet and lol.

    12. Re:Hosts file by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 1

      can you prove there isn't exploit potential in the m.twitter.com interface?

    13. Re:Hosts file by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      nothing of any real import can be expressed in 140 characters...

      "The bag is in locker #437. You'll find your fee and the target's dossier inside."
      "The guy I was having fun with is dead in your kitchen and cops are coming. XOXOXO"
      "Cut the red wire."
      "Salutations earthlings. We come in peace."

      Never used Twitter but 140 seems to be a lot. Maybe you're a bit too wordy.

      "Dear Mr.Assassin. I've left the money, in $20 bills, inside big a black leather bag. The target data will be inside the bag that you'll find in locker #"

    14. Re:Hosts file by JustOK · · Score: 1

      640K much?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    15. Re:Hosts file by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      For all those things I think you'd be safer using a throwaway pay as you go mobile phone and texting the message (well, maybe not the aliens).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:Hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing of any import should be expressed on a website owned by someone else.
      Use RSS. We don't need Twitter reporting what locker my spy equipment is in to all their IT guys.

  7. Obligatory xkcd by labcoatless · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 2, Informative
      obligatory you're an idiot...

      the issue was with sanitizing database OUTPUT.

      little bobby tables wouldn't even allow such a trivially basic error like this to make it's way onto production servers.

    2. Re:Obligatory xkcd by ledow · · Score: 1

      Whichever way you look at it (input or output) no damn javascript should EVER make it into a tweet. Nobody but Twitter knows if that's because the tweet-input routines didn't filter it effectively, or because the tweet display routines allow you to see the javascript as actual markup instead of sanitised plain-text.

      Either way, allowing JS scripts, HTML tags or anything NOT TEXT into a tweet means you didn't attend your first grade computer security courses. This isn't some massively complex hack - somehow javascript was not stripped or escaped adequately, allowing a single piece of it on the site to constantly be executed automatically by all users, and whose input was then accepted time and time again as a valid tweet without escaping it properly.

      Someone should REALLY be fired. In fact, several people, because on a site that size there should damn-well be several programmers and several people running tests and checking for such things.

    3. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 1

      it's such an obvious misstep, i have to believe it was intentional to make all their twits feel relieved that "the good folks at twitter fixed the virus"... they'll never know it was the incompetence of those same folks that the exploit existed in the first place

    4. Re:Obligatory xkcd by somersault · · Score: 1

      Completely random aside, but in English even though you use 's to signify possession for nouns, instead of "it's", you actually write it "its".

      Happy to help you sanitise your output ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Jello+B. · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's not obligatory. Suck dick.

    6. Re:Obligatory xkcd by socsoc · · Score: 0

      Cause it isn't a noun... It's is a contraction.

    7. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you are a humourless git.

    8. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      the very mistake the original poster made stems from the same procedural confusion which created the exploit potential.

      continued ignorance is not humorous. it's ignorant.

    9. Re:Obligatory xkcd by labcoatless · · Score: 1

      I apologize for offending you. Still, I disagree. In my opinion, the problem is as much about sanitizing input as about output, regardless of where the damage is done.

    10. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      the sad part is, these exploit paths are pretty much everywhere... my coworkers and i used to have contests about who could get javascript executing on some arbitrary domain first while we had lunch... only stumped maybe a few times... almost never, with dozens and dozens of successes. of course our own domains were bulletproof. i'm still convinced perhaps we were the only developers at the time that respected the potential of the problem. now people are arguing against HTML5 because it does nothing to remove this very same potential for cross site attacks... and idiot developers would have you belief that is "an issue", when the real issue is idiot developers not doing anything to not be idiot developers.

    11. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course bobby tables wouldn't... of course bobby tables wouldn't have allowed a trivially basic error such as unsanitised sql queries in user-entered data either, so your making a large point of this is largely pointless really.

    12. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      you're still talking about input sanitation... further demonstrating my point that MOST DEVELOPERS DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.

    13. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      sanitization of the sanitation.

    14. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke is close enough to be funny. There's no need for the insulting language. If you want to point out some nitpicking detail, that's fine. There's no need to be antisocial about it. People will respect your intelligence more if you aren't an ass.

      P.S. You could have pointed out that this isn't a SQL injection attack but you didn't. Who's the fucking idiot now?!!!!!!

    15. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad you can post any random link to xkcd and get modded up on slashdot...

    16. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      so you're hypocritically tell me what i can find funny? look at you, you're still ignorantly responding attempting to silence someone.

      the problem is lack of sanitization.

      ur mum's face is the fucking idiot now.

    17. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      ur mum's face can post any random link to xkcd and get modded up on slashdot

  8. Additional details from Netcraft, Sophos by 1sockchuck · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's more info on the spread of this exploit from Paul Mutton at Netcraft and Graham Cluely at Sophos.

    1. Re:Additional details from Netcraft, Sophos by Spykk · · Score: 1

      Confirmed by Netcraft? Better start panicking.

    2. Re:Additional details from Netcraft, Sophos by davek · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There's more info on the spread of this exploit from Paul Mutton at Netcraft

      Well, then it must be true if Netcraft confirms it.

      --
      6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
  9. Re:You mean... by bbtom · · Score: 1

    Yes, there are people who aren't total social media douchebags who use Twitter.

    HootSuite uses ow.ly which for quite a long time wrapped links in a stupid 'social toolbar', a sort of crap Twitter version of the DiggBar. Horrible. If I go to someone's Twitter profile and see that they have mostly been posting from HootSuite, I conclude the same thing as when I see they use Outlook for their e-mail.

    --
    catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
  10. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disable javascript. If something as simple as twitter requires javascript be enabled on the client, the company deserve all the resulting security problems!

    1. Re:Easy solution by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, but 1994 called, and it wants its World Wide Web back. Interactive webpages are the future, they are actually really nice when they're done properly, and denying that is just holding you back. I expect that sooner or later secure programming mentalities will become deeply ingrained in Web programming, and things like this will stop happening. There will always be bugs, but that's no different from any other software.

      NoScript is a much better solution than out-and-out disabling javascript anyways.

    2. Re:Easy solution by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1994 called, and it wants its World Wide Web back.

      I called, and I want 1994's WWW back. No more "My entire website is in Flash!" No more drive-by downloads. No more web-apps that just write a static page when HTML would have sufficed. <blink>Just "Here's my Dog!" and "Work in Progress" signs.</blink>

    3. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, there's zero reason twitter can't degrade gracefully, or rather "upgrade pointlessly" using non-obtrusive script. Twitter is not a complicated app, it doesn't need anything that can't be done via HTML 3.2.

      Hence, your "interactive web pages are the future" comment is misinformed bullshit. Sure, google maps or an online photoshop clone _require_ javascript, however text based information does not and never will!

    4. Re:Easy solution by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *sobs* who ever thought we'd be getting nostalgic for blink tags?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Easy solution by uncanny · · Score: 1

      fine fine, i'm getting off your lawn, sheesh!

    6. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha. Shut up grandpa.

    7. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behold! My glamorous animated, scrolling and/or blinking GIFs!

    8. Re:Easy solution by djh2400 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I don't get the anti-JavaScript mindset. From what I understand, however, it is only a small (and quite vocal) minority.

      People who disable JavaScript should not expect to experience a working website (including Twitter).

  11. Here let me fix that for you by hellfire · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...so it is recommended that you refrain from social media altogether.

    There, fixed it for you.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Here let me fix that for you by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      So abstinence is the best way to avoid viruses?

    2. Re:Here let me fix that for you by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Bah, beat me to it.

  12. Alternative social media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Or you could just move to a sane and open alternative, like any of the sites built on status.net, such as http://www.identi.ca

    Or even roll your own.

  13. Oh really? Refrain from what? by mr_mischief · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    refrain from social media altogether until the problem is resolved

    Sorry, I didn't realize Twatter was "social media altogether". Sorry, Slashdot, you just admitted on your front page you are irrelevant. Only Twitter counts.

  14. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I go to someone's Twitter profile and see that they have mostly been posting from HootSuite, I conclude the same thing as when I see they use Outlook for their e-mail.

    That they're at work?

  15. Also saw by asdfington · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://a.no/@"onmouseover=";$('textarea:first.val(this.innerHTML);$.('status-update-form.submit();"class="modal-overlay"/ which puts an overlay on the whole site, causing any mouseover to retweet. Personally I think this is pretty hilarious. If you mouse around a bunch you get something like this: http://i.imgur.com/qTPeK.png Yes I know you can see my acct. in the bg, I don't care; if it were private, why would I put it on twitter?

  16. Now FIXED by bbtom · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    1. Re:Now FIXED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh thank goodness. Now back to my social life.

    2. Re:Now FIXED by mybecq · · Score: 1

      The XSS attack should now be fully patched and no longer exploitable. Thanks, those reporting it.

      about 1 hour ago via web
      Retweeted by 100+ people

      So, they tweeted that they had fixed a bug preventing unintended retweeting, and 100+ people have retweeted it?

    3. Re: Now FIXED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The XSS attack should now be fully patched and no longer exploitable. Thanks, those reporting it.
      Retweeted by 100+ people.

      Apparently not.

    4. Re:Now FIXED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100+ retweets is quite common especially if it's about a popular topic written by a prominent individual.

  17. pure shame. by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 1
    a web application allowing users to output html that can alter layout, or javascript that can be executed is such a giant fail, that twitter should seriously consider firing the highest members of it's management staff responsible for code architecture review.

    as is always the case, they'll claim it passed regression testing, so there was nothing they could do... but the simple fact is they failed at creating viable regression tests.

    this is kindergarten CS stuff... these are the developers the big name outfits are hiring? do they work in the US? did anyone check their resumes?

    this is pathetic

  18. Refrain from using the internet by faulteh · · Score: 1

    until they fix twitter.

    EVERYONE! Grab a shovel.. dig a hole in the sand and instruct the person next to you to put their head in the hole, now bury their heads in the sand. Everyone do the same! Wait... one person will have to be left behind.

    This is a well orchestrated attack by twitter to highlight the need to move to their own in-house url shortener t.co instead of all those other pesky untrustworthy other url shorteners. However, on a funny note it's amazing how people will, nay, must click things, especially since it's been shortened into something meaningless. No way those links could be suspect, someone tweeted that... to me! it's ok, i'll just move my mouse over here... and exert some pressure on the left mouse button... oh cr*p what have i done? LOLCATS!

    Keep the fear alive!

  19. muted into a more sinister attack? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    I'm confused as to how reducing the intensity of this exploit would make it more sinister. If anybody can give me an idea of how that would work, I would appreciate it.
    Now on the other hand if this attack were to mutate I could see it easily becoming something that might be very disruptive for twits (those who use Twitter).

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:muted into a more sinister attack? by nwmann · · Score: 1

      perhaps they mean making it less noticed and more destructive. therefore quiet or muted to us all the while racking up the damage.

  20. TLDR by vlm · · Score: 1

    If that was TLDR, heres my summary:

    "... it is recommended that you ... refrain from social media altogether ..."

    Works for me!

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  21. From TFS by vegiVamp · · Score: 3, Funny

    "refrain from social media altogether until the problem is resolved"

    I've been doing exactly that, and intend on keeping to do that until the problem of Twitter has been resolved.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
    1. Re:From TFS by wjousts · · Score: 1

      But how will you know what your favorite celebrities are having for lunch?!?

    2. Re:From TFS by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Funny

      The hidden webcams I've mounted everywhere in their houses, of course.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  22. mocking illiterate editors is too easy by sribe · · Score: 2, Informative

    This could easily be muted into a more sinister attack.

    mute |myot|
    verb [ trans. ]
    1 (often be muted) deaden, muffle, or soften the sound of : her footsteps were muted by the thick carpet.
      muffle the sound of (a musical instrument), esp. by the use of a mute.
      figurative reduce the strength or intensity of : his professional contentment was muted by personal sadness.
    2 turn off (the sound on a television, telephone, or other appliance) by activating the mute : he turns the set on, mutes the sound, but flicks through the channels.

    mutate |myott|
    verb
    change or cause to change in form or nature : [ intrans. ] technology continues to mutate at an alarming rate | [ trans. ] the quick-dry solution really worked, even if it did mutate the skin on her fingers to reptilian scales.
      Biology (with reference to a cell, DNA molecule, etc.) undergo or cause to undergo change in a gene or genes : [ intrans. ] the virus is able to mutate into new forms that are immune to the vaccine | [ trans. ] certain nucleotides were mutated.

    1. Re:mocking illiterate editors is too easy by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      You're entirely right, and that is an oversight on my part. I had originally mis-typed 'mutated' (mutaed?), and instead of spell-checking it to 'mutated', it went to 'muted'. I didn't realize until I saw it on the front page, and said 'Doh!'.

      You got the idea, though.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
  23. Anyone want to seek it? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    http://www.spy.appspot.com/ a "search" site for social media
    Might be fun to note who is using in in ~ realtime.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. Web Interface Exploit? by andr00oo · · Score: 1

    Exploit? I can't see that this is any worse than what the Twitter Web Interface (or any other Twitter interface) was designed to do.

  25. Already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    refrain from social media altogether until the problem is resolved

    Hey, they found my solution, then again, since I never know when it is vulnerable, I just avoid it altogether.

  26. Curing Retweet Viruses by rakuen · · Score: 1

    It seems this one has been fixed already, but if you get infected in the future, here's one way to fix it so you at least won't spread the plague too much. Other methods exist, but this is how you could do it if for some reason you only wanted to use Twitter's main webpages.

    1) Make sure you've got a script-blocker, such as NoScript.
    2) Disable scripts from Twitter and TwitImg (or whatever the image server is, I can't check it now).
    3) Navigate to twitter.com/USERNAME#
    4) Right now, you lack a lot of Twitter functionality, but the Undo button should still work. Click it.
    5) Twitter should tell you it's attempting to undo. Wait a few moments, and then refresh.
    6) Repeat 4 and 5 until you successfully cure yourself.
    7) Don't use Twitter again until the exploit is fixed.
    8) NOW you can restore your original settings.

  27. wait, what? by Son+of+Byrne · · Score: 1
    This line just made me laugh:

    or refrain from social media altogether

    Sounds like health class again.

    --
    I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
  28. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid, senseless pieces of garbage. And for what purpose are all of these social engineering, I mean networking, sites.

  29. OWASP's Top Ten by Temujin_12 · · Score: 1

    Every web developer should religiously study OWASP's Top Ten Most Critical Web Application Security Risks and be held accountable to it by their superiors.

    Those who work with contractors should especially do this as I've found that contractors tend to have the worst habits when it comes to security.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
  30. Use a third party client? But they're broken by IBBoard · · Score: 1

    How can I use a 3rd party client when my favourite ones are broken and the ones that aren't broken a missing vital features for those who aren't on Twitter 24/7 (like Gwibber and its lack of scroll-back)? Curse you, OAuth deadline. Curse you!

  31. Random ID's by neorush · · Score: 1

    I've always coded most forms, especially login forms, with random form names / ID's. This stops most generic javascript based attacks. While you could certainly code easily enough to submit form 0 and change value of DOM object 1, it adds to the complexity of the whole exploit, and would have stopped any successful attempts at a hard coded getElementById().

    --
    neorush
  32. Thanks for stating the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only useful thing saw in the article was "refrain from social media altogether".

    Thanks for stating the obvious :)