Skip to main content

More mist around Clickjacking :)

The more I read, the more theories I get on the topic. Everybody has his own theories about Clickjacking.There's no consensus on the issue. Clickjacking for one is URL rewriting for another,simple hyperlink jump for another. Even there are contradiction by the people on Aditya's PoC on clickjacking in Chrome browser. Even on Hackademix.net Giorgio Maone has took the PoC lilghtly. That again increased the mist around the issue.
Then what is the real clickjacking? In facts, with "Clickjacking" we designate a class of attacks (also known as "UI Redressing") which consist in hiding or disguising an user interface element from a site you trust in a way which leads you to click it without knowledge of what you're exactly doing.
That's what Aditya showed in his PoC. When you click the link you are redirected to another site of attackes' choice without knowledge of users. When hovering the mouse over link it shows the intended name of the site, there's no way of doubt but clicking it once takes user to another site.
Google accepted it,others not accepting it.
Mozilla assumes it as URL rewriting via onClick event handler. I wrote back to Mozilla:

Dear Mozilla Team,

Thanks for the quick response.

Regarding the first example (click.html) I have sent , the exploit is not the issue but the browser executes the exploit is the real issue.Google has accepted the exploit being executed in their chrome browser as vulnerable to clickjacking ( you might have gone through several articles regarding it).

I used the same exploit to test with your latest Firefox 3.1 beta 2, I found that it’s executing successfully. I used same exploit with Opera 9.63 and was executing in that browser.
That’s why I brought it in your notice.
Anyways everyone has his own theory. I am not claiming myself to be expert on the issue but as Mozilla said to me:

"Clickjacking is when a user clicks on what they think is a button on a random site (i.e. attacker's site in the URL bar) but they are actually clicking buttons on another site like their bank without realizing it."


And in my second example I did same thing. I used iframe to load Google.com and exactly over the search button using div tag I loaded a blank invisible transparent frame. Clicking on 'search' button user is actually clicking on the 'invisible frame' and gets redirected to another malicious site. That confirms Mozilla's aforementioned definition above. This is an example of Graphic Overlaying Clickjacking. There's no need of using Javascript to execute it. So even 'NoScript' Plugin won't mitigate it. Only thing that can prevent it is Frame Busitng codes that will prevent loading any frame in the web page at all!

But again I am getting different theories from different vendors about clickjacking. So I will now just sit back and wait for the final concluding clickjacking definition and then only go for further research.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ardilla- New tool for finding SQL Injection and XSS

Three Researchers -- MIT's Adam Kiezun , Stanford's Philip Guo , and Syracuse University's Karthick Jayaraman -- has developed a new tool ' Ardilla ' that automatically finds and exploits SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in Web applications. It creates inputs that pinpoint bugs in Web applications and then generates SQL injection and XSS attacks. But for now Ardilla is for PHP -based Web app only. The researchers say Ardilla found 68 never-before found vulnerabilities in five different PHP applications using the tool -- 23 SQL injection and 45 XSS flaws. More information is awaited. For their attack generation techniques refer to their document at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/create-attacks-tr054.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more

File Upload through Null Byte Injection

Sometimes, during file upload we come across situation wherein there would be check on the file extension at the client side as well as server side too. If the application does allow only .jpeg extension to be uploaded, the client side java script checks for the extension of the file before passing the request. We all know that how easily this can be defeated. Some applications, checks for the extension at the server side also. That's not easy to bypass. However there are some ways with which it still can be bypassed. Most of server side scripts are written in high level languages such as Php, Java etc who still use some C/C++ libraries to read the file name and contents. That leads to the problem. In C/C++ a line ends with /00 or which is called Null Byte. So whenever the interpreter sees a null byte at the end of the a string, it stops reading thinking it has reached at the end of the string. This can be used for the bypass. It works for many servers, specially php servers. T
1 comment
Read more

Combining power of Fiddler with Burp

Both are pretty powerful tools when it comes to intercept and modify http communications. But at some point of time, they become even more powerful combo if tied with each other. They complement each other. In a recent pentest I came across a similar situation where in Burp was not able to intercept a specific kind of traffic and Fiddler came to rescue. The application was designed to upload video. The initial communication was straight forward, I mean logging into application, filling up the video details etc. And all these were easily captured by Burp except the point where you hit the Upload Video and it connects to a different server and surprisingly it was not captured by Burp, not sure why, even after repeated attempts. So, I fired Fiddler to see if the it sees this request. But it's a;ways to play with requests using Burp due to it's various functionalities like, Intruder, Repeaters etc. But it was necessary to capture this request in Burp. So the below steps can be
Post a Comment
Read more