Skip to main content

Google Chrome Potential leak of sensitive information to malicious extensions (CVE-2016-1658)


Last Google Chrome release for Chrome 50.0.2661.75 contains the fix for a security low bug I found (CVE-2016-1658).
When first I found this bug I was under the impression it could be an UXSS. Quickly after I reported I started to realize that this wasn't as exploitable though.
The issue per se was extremely easy to reproduce:

  • Create an HTML file that looks like and save it (e.g. chrome.html)

<h1>Hi</h1> 
<script> alert(document.domain)</script>
  • Now supposing the file is saved under (in MacOS) /Users/xxx/Downloads/chrome.html open the file from hard disk in this way:

     file://mail.google.com/Users/xxx/Downloads/chrome.html

     Note: mail.google.com is arbitrary . This can be any domain (hence is universal) 

  • Observe the document.domain alerted is mail.google.com!


  •  Observe the cookies transported are the one associated with *.google.com domain :


Now this looked really weird to me and I reported as an UXSS. Pretty quickly though was cleat that the file: URL has a unique origin hence:
  • doesn't gain access to things that it frames
  • doesn't gain access to cookies on the hostname it asserts (even if the Cookie extensions shows it!!)
  • The cookies are NOT even transmitted over the wire!
On top it looks like hostnames are a legitimate part of file: URL (spec wise)!
So no UXSS :(
Said that the Google Chrome Team thought that there is still something weird going on (at least with the extensions). Indeed was clear that UX and Extensions API got confused when file: URLs have hostnames. Now I am not a big expert of Chrome codebase but the reason behind it seemed to be that stuff outside of WebKit used GURL::GetOrigin() to get the security origin rather than SecurityOrigin. This is not the case anymore and fixed in  Chrome 50.0.2661.75.
So as Mathias Karlsson said some time ago do not shout hello before you cross the pond :)



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Billion Laugh Attack in https://sites.google.com

tl;dr https://sites.google.com suffered from a Billion Laugh Attack vulnerability that made the containerized environment to crash with a single invocation.
Introduction Few months ago I applied for a talk at a security conference titled Soyouwanna be a Bug Bounty Hunter but it was rejected :(. The reason behind it is that I have been on/off in the bug bounty business for a while as you can see here:
Funny. Found in a forgotten drawer from the time I was a bug hunter :p #facebook#bug#bountypic.twitter.com/Tt4saGZVLI — Antonio Sanso (@asanso) November 30, 2018 and I would have liked to share some of the things I have learned during these years (not necessary technical advises only). You can find a couple of these advises here:


Rule #1 of any bug hunter is to have a good RSS feed list
and here


The rule #2 of any bug hunter is to DO NOT be to fussy with 'food' specifically with "left over"
Today's rule is: The rule #3 of any bug hunter is DO LOOK at the old stuff

and…

Top 10 OAuth 2 Implementation Vulnerabilities

Some time ago I posted a blogpost abut  Top 5 OAuth 2 Implementation Vulnerabilities.
This week I have extended the list while presenting Top X OAuth 2 Hacks at OWASP Switzerland.

This blog post (like the presentation) is just a collection of interesting attack OAuth related.

#10 The Postman Always Rings Twice  I have introduced this 'attack' in last year post . This is for provider implementer, it is not extremely severe but, hey, is better to follow the spec. Specifically

The client MUST NOT use the authorization code  more than once.  If an authorization code is used more than once, the authorization server MUST deny the request and SHOULD revoke (when possible) all tokens previously issued based on that authorization code.

It turned out that even Facebook and Googledid it wrong... :)

#9 Match Point To all OAuth Providers be sure to follow section 4.1.3 of the spec in particular

...if the "redirect_uri" parameter was included in the initial authorization requ…

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 blog post I was …