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

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...

'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...

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...