- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:48:48 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12469 --- Comment #4 from Simon <simon.young90@live.com> 2011-04-11 22:48:47 UTC --- Thank you both for your responses, I do agree; the attack vector for this exploit is the same as conventional XSS attacks. However, I think there are a few differences you might have overlooked with this method: Firstly, the external site referenced to in the iFrame does not need to be a .js file, it can be any webpage format (html, xml, php etc...) providing a message listener is implemented. Secondly, this exploit conforms to the DOM same-origin policy because the external script/page is not included directly in the website (it’s in the iFrame), cross-site messaging is allowed and the injected code appears to be the normal construct of the page. In the case of a stored/persistent XSS attack this would make it invisible to browser-based XSS detection, such as those employed by IE and Safari. Thirdly, the external page (within the iFrame) has full control of the compromised site because the injected code acts as its slave. Cross-domain control of an iFrames parent window in JavaScript was previously impossible. i.e. This will not work: window.parent.document.write("XSS!"); The slave could also be instructed to make seemingly legitimate requests as if it were the compromised domain, such as an XMLHTTPRequest and then pass the results to the external site. If the external site then modified these results so that all links in the new page were also XMLHTTPRequests to be passed back to itself, this type of XSS could be used as a full man-in-the-middle attack. Thanks again, Simon Young -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 22:48:49 UTC