LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Security (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-security-4/)
-   -   Mozilla Firefox Vulns (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-security-4/mozilla-firefox-vulns-410911/)

H_TeXMeX_H 02-23-2010 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stroker (Post 3872837)
From your link
Secunia Advisory

Follow the "Original Advisory" url in which it states:



Apparently, it's a MS problem and limited to XP an Vista only.

That's what I thought, the "execute arbitrary code" ones usually are.

Also, this may not even work on Window$, as per the blog and comments posted ... it is not reproducible.

win32sux 02-23-2010 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 3873546)
That's what I thought, the "execute arbitrary code" ones usually are.

Could you elaborate a bit, please? Is it your gut feeling or do you have statistics to back that up? I'm not attacking your claim, I'm just honestly curious as to how you've reached this conclusion.

GazL 02-23-2010 05:45 AM

From what I've seen so far, all we know is that the written 'exploit' is for Windows. There's nothing to suggest that the underlying 'vulnerability' isn't more widespread.

H_TeXMeX_H 02-23-2010 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by win32sux (Post 3873638)
Could you elaborate a bit, please? Is it your gut feeling or do you have statistics to back that up? I'm not attacking your claim, I'm just honestly curious as to how you've reached this conclusion.

Well, think about it, "execute arbitrary code", how could this harm your system and what kind of code could it be. By far, statistically, the majority of malicious code is written for Window$, I doubt anyone anywhere will debate that. Furthermore, say you were running this arbitrary code on Linux, what is the worst it could do ? Erase your home folder, read your user's files and send them off, and that's about it. Now, what about on Window$, especially since most people run in admin mode ... it can do a lot more damage, it can install viruses, a rootkit, delete everything on the HDD, maybe even damage hardware. There also exist many bugs in the Window$ kernel that M$ fails to patch, these can be easily exploited even in user mode. Furthermore, when I see "execute arbitrary code" in a web browser context this means ActiveX in most cases, and this truly is dangerous, and Window$ only.

Well, you could just say it's a gut feeling, but not completely unsubstantiated.

win32sux 02-23-2010 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 3873676)
Well, think about it, "execute arbitrary code", how could this harm your system and what kind of code could it be. By far, statistically, the majority of malicious code is written for Window$, I doubt anyone anywhere will debate that. Furthermore, say you were running this arbitrary code on Linux, what is the worst it could do ? Erase your home folder, read your user's files and send them off, and that's about it. Now, what about on Window$, especially since most people run in admin mode ... it can do a lot more damage, it can install viruses, a rootkit, delete everything on the HDD, maybe even damage hardware. There also exist many bugs in the Window$ kernel that M$ fails to patch, these can be easily exploited even in user mode. Furthermore, when I see "execute arbitrary code" in a web browser context this means ActiveX in most cases, and this truly is dangerous, and Window$ only.

Well, you could just say it's a gut feeling, but not completely unsubstantiated.

Okay, I was actually kind of hoping it was more than a gut feeling. It would be very interesting to know whether arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities in Firefox are more prevalent for certain platforms. The potential effects of exploiting those vulnerabilities (and the circumstances in which they are exploited) is a completely separate issue which isn't what I was asking about. I might look into this matter if I get some free time. Thanks for the reply.

H_TeXMeX_H 02-23-2010 10:32 AM

Every article I've seen on this is very vague, and the comments always mention the distinct possibility that it is a hoax. Well, even if it wasn't I bet it has something to do with activex.

win32sux 02-23-2010 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 3873924)
Every article I've seen on this is very vague, and the comments always mention the distinct possibility that it is a hoax. Well, even if it wasn't I bet it has something to do with activex.

Since when does Firefox do ActiveX?

H_TeXMeX_H 02-23-2010 01:34 PM

Yeah, it doesn't, oh well.

catilley1092 03-02-2010 01:08 PM

That's what I like about Firefox, none of that Active X crap.

H_TeXMeX_H 03-02-2010 02:28 PM

Well, technically there is an activex plugin for FF ... who know who's crazy enough to use it ...

catilley1092 03-02-2010 10:53 PM

I certainly would never use it. Active X controls are part of what makes IE a piece of crap for a browser, and makes Windows vulnerable to viruses. That's what I like about Mint and Linux in general, you don't have to go through the daily routine of scanning your system and still get infected, regardless of how careful you are.

win32sux 03-19-2010 11:56 AM

Update on Secunia Advisory SA38608
 
Quote:

Mozilla was contacted by Evgeny Legerov, the security researcher who discovered the bug referenced in the Secunia report, with sufficient details to reproduce and analyze the issue. The vulnerability was determined to be critical and could result in remote code execution by an attacker. The vulnerability has been patched by developers and we are currently undergoing quality assurance testing for the fix.
Complete Post [mozilla.com]

win32sux 03-19-2010 11:58 AM

Mozilla To Fix Vulnerability Claimed To Be Fake...
 
Quote:

A month ago, Secunia issued an advisory, SA38608, for a vulnerability reported in Firefox 3.6 by Evgeny Legerov and with an exploit bundled in VulnDisco Pack.

Some people were very eager to claim that this vulnerability report was fake - both on the Mozilla blog and our own forum - but Mozilla has now fixed this vulnerability in their Beta build and it will also be included in the upcoming version 3.6.2.

It was not surprising to see some people claim that the vulnerability report was fake; the very weak arguments being made and assumptions these were based on did, however, surprise and can probably be listed as:

1) The vulnerability report is fake because the researcher has not provided details to Mozilla.

2) The vulnerability report is fake because no public details are available.

3) The vulnerability report is fake because the reporter did not adhere to what is commonly referred to as "responsible" disclosure, hence he is a "blackhat", and hence he is not to be trusted.
Complete Post [secunia.com]

catilley1092 03-20-2010 08:46 PM

Look, for the most part, this is only going to affect Windows users. Mozilla a taking a unfair beating here. It seems perfectly fine that a billionaire corporation (Micro$oft) doesn't release a browser on a regular basis, and IE8 is the same piece of crap that it was a year ago. Mozilla, a corporation largely funded by donations and staffed by volunteers, releases a new browser on a regular basis. They are constantly hard at work fighting a billionaire corporation for market share. I feel far more secure with Firefox than with IE, even on FF's worst day. When there's a problem with FF, they give us a way to report it, they do have to find a workaround for the problem. Remember here, there's not dozens of programmers at Mozilla making six-digit figures, sitting around drinking coffee, then after lunch, going to play golf, like at Micro$oft. The Mozilla staff is hard at work every day, making progress every day, on a shoestring budget. If you don't feel that you're secure with FF, install Wine and use IE6 for a while. I have it on Mint 8 (64 bit), and can't even get the damn thing to update, although there are two critical updates for it. After a couple of days of using that piece of crap, there will be a renewed appreciation for FF.

win32sux 03-20-2010 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catilley1092 (Post 3906109)
Look, for the most part, this is only going to affect Windows users. Mozilla a taking a unfair beating here. It seems perfectly fine that a billionaire corporation (Micro$oft) doesn't release a browser on a regular basis, and IE8 is the same piece of crap that it was a year ago. Mozilla, a corporation largely funded by donations and staffed by volunteers, releases a new browser on a regular basis. They are constantly hard at work fighting a billionaire corporation for market share. I feel far more secure with Firefox than with IE, even on FF's worst day. When there's a problem with FF, they give us a way to report it, they do have to find a workaround for the problem. Remember here, there's not dozens of programmers at Mozilla making six-digit figures, sitting around drinking coffee, then after lunch, going to play golf, like at Micro$oft. The Mozilla staff is hard at work every day, making progress every day, on a shoestring budget. If you don't feel that you're secure with FF, install Wine and use IE6 for a while. I have it on Mint 8 (64 bit), and can't even get the damn thing to update, although there are two critical updates for it. After a couple of days of using that piece of crap, there will be a renewed appreciation for FF.

Uh, why are you getting all defensive about this? Besides, AFAIK it wasn't Mozilla that was taking a beating, it was Secunia. Mozilla had even gone ahead and let it be known on their security blog that they had no idea what the problem was.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.