RETURN $ecure;

Security, Technology and Life

Archive for November 2007

UserJS URL Sanitizing

with 5 comments

I was reading a post by RSnake over at Darkreading and got to thinking about client-side security.  There seems to be very little we can do against most things for the average user. NoScript is fine for a tech-minded individual, but the average user will probably forget about it and wonder why a site is now missing functionality.

So what do you think of some javascript that could check the URL for typically bad characters(since JS can easily find html-entities/url encoding/etc.)  and then sanitize them somehow? This could mean removing them or properly entifying them. Sure it’s fine. But even Greasemonkey scripts on run after a page is loaded. How could we do this?  Let’s take a look at UserJS in Opera.

User JavaScript is loaded and executed as if it were a part of the page that you visit. It is run immediately before the first script on the page. If the page does not contain any scripts of its own, User JavaScript will be executed immediately before the page is about to complete loading. It is usually run before the DOM for the page has been completed. (Note that this does not apply to Greasemonkey scripts. “….”User JavaScript will not be loaded on pages accessed using the opera: protocol. By default, it is also not loaded on pages accessed using the https: protocol.

Oh! So it should run before any other script is run. This is good. We can check to see if a script was injected, then proceed to remove it. But what if the injection is inside javascript? It will be hard to tell if it’s valid or not. Well since we are using UserJS already, let’s look at the UserJSEvent object and event listeners.

if( location.hostname.indexOf('example.com') != -1 ) {
  window.opera.addEventListener('BeforeScript',
   function (e) {
       e.element.text = e.element.text.replace(/!=\s*null/,'');
    },
    false
  );
}

BeforeScript
Fired before a SCRIPT element is executed. The script element is available as the element attribute of the UserJSEvent. The content of the script is available as the text property of the script element, and is also writable:

UserJSEvent.element.text = UserJSEvent.element.text.replace(/!=\s*null/,”)

So with this, we can check the text of a script object before it fires to sanitize it, which we could set to do only if it contains echoed content. Just a note that this isn’t restricted to off-site JS like it can be in some browsers. UserJS has full access to remote files accessed via script src even before it executes.  The hardest part is obviously sanitizing, but with some work I don’t see it being a huge issue for some basic XSS protection on the client-side.  I’m sure you could even expand it to  search all scripts for things that are commonly malicious like sending document.cookie somewhere to help protect against persistent XSS.

Anyways, I’d love to hear feedback on this idea before I go run off and make it.

Written by Rodney G

11/21/2007 at 6:03 pm

Posted in Security

Tagged with , , , , ,

Mobile Zombies, XSSWW, hack the planet?

leave a comment »

Warning, this post may be long, rant-like and totally off-target. 😛

While using bi-directional persistent communication channels to control browsers isn’t anything new,  nor is the  concept of a Cross Site Scripting Warhol Worm, but recently I have been thinking about them again. First off, earlier I was discussing in the #slackers irc channel, a concept regarding mobile zombies. I recently got a new phone to find out it has a fairly fast connection to the internet. Some phones can even reach 4.9MBits/s! This opens a whole new area, especially if malicious users can harness this. It seems at least 2.7 billion people own a mobile phone. If even only a small percentage of these users have high speed internet access, that’s still much more surface area for attack and data throughput. Plus, phones are often on longer than a home PC. “Follow the sun” no longer applies.

So enough information and theory, is this possible? Can we supplement mobile phones to use in a giant botnet? Well, to be honest,  I really have no idea. I have no statistics on what phones  can run JavaScript in their browser, which browser people are using for mobile browsing nor the resources to test any of this. But for the sake of this post, let’s assume at least 5%  of the 2.7  billion people have high speed internet on their mobile phone. That’s  135 million people. Since they are using a newer model of phone, let’s assume at least 80% of them have some sort of vulnerable web technology enabled on their phones. (JavaScript, Flash, Java (probably this…)) That’s still a little over 100 million phones. Now don’t get too excited, I doubt anyone could infect all of them. So how could we infect them? It’s pretty simple. Persistent XSS, tricking users into downloading Java viruses, etc.

So I went a little too in-depth on the mobile zombienet. Sue me. It seems possible and something to consider.

Anyways, back to the XSSWW. While RSnake claimed it wasn’t fiction in his post, at the time it seemed like the technologies and attacks that could be used for something like that didn’t really exist yet. Now they do. It doesn’t seem very far fetched, or hard for that matter. Here’s the little process my mind went over imagining how a worm like this would work. First one would need a few 0day XSS holes. Preferably at least one in a major forum software like phpBB or vBulletin and another in a web-based instant messaging service, such as MSN Web Messenger or Meebo.com. Obviously the initial attack would be over the forum software. It could use search engines to find other vulnerable installs of the forum to propagate. I imagine some sort of algorithm would be needed to choose a random result so the same forum wouldn’t be infected over and over so suddenly. Infected users would have their browser window hijacked with a full screen iframe so we could keep control longer, then zombified using attackapi or similar tools. Then we could use the CSS history hack to find which social networking sites, web-based instant messengers, etc, the user has visited that we have a vulnerability in. For an IM site, we could hijack the users list and find ways to infect them as well. Perhaps using a JavaScript XSS scanner or the PDF XSS to find a reflective XSS hole to use the CSS history hack on this stolen user list, to repeat the process.  Then of course we could do anything we wanted from DDoSes to using stolen MSN login credentials to send spam, or any of the other usual bad deeds.

Now the key problem with this situation is obviously losing control of zombies and network traffic overload to the channel. Since the scale would theoretically be huge, we could easily increase the interval of the requests to the channel immensely and only have one message in queue for all zombies at a time. Then you can change that message when you want to change objectives. Now assuming XSS vulnerabilities will be fixed and we couldn’t renew our supply of lost zombies, we would have a problem. Unless we created a JavaScript function that changed something in the worm. The propagation methods and the XSS vectors used. ;D Since we will have one or more central control locations more than likely, another thing a client could request is a series of XSS vectors to try on specific sites, probably an XML document containing these things, as well as the next place to request details from. (Then you could compromise different servers all the time in an attempt to hide your own identity.)

So combining the new power of mobile zombies as well as some theory about how a Warhol worm would work, we have a very scary scenario. I really have no idea how to stop something like this. I think I’ll go unplug my Ethernet cord now.

P.S. Sorry if you read all of that.

Written by Rodney G

11/14/2007 at 8:02 pm

Posted in Security

Tagged with , , , ,

WASWiki and my return.

with one comment

I was going to originally post about ideas for learning grounds for web application security. But the sla.ckers IRC(#slackers on irc.irchighway.net), pointed me first to OWASP. I realized this was quite a goldmine of information already, but it doesn’t seem too newb friendly, plus much of it seems to be theory more than direct examples. So then kuza55 reminded me of webappsecwiki.com. It’s pretty bare, but I believe we can turn this site into a more practical learning site. It’s already going in the correct direction in my opinion.

Anyways, enough my my dreams of grandeur, I am going to start getting back into web application security. Aside from the trusted third party whitelisting issues(otherwise known as XSSing YouTube Mods) I talked about in the #slackers channel, I have not contributed much lately. Things are yet again more stable in my life so I have time to do research and whatnot now. I’m going to start using WordPress.com again for various reasons. First, it’s easier than hosting my own, although it may incur some security issues, I’m sure it will be nothing major. Secondly, it’s already linked to by several people. It has some PR. So I hope to be able to contribute more soon!

Written by Rodney G

11/13/2007 at 11:35 pm

Posted in Life, Security

Tagged with , ,