Skip to main content

XSRF vulnerability in yahoomail..just flaw or security issue?

Although the attack is not severe in nature but can create interruption in user's logged in session.

Yahoomail doesn't use any button to log the user out. It simply provides a link 'Sign-Out' for the logging out the current session.
If the link is encoded in any form (or say disguised in tinyurl) and mailed to any logged in user in yahoomail and if he clicks it,the user who is visiting that page would immediately be logged out.
From the webserver's perspective, there is no difference whatsoever between a real user initiated browser request and the above URL retrieval.

It doesn't carry necessary credentials(e.g. anti XSRF tokens,or any uniquely token generated for the logged in user) with itself to tell the server that it's an extrenal request.Rather it will be using logged in user's credentials to complete the request!

The time discovered it , the other functions of yahoomail was not vulnerable except this "Sign-Out" function.

I had informed them about the vulnerablity but perhaps they didn't consider it an security issue but they now implement no of tokens and identifiers in the 'SignOut' link.

http://in.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14vivapam/M=590705.12581184.13249026.10993486/D=inmail/S=398320003:HEAD/Y=IN/EXP=1231772641/L=WoCUrMtoEi.FJw6qSWn9mAVS3OIdt0lrP8EADW3f/B=5DsNmspWBvI-/J=1231765441885620/A=4559832/R=5/SIG=143d596d8/*http://login.yahoo.com/config/login?logout=1&.src=ym&.intl=in&.direct=2&.done=http://in.yahoo.com&.last=http://in.mail.yahoo.com/

But still it is not working! I mean the recipient is logged out of his session when he clicks on above link. That should not happen.
I think they are not paying attention to the issue since it is not affecting security of user or website.
In this way Gmail also has the same vulnerability(and might be many others..).
I just pointed out that it's an act of XSRF attack but whether it is an security issue or not, depends on the vendor's perception and how critical is the link that is being exploited.
It's a vulnerability but not Security Issue..I think....
Your Say??

References: http://www.squarefree.com/securitytips/web-developers.html
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001171.html

Comments

Chintan Dave said…
Nilesh, I reported similar issues to Google as well. Technically, yes its is a vulnerability, however it makes no significant difference.

Practically speaking, it makes no sense to patch them. The resources spent to patch them are not justified.
Nilesh Kumar said…
Yes I agree with you..in a post written to Gmail by me as well..I didn't stick to security impact of the issue rather I discussed about the way it has been implemented. See, underlying fact is that it performs an undesired action using logged in user's authentication.
This is the issue.
And when the same fact is used to exploit other links that may harm a user financially or personally it is called XSRF.
So I said the implementation in itself is wrong.
Anyways, thanks for commenting! :)

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

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

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