Message-ID: <684B615F97F04850878EC511316ADCE6@W340>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 19:30:54 +0200
From: "Stefan Kanthak" <stefan.kanthak@...go.de>
To: "Mario Vilas" <mvilas@...il.com>
Cc: "bugtraq" <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>,
  "fulldisclosure" <fulldisclosure@...lists.org>
Subject: Re: [FD] Mozilla extensions: a security nightmare

"Mario Vilas" <mvilas@...il.com> wrote:

> If it can only be written by your own user, what would be the
> security boundary being crossed here?

Please read AGAIN what I already wrote!

| The security boundary created by privilege separation

ie. Administrator/root vs. "user"

| and installation of executables in write-protected locations.

ie. %ProgramFiles% or /usr/bin, where only privileged users can write.

regards
Stefan

PS: top-posting is EVIL too!

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak@...go.de>
wrote:

> "Mario Vilas" <mvilas@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > %APPDATA% is within the user's home directory - by default it should
> > not be writeable by other users.
>
> Did I mention OTHER users?
> Clearly not, so your "argument" is moot.
>
> > If this is the case then the problem is one of bad file permissions,
> > not the location.
> >
> > Incidentally, many other browsers and tons of software also store
> > executable code in %APPDATA%.
>
> Cf. <http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2013/Aug/198>
>
> EVERY program which stores executable code in user-writable locations
> is CRAPWARE and EVIL since it undermines the security boundary created
> by privilege separation and installation of executables in write-protected
> locations.
> Both are BASIC principles of computer security.
>
> > I think "security nightmare" may be a bit of an overstatement here.
>
> No, it's just the right wording since it violates two basic principles.
>
> > I'll refrain from panicking about this "issue" for the time being.
>
> JFTR: top posting is a bad habit too!
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak@...go.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi @ll,
> >
> > Mozilla Thunderbird 38 and newer installs and activates per default
> > the 'Lightning' extension.
> >
> > Since extensions live in the (Firefox and) Thunderbird profiles
> > (which are stored beneath %APPDATA% in Windows) and 'Lightning' comes
> > (at least for Windows) with a DLL and some Javascript, Thunderbird
> > with 'Lightning' violates one of the mandatory and basic requirements
> > of the now 20 year old "Designed for Windows" guidelines and breaks a
> > security boundary: applications must be installed in %ProgramFiles%
> > where they are protected against tampering by unprivileged users (and
> > of course malware running in their user accounts too) since only
> > privileged users can write there.
> >
> > Code installed in %APPDATA% (or any other user-writable location) is
> > but not protected against tampering.
> > This is a fundamental flaw of (not only) Mozilla's extensions, and a
> > security nightmare.
> >
> > Separation of code from (user) data also allows to use whitelisting
> > (see <https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457006.aspx> for
> > example) to secure Windows desktops and servers: users (and of course
> > Windows too) don't need to run code stored in their user profiles,
> > they only need to run the installed programs/applications, so unwanted
> > software including malware can easily be blocked from running.
> >
> > JFTR: current software separates code from data in virtual memory and
> >       uses "write xor execute" or "data execution prevention" to
> >       prevent both tampering of code and execution of data.
> >       The same separation and protection can and of course needs to be
> >       applied to code and data stored in the file system too!
> >
> > The Lightning extension for Windows but defeats the tamper protection
> > and code/data separation provided by Windows:
> >
> > 1. its calbasecomps.dll can be replaced or overwritten with an
> >    arbitrary DLL which DllMain() is executed every time this DLL is
> >    loaded;
> >
> > 2. its (XUL/chrome) Javascripts can be replaced or overwritten and
> >    used to load and call arbitrary DLLs via js-ctypes.
> >
> >    Only non-XUL/chrome Javascript is less critical since its execution
> >    is confined by (Firefox and) Thunderbird and subject to the
> >    restrictions imposed by these programs for non-XUL/chrome Javascript.
> >
> >
> > Mitigation(s):
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Disable profile local installation of extensions in Mozilla products,
> > enable ONLY application global installation of extensions.
> >
> > stay tuned
> > Stefan Kanthak
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
> > https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
> > Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
> >
>



-- 
"There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy
of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military
becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

Powered by blists - more mailing lists