Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability
From: Chris Evans <scarybeasts () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:37:40 -0800
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk> wrote:
Michal Zalewski to me:But what if www.evil.com has run an injection attack of some kind (SQL, XSS in blog comments, etc, etc) against www.stupid.com? Visitors to stupid.com then suffer a DoS...In such a case, the attacker may just as well clobber body.innerHTML, run a while (1) loop, or otherwise logically deny or alter service to visitors without actually exploiting any specific bug ...So?... - so I do not see any significant benefit to killing this particular tab.Where in any usable definition of "denial of service" does the word "useful" or concept of "benefit" appear? The question was, is it a DoS. It is.
By this definition of yours, DoS is fundamentally built in to browsers (by way of simply following specifications) -- even those with decent privsep models. Web security IS fundamentally broken at the foundations, so I'm not going to disagree with you. It raises the question: DoS is an overloaded term, perhaps it should be reserved for cases that actually have real-world significance? Or is a new term required? Cheers Chris
Crashing / hanging the entire browser is somewhat different, as it bears some risk of data loss in plausible usage scenarios. Unfortunately, most implementations do very little to prevent cases that were permitted by standards in the first place (things such as "while (1) str += str", "while (1) alert('foo')", looped blocking XMLHttpRequest calls, ridiculously nested XML and other expensive-to-render content, etc) - which makes finding new instances somewhat futile and pointless, and a result, somewhat frowned upon on security mailing lists (ugh).I agree, but I was not addressing that. Is it useful? Probably not. But it's still a DoS... And, will the Safari folk find something more important to fix if/when they look into it? Who knows but it won't hurt for them to look... Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability nzerozero p (Mar 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Chris Evans (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Nick FitzGerald (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Chris Evans (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Nick FitzGerald (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Michal Zalewski (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Nick FitzGerald (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Michal Zalewski (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Nick FitzGerald (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Chris Evans (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Nick FitzGerald (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Stuart Dunkeld (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Chris Evans (Mar 03)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Chris Evans (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Pavel Kankovsky (Mar 04)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Nick FitzGerald (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Valdis' Mustache (Mar 02)
- Re: Apple Safari ... DoS Vulnerability Jason Starks (Mar 02)