full-disclosure - MBT Xss vulnerability

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri Jan 20 21:57:25 2006
From: stan.bubrouski at gmail.com (Stan Bubrouski)
Subject: MBT Xss vulnerability

On 1/20/06, Morning Wood <se_cur_ity@...mail.com> wrote:
>
> in all honesty, XSS is a serious vector of attack.
> however, non-persistant XSS is a much less serious problem
> than is persistant XSS. Generally XSS is of no harm to the server
> side anyway. It can however be leveraged as the OP said, but
> would require  a dedicated, pre-formed url string that needs to
> be presented to the user to be effective. IMHO the OP advisory
> should not have been posted, because of the non-persistant nature
> of the flaw at one dedicated site.

Unless that site is trusted by hundreds of thousands or millions of
people, then something minor can be made to be much more serious.  For
instance, in this case someone could create a form for phishing
purposes that looks like a job application and mail it to millions of
people who think that its from MBT.

>
>  Issues comes into play via persistant XSS, which is script that may
> be embedded in a web application, such as a guestbook, or comment
> section, where people would travel to on their own without the need of
> a direct link and then rendered upon visitation in the users browser.
> Further, in todays world of browser exploitation, cookie, session,
> and/or credential theft is not the only thing to be gained and is often
> of minor importance and information. What is bad is leveraging XSS
> as a vector for browser exploitation ( can we say IFRAME+WMF ),
> so you have a way, via XSS to COMPROMISE end users systems.
>
> While the OP does have a valid initial point and theory,
> 1. it is not persistant in nature
> 2. it is one site, and not a script used on many sites

Yes thats what I was thinking, but apparently a lot of people use it,
at least thats the gist I got.

> 3. it does require SE at some level to be effective
> 4. it should not have been posted to FD ( see points 1,2,3 )

This was my concern in previous replies.  Why should XSS on one site
be posted here, but as the list maintainer stated previously XSS in
big sites like Google or Yahoo is pertinent to this list due to the
large number of people they can affect.  Assuming the author is
correct about it possibly affecting millions of people then its
relevence to this list is clearly satisfied.

-sb

>
>
> my2bits,
> MW