Cross-protocol XSS with non-standard service ports
Page 1 of 1
Cross-protocol XSS with non-standard service ports
Most people have thought about how you can use a browser to issue inter-protocol requests. See Samy’s version of SMTP-through-JavaScript, “cross-site” printing (cool, but what’s so cross-site about it again?), and this paper by NGS. However, the reverse attack is much more useful; how causing a browser to interact with another protocol can cause arbitrary JavaScript to run in the origin of a target domain. This is natural extension to that previous work, starting with the seminal “form protocol attack” paper. After doing a bunch of research I found out that this basic idea was already lightly covered in eyeonsecurity’s “extended HTML form attack” paper, but misses out many key details, mostly resulting from the fact that the browser security landscape has shifted significantly since it was written in 2002.
Let’s start from the beginning. First, this is going to be a corner case, to be sure, but the Internet is like Drake’s equation – there’s always going to be sites where unusual attacks work.
Where to start? Consider first that a browser won’t let you use HTTP to talk to any site on port 20 or 21 – the typical FTP ports. This means that if there is FTP running on any other port, you will be allowed to send requests to it. What if that FTP server responded? Well, you would think the response would be meaningless to the browser since it’s not valid HTTP.
The head-scratching behavior of browsers continues. None of the browsers I tested (IE, FF, Safari, Chrome, all recent versions) require HTTP response headers to process a request. I have no idea why that is, and this appears to be a very little known fact according to some personal polling at Blackhat. If you want to see it in action, here’s your netcat command:
See more info HERE
Let’s start from the beginning. First, this is going to be a corner case, to be sure, but the Internet is like Drake’s equation – there’s always going to be sites where unusual attacks work.
Where to start? Consider first that a browser won’t let you use HTTP to talk to any site on port 20 or 21 – the typical FTP ports. This means that if there is FTP running on any other port, you will be allowed to send requests to it. What if that FTP server responded? Well, you would think the response would be meaningless to the browser since it’s not valid HTTP.
The head-scratching behavior of browsers continues. None of the browsers I tested (IE, FF, Safari, Chrome, all recent versions) require HTTP response headers to process a request. I have no idea why that is, and this appears to be a very little known fact according to some personal polling at Blackhat. If you want to see it in action, here’s your netcat command:
See more info HERE
andry- Moderator
- Posts : 467
Join date : 2010-05-07
Similar topics
» Generic cross-browser cross-domain theft
» Posting raw XML cross-domain
» Internet Protocol explained
» A Secure Cookie Protocol
» Safari Integer Overflow Aids Inter Protocol Exploitation
» Posting raw XML cross-domain
» Internet Protocol explained
» A Secure Cookie Protocol
» Safari Integer Overflow Aids Inter Protocol Exploitation
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|