Fixes Released (and More Promised) For "Clickjacking" Exploits 70
An anonymous reader writes "As discussed previously on Slashdot, concern has been raised over a class of 'clickjacking' vulnerabilities which affect all major Web browsers. These exploits allow an attacker to place invisible or seemingly legit objects on a Web page that perform undesired actions when a user clicks on them. In recent developments, 'Guya' posted a scary proof-of-concept that hijacks Adobe Flash Player to spy on users with a webcam and/or microphone. In response, Adobe released an advisory with a temporary workaround, and stated that a future Player update will address the exploit. This prompted the original disclosers of the vulnerabilities to post a summary of the exploits. Additionally, Giorgio Maone, creator of the popular NoScript extension for Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers, released version 1.8.2.1 of NoScript, which adds 'ClearClick,' a feature that intercepts clicks made on invisible or otherwise obscured elements on a page. Although issues remain, there seems to be progress in addressing these security problems."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, an example is the "Get Add-on" link on the NoScript website: clicking it causes an iframed link from Mozilla's add-on page to be "clicked" instead.
Clickjacking's new in terminology only.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But that's the user clicking on a visible item, simply embedded in the page. It's misleading, sure! But it's not the same as having a user click anywhere and it hitting an invisible item that does something completely unrelated to whatever's displayed.
Re:Has... (Score:4, Funny)
I was describing this article to my boss, and here is what he said to me verbatim. My Emp. added.
So, should I be afraid of my web browser clickjacking me off of my normally visited websites to some spyware?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice job looking at the page source, but you've really got to look at the javascript.
Note this bit (this is only a part; see the source for the rest):
document.getElementById("amo-install").innerHTML +=
'<iframe id="amo-installer" width="1" height="1" style="visibility: hidden; filter: alpha(opacity=0)" scrolling="no"></iframe>';
Yep. Looks like this is exactly what I was talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pleaseread [hackademix.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone actually seen a POC of clickjacking? I know I haven't...
Yes. I've run across it on GCW, MSNBC and Wowhead through 3rdparty advertisers. It's already in the wild, the only thing that stopped it was noscript.
Re:Has... (Score:5, Informative)
Just because I had to hunt for the image:
http://bay01.imagebay.com/bay.php?view=61388_poshijack.jpg [imagebay.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's a POC linked in TFA. I tried it. It looked like it was going to work but NoScript warned me about it. Pretty cool.
NoScript is my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Original fix (Score:2, Funny)
This stuff is why... (Score:1, Offtopic)
This stuff is why I use NoScript and haven't even installed the Flash plugin addon to Firefox. If I REALLY want to view something in flash and I trust the content provider, I'll fire up IETab.
Not perfect, but a far sight safer than Joe Q. User.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
That would be great if flashblock itself wasn't susceptible to clickjacking...
Re: (Score:1)
In IE you have to let everything load, which is less secure. If the page is full of flash adverts it'll also consume more CPU cycles.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a .0 release. Haven't you learned anything from all the linux threads here?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh great... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Normally I wouldn't mind being told to update every 24 hours, but the way NoScript does it is completely fucking retarded.
What's the use of Firefox having a "show more information" button in the addon manager when all it displays is an URL to an ad-filled page with a 2 line changelog? And to rub it in, the info box isn't a real textarea so you can't just copy and paste the link.
Why does flash (Score:2)
..even have a facility for the webcam and mic anyways?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
People use it here for American Sign Language work. They sign into the webpage, it turns on the cam, they sign it up, and it's stored on the server for their instructor or collaborator to view/grade/whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all technological advancement is driven by adult media?
Re: (Score:2)
my friend used it in his interactive media class to simulate the vision of dogs. you run the flash application and it filters the cam feed to only display the visual spectrum dogs are capable of seeing.
i don't think there's anything inherently wrong with giving flash access to webcam/mic. it creates opportunities for a lot of useful web apps. however, i do think that flash browser plugins need to warn users and have them confirm that they actually want to turn on their webcam/mic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
i.e. for banking.
and you expect us to trust you with security advice? Please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the "different browser" idea would work, turning off JS would be marginal to harmful. This is a straight HTML/CSS exploit, and, actually, turning off JS could stop preventive framebusting scripts from running.
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is why I think NoScript and CookieSafe (CS Lite) should be standard functionality in Firefox. In fact, they already have the functionality, they just need the friendly UI so normal people can actually use it.
But Mozilla won't do it, because it would piss off the advertisers who use JavaScript and cookies to surreptitiously track people. They might be an open source project, but they don't have the users' best interests at heart.
The jokes on you, hackers! (Score:2, Funny)
Not only am I an exhibitionist, I'm also unbelievably ugly! You won't be 'clickjacking' to my warped, drooling countenance!
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Goddamnit, mom! I thought I told you not to post on the same websites as me? And don't think I haven't seen you on adultfriendfinder either.
Interview with Clickjacking Author (Score:1)
http://www.cgisecurity.org/2008/10/interview-jerem.html [cgisecurity.org]
I am confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The plugin runs with full privileges.
The scripts (in Actionscript, a version of ECMAscript (nee Javascript)) run in a sandbox.
NoScript (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if only NoScript, when I choose (for example) "Temporarily allow doubleclick.net", granted that allowance only on the page I'm viewing and its descendants and not in every open tab in every window to every site their scripts are on!
Re:NoScript (Score:4, Informative)
apparently, feature suggestions should be posted to this forum http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=826005 [mozillazine.org]
'temporarily allow site in tab' and 'temporarily allow all in tab' are features i'd suggest, but i'm too lazy to sign up for a forum and post there.
being specific to a single tab would be nice, it might add to the size of the engine, but again it would make annoying broken ad supported sites like pogo that require 26 separate sites to be 'allow' to properly load a webgame... no, i don't play pogo, but i disabled noscript from one of my parents computers so she could use pogo. I checked to see if i could just add to the white list, but that basically defeated the point of a white list, so it was disabled.
on windows it's no big deal, she uses ie, and i use firefox, but on their linux system, which she rarely uses, except when there are issues with the other computer... well, it has to stay set so she can play pogo on it if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
they work globally across all tabs though. what if i want doubleclick okayed on one tab, but not another? it's one thing to 'have to' allow one one website in one tab to play a free online game, and quite another to make every news site i'm surfing suddenly show ads, because of one site.
Are they saying this end-of-the-internet threat... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they really saying this newly-uncovered, ultra-hyped, horrible, end-of-the-internet, cross-browser, gotta-fix-the-world-but-it's-SO-hard, threat... ... was INVISIBLE BUTTONS?
Re:Are they saying this end-of-the-internet threat (Score:4, Informative)
Any form of invisible link, invisible button, link or button in an iframe, getURL() call in Flash, or JavaScript handler for any normally non-clickable item that makes you go somewhere, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash and microphones and webcams, oh my. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's always kind of creeped me out that Flash even gives applets access to the microphone and webcam, and I never enable those capabilities in the program.
Yes, I understand the point of it, I just think it's creepy.
Re:Flash and microphones and webcams, oh my. (Score:4, Funny)
It's always kind of creeped me out that Flash even gives applets access to the microphone
Definitely creepy. One time I visited a page with a Flash-based advertisement from (apparently) a French company. When my mouse cursor inadvertently moved over the Flash applet, some kind of contact was made with the company. This French guy was screaming into his microphone "'ello?? 'ELLOO??". And he obviously saw through my cam because he continued: "Bonjour, sire! Whas arr yous eatingue?" just when I was shoving a sandwhich in my pie-hole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This attack makes it possible for third parties to trick you into performing actions on third-party sites, by overlaying them invisibly on something you think you want to click. An attacker could overlay a seemingly innocuous game, for instance, with an administrative panel from a common website. The settings panel would be invisible (zero or low alpha), but still would receive mouse clicks. When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points, you're actually clicking the "Delete my account" check
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points,
s/random/arbitrary/
Re: (Score:2)
Restricting iframes (Score:1)
In the case of iframes abuse, wouldn't it make sense for browsers to refuse to allow iframes to show pages which include some sort of "no_remote_display" tag? So if your page has a form which could potentially be abused, add the tag and browsers which recognise it will only show the page in it's entirety, and not as part of another page or from another domain?
I realise that this may well be far too simplistic and people will probably point out a dozen reasons why it won't work and would break all sorts of t