Slashdot Mirror


Firefox, Opera Allow Phishing By Data URI Claims New Paper

hypnosec writes "A student at the University of Oslo, Norway has claimed that Phishing attacks can be carried out through the use of URI and users of Firefox and Opera are vulnerable to such attacks. Malicious web pages can be stored into data URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) whereby an entire webpage's code can be stuffed into a string, which if clicked on will instruct the browser to unpack the payload and present it to the user in form of a page. This is where the whole thing gets a bit dangerous. In his paper, Phishing by data URI [PDF], Henning Klevjer has claimed that through his method he was able to successfully load the pages on Firefox and Opera. The method however failed on Google Chrome and Internet Explorer."

5 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Chrome and IE by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    it's more about how IE and Chrome don't support DATA uri's

    I'm not actually sure that this is the case. (Change the Wikipedia entry if it's wrong, then.)

  2. Re:Underlying Operating System ... by Tom · · Score: 5, Informative

    They don't. It's a phishing attack, its intent is to get you to enter your password to some interesting site on a fake of that site. Afterwards, they'd redirect you to the real one or show a bogus error message, and then loot your account there.

    One attack vector against phishing attacks has been to take the site down where the fake is hosted. If the bad guys don't have to host the fake anymore because it is entirely self-contained in the phishing mail you send out through their botnet, then there is one less thing we can do against phishing.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Re:Chrome and IE by nomaddamon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Take a website with 100 small images, with average image size 10kb, latency (3-way handshake+data) = 25ms, and your bandwidth = 10Mbit/s

    Using 5 paralel connections (max allowed by http) the site will download in 10/1280*100 + 0,025*20 = 1,28 seconds

    Embeding all images in original document using data URI's (~1.37x overhead to data size but no latency impact), the site will download in 10*100*1,37/1280 = 1,07 seconds

    HTTP2.0 / SPDY will solve this, but it will take many years till they are widely adopted.

  4. Re:Chrome and IE by cpicon92 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry, but that's downright untrue. See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Uri#Web_browser_support

    Microsoft has limited its support to certain "non-navigable" content for security reasons, including concerns that JavaScript embedded in a data URI may not be interpretable by script filters such as those used by web-based email clients. Data URIs must be smaller than 32 KiB in Version 8.

    Version 9 does not have the 32 KiB limit.

  5. Re:Chrome and IE by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 5, Informative

    The best use case I know of is to inline all your small images you use for styling the site in the master stylesheet for the website. This way you only have one request instead of the hundred plus that many sites have.

    Based on some tests I have done on many sites the vast majority of the time is spent on just getting 304s back on all the resources that have not changed. Inlining those small images can save 90% or more of the page load time.

    --
    Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)