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

Popular posts from this blog

SQL Injection in search field

Earlier I had written about performing SQL injection in search field and how to do a DoS attack and privilege escalation using 'Like' operators. Now another SQLi exploitation I came across recently. That too in the search field. This becomes important as lots of people don't pay much attention on the search forms/ fields in the application. My aim is to show that a search form can also be exploited with SQL Injection. The following queries are based on a real world exploitation. The steps and data are for just illustration purpose only. Suppose, the search form provides the details of users who have accessed the application some time and their login time details etc, we just need to provide their name in the search box provided. All the data were being going as Post request. So, to just fingerprint the database, I provide, 'nil'+'esh' in the search field and it successfully gives me the results. That means the database behind the application is concatenat…

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. Th…

Insecure protocols

Some basic insecure protocols and risk associated with them: