full-disclosure - Re: Self-contained XSS Attacks (the new generation of XSS)

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]

Message-ID: <20060922140311.GC3266@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:03:11 -0400
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: "pdp \(architect\)" <pdp.gnucitizen@...glemail.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com,
	webappsec@...urityfocus.com, websecurity@...appsec.org
Subject: Re: Self-contained XSS Attacks (the new
	generation of XSS)

Hello pdp,

> http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/self-contained-xss-attacks
> 
> XSS attacks can be persistent and non-persistent. Persistent XSS is
> more dangerous since it allow attackers to control exploited clients
> for longer. On the other hand non-persistent XSS is considered less
> dangerous although it has been widely used in many phishing attempts.
> 
> In this article I will expose some of my findings around a new attack
> vector which is of type non-persistent XSS but a lot more dangerous
> than the persistent one.
> 
> Some of you might be familiar with this attack vector; this subject
> has been covered very vaguely in the past and none of its full
> potentials has been explored. The impact of this attack is much bigger
> today and could affect many web applications.

This is a very interesting vector.  However, I would argue that it is
not a new class of XSS.  Generally, the classes have been defined based
on where the injected data flows from, not how it is injected in the
page.

For instance, stored or persistent XSS comes from an attacker via one
communication, gets saved on the server, and is later reproduced to
another user.  Reflected is generally embedded in a link, sent to a
victim, which a victim then sends to the webserver and is reflected back
to achieve injection.  DOM-based is similar, but does not need to flow
to the webserver before coming back to get injected.  I personally label
these three classes Type 2, Type 1 and Type 0 respectively, in order to
reduce confusion about terminology [1].

All three of these scenarios could be used with your injection vector.
A server side script could store the URL supplied by an attacker, and
later present it to a victim, thus making it persistent.  Similarly, a
document.write() call could be exploited to inject a data: link, even if
the typical dangerous characters (', ", <, >, etc) were handled.

Don't get me wrong... I really like the vector, and what you've brought
to the list.   I just don't think it should be considered another class.

cheers,
tim

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSS

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/