Comments on: Cross Context Scripting http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting/ Information Security Think Tank Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:08:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: GNUCITIZEN » Backdooring Web Pages http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting/#comment-5722 GNUCITIZEN » Backdooring Web Pages Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:13:15 +0000 http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting#comment-5722 [...] In order to install global persistent backdoor the attacker can exploit known browser vulnerabilities which allow silent installation of new functionalities, exploit known extension vulnerabilities which allow Cross Context Scripting (execution of malicious web content in the browser context) or exploit the user’s trust (trojaning). [...] [...] In order to install global persistent backdoor the attacker can exploit known browser vulnerabilities which allow silent installation of new functionalities, exploit known extension vulnerabilities which allow Cross Context Scripting (execution of malicious web content in the browser context) or exploit the user’s trust (trojaning). [...]

]]> By: pdp http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting/#comment-12 pdp Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:44:07 +0000 http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting#comment-12 In a way you are right. Just registering the malicious content should trigger exploitable condition. On the other hand, I believe that extra checking is always good. Exploits are software after all. Software should fail gracefully no matter what it does. Extra checks are required pretty much always, IMHO. There is a tendency in the computer security community to create hacks (things that work but also fail because of number of reasons). Most worms and exploits I have seen are hacks as well. I wonder what a graceful and beautifully written worm or exploit can achieve. In a way you are right. Just registering the malicious content should trigger exploitable condition. On the other hand, I believe that extra checking is always good. Exploits are software after all. Software should fail gracefully no matter what it does. Extra checks are required pretty much always, IMHO.

There is a tendency in the computer security community to create hacks (things that work but also fail because of number of reasons). Most worms and exploits I have seen are hacks as well. I wonder what a graceful and beautifully written worm or exploit can achieve.

]]> By: Aviv http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting/#comment-11 Aviv Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:04:05 +0000 http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/cross-context-scripting#comment-11 Why bother detecting the plugin? If there is a vulnerable plugin, an attacker can always try to exploit it. If the victim doesn't have the plugin installed, the exploit will just fail (or quietly fail, using <code>try..catch</code> clause). Why bother detecting the plugin? If there is a vulnerable plugin, an attacker can always try to exploit it. If the victim doesn’t have the plugin installed, the exploit will just fail (or quietly fail, using try..catch clause).

]]>