Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Phishing - feature or flaw |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:07:31 -0400 |
Regarding certain vulnerabilities that are being discovered such as http://secunia.com/multiple_browsers_dialog_origin_vulnerability_test
Are these really features, or are they flaws now because of the phishing threat vector. Originally javascript/DHTML/DOM is pretty powerful and can do a lot of nasty stuff if someone were inclined. But phishing has caused us to take a look at the once dubbed features of DHTML, and possibly put responsibility onto the browser vendors for fixing these now dubbed "flaws".
For example, is this a flaw - https://slam.securescience.com/threats/mixed.html
As has been often noted, "without a specification, the behavior of a system cannot be wrong, it can only be surprising".
In the long term, it would be good idea for the browser makers to get together, agree on, and _write down_ what security properties users can count on in their browsers. E.G., what threats are they designed to counter? What are their security objectives & requirements? What countermeasures are the bare minimum? Then, if a browser did or didn't do something related to security, people could appeal to that "minimum standard". If Microsoft (IE), Mozilla (Firefox), Opera, Apple (Safari), and KDE (Konqueror) agreed on something, it'd probably go somewhere. That would at least create some sort of basic "floor" people could more-or-less count on.
But right now, dancing on the head of the pin of whether something is a "flaw" is pointless. Browsers are widely used by ordinary users who simply don't understand this "computer stuff".. and they won't gain that understanding tomorrow, either. So, if an ordinary low-knowledge user can be easily tricked into dangerous behavior by the brower's actions, AND there is a reasonable countermeasure that the browser could deploy, THEN the browser should incorporate such a protective measure. Yes, 'easily' and 'reasonable' and other terms are really ambiguous, but since there's no real security specification for browsers, that's where we are at right now. (Yes, I'm fully aware that these naive users wouldn't read a spec.)
--- David A. Wheeler
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Local Root exploit (Fedora Core 4), Paul Starzetz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [VulnWatch] Blank Administrator password in DELL XP Professional install, Michael Scheidell |
| Previous by Thread: | Phishing Solutions (was: Phishing - feature or flaw), Chris Brenton |
| Next by Thread: | [Full-disclosure] Call for Participation: Summerschool Applied IT-Security 2005, Ilja |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |