Skip to main content

Hi ClearClick! Good bye Clickjacking?


Javascript is not necessarily needed to execute Clickjacking.JavaScript might make the attacker’s life easier, but it’s not inevitable to make the attack. Alternatively the attacker can use frame tags to load any site of their choice in the background and using another div tag redirect the user to any other site of choice. No role of Javascript here. Mitigation? Don't load frame in your browser in any case. all it takes is including this piece of javascript in your page:


This works in most browsers, with Internet Explorer being a notable exception.
IE8 comes with another new technique.The fix is actually very simple: it lets website owners include an extra tag in their pages that tells Internet Explorer the page is not supposed to be included in a frame. It’s called X-FRAME-OPTIONS;
a value of DENY means the page should never be opened in a frame, and
SAMEORIGIN only allows it to be framed within pages from the same site.
Any other use will show a warning, and a link that opens the page in a
new screen.
There are efforts to make Firefox too compatible to it .

But for the time being, Firefox users can use the a plug in ClearClick by NoScript.
Default protections that NoScript has provided for a long time, i.e. JavaScript and plugin blocking can prevent most clickjacking attacks. In older version, though, to be 100% protected against Clickjacking you needed to enable the Forbid IFRAME and possibly Apply these restrictions to trusted sites as well NoScript options.
Fortunately, since version 1.8.2, NoScript provides a new default kind of protection called ClearClick, which defeats clickjacking no matter if you block frames or not . Even better, ClearClick can protect you from Clickjacking / UI-redressing attack independently from JavaScript and plugins blocking: you can even Allow scripts globally (which is not recommended anyway), and your ClearClick still works.

Clickjacking hides or displaces or partially covers something you wouldn't want to click, if you could see it in its original context. ClearClick does the opposite: whenever you click a plugin object or a framed page, it takes a screenshot of it alone and opaque (i.e. an image of it with no transparencies and no overlaying objects), then compares it with a screenshot of the parent page as you can see it. If the two images differ, a clickjacking attack is probably happening and NoScript raises a "ClearClick warning",

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' dropped

From Owasp Top 10 2010 List, the issue 'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' has been dropped. But it's not the final list,its child release actually. Bu I feel it shouldn't be set aside because its still the one of the prevalent issues these days. That's why I mailed to Dave Wicher: Hi Dave, Excellent work, Congrats! Just one little query- Don't you think that Information Leakage & Improper Error Handling still deserves to be in Top 10? Dave replied: This topic is clearly a very prevalent issue that deserves attention by most organizations. However, the typical impact of such a flaw is usually very low. Therefore, the overall risk of this type of flaw is lower than the other items in the top 10, which is why it was replaced in this update with one of the 2 new items. Regarding dropping Info Leak/Error handling - It is incredibly prevalent, no question. But their impact is typically very low, so the overall risk is low, which is why it fell out of t...
3 comments
Read more

jtool - an alternative to otool

jtool comes with a capability of running on Linux environment. Some ipa scanning tools are created to run on Linux environment where mac environment is not available. In such cases tools such as otool and class-dump-z will not work. So jtool can be an alternative to otool. For more information on jtool please refer to http://www.newosxbook.com/tools/jtool.html . It lists down various commands which have same output as otool or a equivalent. There are several commands mentioned in link. But for our customized requirements and basis checks I have listed down the below ones after running on many binaries. The outputs are similar or equivalent to otool and class-dump-z: Commands for checking PIE flag (ASLR) in jTool jtool -d -v -arch | grep stack ·           Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) protection: jtool -d -v -arch | grep _objc_release ·           To check if the devic...
1 comment
Read more