| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jada
Linux Guru
Joined: 13 May 2024
Posts: 3064
Location: Sun City, CA 92585
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2024 1:50 am Post subject: Flash Player workaround available for "Clickjacking&quo |
 |
|
| Quote: | | From an attacker’s perspective the most important thing is that a) they know where to click and b) they know the URL of the page they want you to click, in the case of cross domain access. So if either one of these two requirements aren’t met, the attack falls down. Frame busting code is the best defense if you run web-servers, if it works (and in our tests it doesn’t always work). I should note some people have mentioned security=restricted as a way to break frame busting code, and that is true, although it also fails to send cookies, which might break any significant attacks against most sites that check credentials. |
Flash Player workaround available for "Clickjacking" issue
Release date: October 7, 2024
Vulnerability identifier: APSA08-08
Platform: All Platforms
Affected Software: Adobe Flash Player 9.0.124.0 and earlier
Follow the work around http://www.adobe.com/support/security/advisories/apsa08-08.html
or update to Flash 10 RC2 http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/
development status Flash Player 10
Issue #1 STATUS: Unresolved. Clickjacking allows attackers to subvert clicks and send the victim’s clicks to web-pages that allow themselves to be framed with or without JavaScript. One-click submission buttons or links are the most vulnerable. It has been known since at least 2024 and has seen at least three different PoC exploits (Google Desktop MITM attack, Google Gadgets auto-add and click fraud). All major browsers appear to be affected.
Issue #1a STATUS: Unresolved. JavaScript is not required to initiate the attack as CSS can place invisible iframes over any known target (EG: the only link on the red herring page). Turning off JavaScript also neuters one of the only practical web based defenses against the attack which is the use of frame busting code.
Issue #2 STATUS: Unresolved. ActiveX controls are potentially susceptible to clickjacking if they don’t use traditional modal dialogs, but rather rely on on-page prompting. This requires no cross domain access, necessarily, which means iframes/frames are not a prerequisite on an attacker controlled page.
Issue #2a STATUS: To be fixed in Flash 10 release. All prior versions of Flash on Firefox on MacOS are particularly vulnerable to camera and microphone monitoring due to security issues allowing the object to be turned opaque or covered up. This fix relies on all users upgrading, and since Flash users are notoriously slow at upgrading, this exploit is expected to persist. Turning off microphone access in the BIOS and unplugging/removing controls to the camera are an alternative. Here is the information directly from Adobe.
Issue #2b STATUS: Resolved. Flash security settings manager is also particularly vulnerable, allowing the attacker to turn off the security of Flash completely. This includes camera/microphone access as well as cross domain access. Resolved using frame busting code, bug #4 below notwithstanding.
Issue #2c STATUS: To be fixed in Flash 10 release. All versions of Flash on IE7.0 and IE8.0 can be overlayed by opaque div tags. Using an onmousedown event handler the object click registers as long as the divs are removed by the onmousdown event handler function. Demo here of stealing access to the microphone.
Issue #3 STATUS: To be fixed in the final release candidate. Flash on IE8.0 Beta is persistent across domains (think “ghost in the browser”). This would be a much worse vulnerability except for the fact that it is beta and almost no one is using it.
Issue #4 STATUS: To be fixed in the final release candidate. Framebusting code does not appear to work well on some sites on IE8.0 Beta. Instead it is marked as a popup which is blocked by the browser - disallowing the frame busting code from executing.
Issue #5 STATUS: Unresolved. State of clicks on other domains can be monitored with JavaScript (works best in Internet Explorer but other browsers are vulnerable too) which is cross domain leakage and can allow for more complex multi-click attacks. For example a page that has a check box and a submit button could be subverted upon two successful clickjacks. Additionally, this can make the attack completely seemless to a user by surrendering control of the mouse back to the user once the attack has completed.
Issue #6 STATUS: Unresolved. “Unlikely” XSS vulnerabilities that require onmouseover or onmousedown events on other parts of pages on other domains are suddenly more likely. For example if a webpage has a XSS vulnerability where the only successful attacks are things like onmouseover or onmousedown, etc… on unlikely parts of the page, an attacker can promote those exploits by framing them and placing the mouse cursor directly above the target XSS area. Therefore, otherwise typically uninteresting or unlikely XSS exploits can be made more dangerous.
Issue #7 STATUS: Fixed in current releases post 1.8.1.9. Firefox’s Noscript plugin’s functionality to forbid iframe’s can be subverted by iframing a page that contains a cross domain frame or as Ronald found by using object tags. Giorgio Maone validated the issues and issued patches in future releases of the code as well as other potential clickjacking mitigation. 1.8.1.6, 1.8.1.7, 1.8.1.8, 1.8.1.9, 1.8.2 and 1.8.2.1 all contain anti-clickjacking code. All prior versions to 1.8.1.9 were vulnerable to cross domain clickjacking.
Issue #8 STATUS: Unresolved. Attempts to protect against CSRF using nonces can often be overcome by clickjacking as long as the URL of the page that contains the link that includes the nonce is known. Eg: Google Gadgets exploit discussed in Blackhat “Xploiting Google Gadgets” speech. The only semi-decent defenses against this are to omit the nonces in JavaScript space and also include the frame busting code in the same JavaScript. This will break for users who do not use JavaScript though, so it is not an ideal solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cope57
Sr. Member
Joined: 25 Jan 2024
Posts: 1602
Location: 34.638673, -98.384704
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2024 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does this effect Swfdec, or just Adobe flash?
I do not use Adobe flash, only Swfdec, Swfdec-Mozilla, and Swfdec-Gnome, which I can view all flash content just fine._________________ This block is for DISTRO information ONLY, all other information will be removed by the Site Administrators.
Debian GNU/Linux testing - Linux 2.6.32-4-amd64 |
|
| Back to top |
|
jada
Linux Guru
Joined: 13 May 2024
Posts: 3064
Location: Sun City, CA 92585
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2024 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cope57 wrote: | Does this effect Swfdec, or just Adobe flash?
I do not use Adobe flash, only Swfdec, Swfdec-Mozilla, and Swfdec-Gnome, which I can view all flash content just fine. |
I am not sure about it. The "freedesktop.org" doesn't say anythink about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
