Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Serious New Java Flaw Affects All Browsers

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the at-least-it's-consistent dept.

Java 164

Trailrunner7 writes "There is a serious vulnerability in Java that makes all current browsers vulnerable to simple Web-based attacks that could lead to a complete compromise of the affected system. Two separate researchers released information on the vulnerability on Friday, saying that it has been present in Java for years. The problem lies in the Java Web Start framework, a technology that Sun Microsystems developed to enable the simplified deployment of Java applications. In essence, the JavaWS technology fails to validate parameters passed to it from the command line, and attackers can control those parameters using specific HTML tags on a Web page, researcher Ruben Santamarta said in an advisory posted Friday morning."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All browsers? (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795250)

Oh come, on. Shall I try it in Links? I've told you a million times that you're not supposed to overuse hyperboles.

Re:All browsers? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795302)

Perhaps, but if people have been getting bad java, they're going to need some ceramic parabolas right quick.

Re:All browsers? (1)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795352)

don't tell starbucks about this.

Re:All browsers? (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795370)

Ceramic parabolas? I prefer wired mesh, that way I can put more on my head.

Re:All browsers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795704)

*Whoosh*

Re:All browsers? (3, Funny)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796458)

Stick it in your latus rectum [wolfram.com] .

Article Contents (4, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795322)

Yes, the summary's misleading; but the article at least is a bit clearer: it refers to windows-based browsers.

"In his advisory, Ormandy said that he notified Sun about the vulnerability but that the vendor didn't believe it was serious enough to warrant an emergency patch," sayeth the article.

Now that it's on slashdot, of course, that is clearly no longer the case, if indeed it was.

Re:Article Contents (5, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795438)

Actually it affected Linux browsers too.

However, it was fixed a few updates ago: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/6u17.html [sun.com]

Re:Article Contents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795558)

The difference is, in windows you seem to get admin privs pretty easily, whereas linux/bsd exploits at best may give you local user.

Re:Article Contents (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796232)

Why does everyone have to bring up this completely stupid and pointless "fact"? Here is a little "fact" of my own: The user only CARES about THEIR STUFF! Okay? Who gives a rat's fart if the system is fine if all your stuff is completely hosed? NOBODY, that's who!

So can we please let this little fact DIAF already? Because frankly it doesn't matter if the malware is running with user or admin rights because in the end it HAS YOUR STUFF which is all anybody gives a shit about. I have never in my nearly 15 years of PC repair had anybody go "but is the system okay?". All anybody has ever ever cared about, even when I tell them I'm gonna have to nuke it, is "can you give me back my stuff please?". So let us just let this little "malware at root VS user" crud die already. If you have malware running at either level it has access to your stuff, which depending on how religiously you back up (which guess what? 99.995% of users in my experience don't have recent backups, if they have backups at all) can be a PITA at best and a true tragedy if you use irreplaceable memories.

So in conclusion: If the malware can run, whether on Linux or Windows, it can get to your stuff, which is WAY more important than whether or not your system gets hosed. After all any geek here at /. can get a system fully running and tweaked nicely in a couple of hours, how long would it take to replace that only copy of your vacation photos, or that only copy of your late grandmother's last Xmas here on earth?

Re:Article Contents (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796250)

meh

Given access to a users profile it's pretty trivial to set a trap such that next time they use su/sudo*/a menu entry that asks for a password to become roote/etc the malware gets root.

Though frankly running as a normal user is enough to send spam, perform ddos etc anyway.

*assuming a sudo config that allows general root access, e.g. the default on ubuntu.

Re:Article Contents (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796366)

That's right, a Linux virus could try to trick dumb users into giving root access using gksudo, kdesu, or even plain ol' su/sudo.

Re:Article Contents (2, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796444)

Don't even need to trick them, just put wrappers in place so that next time they try to use one of those tools it runs the malware. For bonus points design the malware so it takes what the user was originally trying to do as a command line parameter and runs that as well so the user isn't any the wiser.

Re:Article Contents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796544)

"plain ol' su/sudo."

What about su-su-sudio?

Re:Article Contents (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795698)

At least with the official Sun JRE, it never affected 64-bit Linux, because they don't support [sun.com] Java Web Start on the 64-bit distribution. (The 64-bit Linux OpenJDK does support JWS, though.)

Re:Article Contents (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796326)

> Actually it affected Linux browsers too.

Only ones with Java enabled, something I've never needed.

Re:Article Contents (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796480)

Only those using the 'official' Sun binary too.

These days, most distributions package the OpenJDK. This doesn't include the offending source but rather IcedTea replacements written by some clever Canadians at Red Hat.

Re:Article Contents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796668)

>> Yes, the summary's misleading; but the article at least is a bit clearer

As always.

Re:All browsers? (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795684)

I guess this is also the one good thing for iPhone and iPod Touch users...since they can't run Java anyways, they are also immune.

Re:All browsers? (2, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796022)

I guess this is also the one good thing for iPhone and iPod Touch users...since they can't run Java anyways, they are also immune.

FTFA: "Browsers running on Apple's Mac OS X are not vulnerable." That includes iPhone, iPod Touch & iPad .... oh, and Mac's, too.

Re:All browsers? (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796206)

Oh good, so they won't get any Java in their iPads too. That helps when that time of the month rolls around as it's already a mess down there as is.

Re:All browsers? (2, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795880)

From the first link:

"Because the JavaWS technology is included in the Java Runtime Environment, which is used by all of the major browsers, the vulnerability affects all of these applications, including Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome, on all versions of Windows from 2000 through Windows 7, Santamarta said. Browsers running on Apple's Mac OS X are not vulnerable."

Re:All browsers? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796328)

Browsers running on Apple's Mac OS X are not vulnerable.

Of course not, Apple distributes their own version of JVM for OS X not Sun. So this is a fine example of not incorporating every "neat" bleeding edge idea into the JVM is a feature not a handicap.

All browsers? (-1, Redundant)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795254)

Really? I'm pretty sure my favorite browser [isc.org] is immune.

Re:All browsers? (2, Insightful)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795554)

Any sane browser is immune. Browsers shouldn't allow execution of Java code any time you simply click on a link. You should use NoScript or, better yet, just disable the Java plugin altogether except in the rare cases when you need it.

Re:All browsers? (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796028)

When do we need Java? I uninstalled it from my "new" computer about 2 years ago. I only notice it's absence when I'm at another machine and it asks me to update the JVM.

Re:All browsers? (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796084)

I went to disable Java as soon as I saw the headline (before getting to the part that said my platform was not affected). When I got to the preferences dialog, I found that it was already disabled. I turned it off last time there was a high-profile Java vulnerability - about two years ago, as I recall - and had completely forgotten. I guess that means that Java Applets are pretty much dead. I can't remember the last time that I saw one, and I've certainly not seen any sites failing because I had Java disabled.

Re:All browsers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795796)

Really? I'm pretty sure my favorite browser [isc.org] is immune.

You are kidding right?

For years?! (2, Insightful)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795262)

That's great, no one knew about it till now? i don't believe that.

Re:For years?! (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795504)

You didn't notice we've been watching you?

java -start -mykeylogger_to_ru -get_passwords_for_everything & -send_to_nsa_listening_post

wasn't that link you clicked?

Re:For years?! (1)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795552)

no it was i think it was yuminstall nsawatch.tar.gz sudo - *^%$^&*(*hkla7d7s8 (md5 encryption) java -start -nsakeylogger_to_ru -get_passwords_for_pron_everything & -send_to_nsa_proncenter

Re:For years?! (1, Troll)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795612)

I do - who the heck writes applets anymore? Java is a totally pervasive server-side thing these days. I guess JWS was a last kick at the can.

Re:For years?! (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795812)

Er, JWS is NOT the same as applets, but means desktop apps that are loaded via the web.

Re:For years?! (2, Insightful)

leenks (906881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795942)

Troll. Client side java applications are still very popular in enterprises where something richer than a typical webapp is required (though this may change as browser tech matures), and JWS is a convenient medium for deploying them. Hell, even Eclipse RCP applications can be deployed with webstart [eclipse.org] .

Re:For years?! (2, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796352)

Agree. I use Java because it's the easiest way to write cross platform client applications without having to experience DLL hell or dependency issues.

Guess it's time to uncheck that box (3, Informative)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795264)

Can't recall the last time I even used a Java applet. Just uncheck the box in preferences and forget about it.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795328)

hmm.../me checking in Quick Preferences...yup, "Enable Java" unticked.

Wait, I don't even hava Java installed on this machine. Seriously, apart from very few webpages and applications (taking into account what is typically used), Java is hardly needed nowadays.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795628)

Well, except for all those webapp-type sites you visit. You "use" Java every single time you browse the web, just indirectly.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795964)

Quite a bold claim. Do you have evidence that he visits at least one Java-based site per browser session?

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796526)

And what webapp sites would these be??? Really, there are not too many mainstream sites that require a JRE to function properly. I remember a short period where Java was used similar to Flash (I remember perverse cases where individual animated buttons were Java applets), and I occasionally stumble upon some of these broken down and burnt out sites.

There are specific sites that tend to use Java, like online tutorials for math and science subjects, or somebody's hack, or just a browser integrated version of some Java app for something like an interactive simulator, but these are fairly niche.

Or are you yet another fool that thinks that Java and Javascript are closely related?

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796574)

Well I guess if I would give this the benefit of the doubt, you are implying that Java is still used quite a bit on the server side by a lot of widely used sites. But it is really a stretch to find any relevance between server side implementation and client side execution.

Like many people have pointed out, often one isn't even aware that they don't have any JRE installed on their system until they happen to that one pesky website to do some specific thing.

Big (often crappy) Java "apps" (not applets) for enterprisey stuff are often deployed with their own JRE.

(And yes I am aware that this whole issue is with WebStart deployment and not browser applets... just commenting on the parent's comments)

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795364)

I just checked - I don't even have java installed on my machine anymore. Never come accross something that I need it for.

What do people use it for these days?

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795418)

Java is used primarily on the server. Sun botched the first applet plugin (which sucked). They rewrote it last year, which was recently released in an update. Although the technical suckage is out of the way, exploits like sure don't help it's popularity.

Java has a >90% install base though.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (2, Interesting)

thsths (31372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795690)

> Sun botched the first applet plugin (which sucked). They rewrote it last year, which was recently released in an update.

Can you tell me where I get a Java plugin that doesn't suck? Because mine still does - it takes seconds to load, blocks the browser in the mean time, it always looks ugly (something wrong with the fonts?), and it often interferes with the web page. Plus the update mechanism is terrible - certainly if you have a normal user account for normal use.

Actually even the Flash plugin is a lot better, plus Flash graphics just look excellent.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795478)

What alternative client do you wish to see in your browser?
MS silverlight?
Flash?

I can't understand comment's like "just disable java" from people in this forum.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

TwoUtes (1075403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795512)

Surprisingly enough, it is required to run training videos through a web site run by a major US government space agency who shall remain nameless.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795992)

Which US govt space agency is that? There are 3 of them.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (2, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795794)

http://runescape.com/ [runescape.com] is a Java site my son uses all the time. AT&T Connect web conferencing service is one I use at work all the time. There are certainly folks that need it for a bunch of different things, but I will certainly stipulate that it isn't used on the desktop (thankfully!) as much as it was. That said, at work, every time we send out a Java security patch we get calls from users of all kinds of vertical market apps about how the patch broke their app and we have to get the vendor to get a new version out really quick. Quite annoying how it always breaks stuff as it moves forward.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795436)

Oh wait, despite what the hyperbole of the summary may suggest this doesn't affect browsers on the Mac anyway.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (2, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795488)

Java Webstart, not applet. Basically you download a .jnlp file, which is an xml config file telling it where to download an application to then execute. It's supposed to be sandboxed. But what matters is how your browser handles .jnlp files (or the corresponding mimetype), not how it handles applet tags (or the corresponding object tag).

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795536)

OK, I'm not trolling (seriously), but, honestly, I have to ask:

Does anyone here actually use Java for anything? And I don't mean "I write Java Enterprise Beans," I mean for client applications, since this flaw affects launching Java client apps. Presumably you can keep on running your favorite J2EE XML-based Spring Hibernate Ultimate whatever without worrying about Java applets or Java Web Start or any of that Java client technology.

If you do use client Java, what are you using it for? The only thing I can think of that I've ever see anyone run a client Java app for was writing server-side Java code.

I guess what I'm asking is, why would I install Java in the first place?

I use it (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795632)

It's pretty much the only option for printing from a browser without requiring a prompt. (And printing in text mode, too.)

This part of the project isn't for general consumption, though; it's only for customers who need this particular functionality.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (4, Funny)

AchilleTalon (540925) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795686)

Well, I am mainly writing Web client applications in Java to gain unauthorized access to your desktop.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795720)

I work for a reasonably large multi-national corporation, and we distribute a suite of server management tools as java applets. I don't ask why Java was chosen, and I don't know how well received the suite is by customers, but I know my job would be impossible without a JRE on my office workstation.

Re:Guess it's time to uncheck that box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795776)

>>Does anyone here actually use Java for anything?

Yes, a large part of the population in Norway at least, and some other countrys use it for BankID. [bankid.no] (Site is in norwegian)

BankID is required as a logon methode for online banking at many banks and it is approved for use as legally binding electronic signatures. It is usually implemented as a java applet, not with JWS tho

Some more info here at DnB Nor [dnbnor.no] .
(DnB Nor is just a normal bank that uses BankID, however I was unable to find any other page in english describing it wit a fast google)

Java role-playing game tools (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795988)

There are some pretty useful tools for playing RPGs like GURPS, D&D, etc. I use GURPS Character Sheet and I've used a couple of different Java shared map programs to make it easy to play pen and paper games over the Internet.

This is javocalypse (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795266)

New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795272)

This isn't New. Java is a sea of vulnerabilities.

Re:New? (4, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795380)

Compared to what? Java has a pretty fantastic security track record.

Also this isn't an exploit in the Java runtime, it's an exploit in the way the web start native launcher parses arguments before using them to launch the Java virtual machine.

Re:New? (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795496)

Compared to
[_] Enable Java

Re:New? (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795514)

It gets even safer with:

[_] Enable teh interwebs

oh oh! and this one:

[_] Enable computer power

The ultimately in security, I've done it!

Re:New? (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795678)

Offtopic, but you really should remove or replace that link in your sig if you want to be taken seriously on any topic related to Java (or .NET). It's so out of date it's not even funny - a lot of points are at best misleading, at at worst blatantly wrong - and you've been called out on that on /. several times already.

Actually, come to think of it, quite a few bullet points there were lies in 2004, as well, which makes me wonder if you're just ignorant, or deliberately spreading FUD.

Re:New? (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795756)

[_] Enable computer power

The ultimately in security, I've done it!

I didn't see a "*($^#@$@^$&&&... NO CARRIER". I call shenanigans!

Re:New? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795944)

I'm just waiting for someone to

[_] Enable evil in the world

I don't even know why that was compiled in, much less on by default.

Re:New? (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796170)

You forgot "dig hole, put computer in hole, fill hole with concrete".

Re:New? (1)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795898)

Java has security bugs just like everything else. I don't know if it has more or less than average. The problem is that so many Java apps require specific JVM versions so you are stuck with buggy versions.

I'm a desktop admin who has to support running many different Java apps, most provided by our clients. While a few will work with whatever JVM as long as it's new enough, most require a specific version. It's not just dumb apps that have a hard coded version check. Some don't check yet still fail with the wrong JVM version, often in odd ways. For example we have one app that if run on the wrong version, even one patch release different, will no longer have working cut and paste. I can run the apps just fine across Windows or Linux, but the JVM must be the right version.

The problem is now the most common infection on our machines, despite many still running IE6, is Vundo variants that get in through the JVM.

Re:New? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796314)

Afaict it is possible to set up a "private" jvm and use it for just one app. Doing this for any apps that need it and either having no jvm installed where the browser can find it at all or keeping the one used by the browser up to date is probablly a sensible approach to reducing exposure.

Re:New? (1)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796488)

We looked into this, but the problem is that most of the apps are launched from client web sites that we have no control over. If the specific buggy JVM is hidden from the browser than any apps that need it fail. As it stand now malware has several buggy JVMs to chose from as almost no apps use the same version as any of the others.

The best we can do is lock down the machines as much as possible so any malware that gets launched doesn't have rights to infect anything other than the user's profile. A reboot and a profile delete usually clears them up.

People have Java enabled in their browser? (3, Funny)

WindSword (596780) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795276)

Wow! I never knew.

Howcum? (1, Troll)

gmfeier (1474997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795308)

Just asking: "Browsers running on Apple's Mac OS X are not vulnerable. "

Re:Howcum? (3, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795354)

Because it's not an exploit in Java, it's an exploit in the way parameter are provided to Java, when it is launched by the web start native executable.

Re:Howcum? (1)

gmfeier (1474997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795630)

Thanks. Way beyond my level of competence, such as it is.

Re:Howcum? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795644)

Because it's not an exploit in Java, it's an exploit in the way parameter are provided to Java, when it is launched by the web start native executable.
what? in other news Adobe said "it's not an exploit in Acrobat, it's an exploit in the way parameters are provided to Acrobat, when it displays a PDF document"

remind me again, if I don't install Java do I have this "web start native executable" ?

Re:Howcum? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795658)

I think it is a Java bug and not a browser bug, The researchers created a embed/object tag with parameters. They are adding a codebase parameter. embed/object parameters could be arbitrarily named, that is defined by the plugin to be used (Note the real standard object tag has a codebase attribute but they are not using it, they are using a param tag)

There is no way a browser will know how the plugin handle the arbitrarily named parameters, unless they specifically add it for the Java plugin, the browser send them to the plugin, in this case the Java plugin is the one that get that codebase and start javaws, so I think the Mac OS X plugin has checks that the standard Sun implementation or they are not starting javaws directly as another process

How to disable Java? (2, Informative)

mtxf (948276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795334)

In recent times firefox seems to have removed the little "[ ] Enable Java" checkbox from the Options > Content page, however I've found if you go into Tools > Add-ons > Plugins you can disable the Java(TM) Platform SE 6 Uxx plugin from there, which seems like it does the trick.

Re:How to disable Java? (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795450)

That's probably why they removed it. Java is less and less popular so it makes sense to not make it as prominent. Plus it's not even built into the browser, it's a plugin, and now you can disable any plugin.

Re:How to disable Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795484)

That's probably why they removed it. Java is less and less popular so it makes sense to not make it as prominent. Plus it's not even built into the browser, it's a plugin, and now you can disable any plugin.

What's this "Java" that everyone is talking about?

Re:How to disable Java? (2, Informative)

mtxf (948276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795520)

Replying to myself, I know. I also just read TFA (!) and disabling the Java Platform plugin alone isn't enough!

--------------------
Affected Software
------------------------

All versions since Java SE 6 update 10 for Microsoft Windows are believed to be
affected by this vulnerability. Disabling the java plugin is not sufficient to
prevent exploitation, as the toolkit is installed independently.

There's a seperate plugin called something like Java Deployment Toolkit which you also need to kill.

To check if you're vulnerable, PoC is here: http://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/bb5eafbc6c6e67e11c4afc88b4e1dd22/testcase.html [cmpxchg8b.com]

Already fixed a long time ago in jdk 6 r 17 (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795360)

yawn. old news.
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/6u17.html
6872824 javawebstart general arbitary code execution using java web start
this has long since been fixed.

Re: mod parent down. RTFA. Affects 1.6.0_19. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795774)

RTFA http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/119 [seclists.org] says:

$ java -version
java version "1.6.0_19"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_19-b04)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 16.2-b04, mixed mode, sharing)

And yet it ISN'T fixed (3, Informative)

Wee (17189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795930)

The article says that version 1.6.0_19 is affected [seclists.org] .

So no, not old news. Not "long since" fixed.

-B

Re:And yet it ISN'T fixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796216)

I tried to run their simple exploit demo, but it failed to load.

This is Javocalypse (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795366)

Really. [cr0.org]

Yet another reason to use NoScript. (0)

SomeGuyFromCA (197979) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795472)

I've never been a fan of Flash/Java/Javascript/ActiveX.

Let random webpages run arbitary code on my computer? Sounds like a great idea!

Some marketeer must have come up with that one.

Somebody please mod parent up! (1)

KGBear (71109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795892)

Thank you, SomeGuy! I wish more people saw that.

Re:Somebody please mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796350)

Isn't it ironic the parent post was modded up more than its parent?

felonious 'bankers' euphoric/orgasmic over our.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795480)

apathy, lack of ability to concentrate/believe we have any abilities to hold anyone responsible for their unconscionable behaviors.

that's costing US big, & not just in the total permanent debt we're being held hostage by.

must be our children deserve nothing better. we only feel sad for them now. lemming sea.

options may include stopping their cash flow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31795578)

hasn't been raised yet, quite the opposite in fact.

or, they could be arrested for grand larceny, fraud, misrepresentation etc..., as any one of us would be were we committing similar crimes.

that would make way too much sense &/or could possibly result in some improved behaviors by their replacements.

the FF plugin I use to avoid this (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795646)

'QuickJava'. That 'J' icon is always disabled.

Is it really that bad? (1)

ZipprHead (106133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795734)

From the article:

"Java.exe and javaw.exe support an undocumented-hidden command-line parameter "-XXaltjvm" and curiosly also "-J-XXaltjvm" (see -J switch in javaws.exe). This instructs Java to load an alternative JavaVM library (jvm.dll or libjvm.so) from the desired path. Game over."

But you would have to get that DLL or SO there in the first place no?

Re:Is it really that bad? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796386)

> But you would have to get that DLL or SO there in the first place no?

Yes, but this is on Windows. The bot that controls your machine will already have installed all the standard malware libraries and utilities.

Some precisions.... (5, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795754)

Using Java Web Start is comparable to clicking "Yes" when prompted to install "spyware.exe" or any other exe file. Java Web Start is a framework to deploy native Java applications on your machine more easily. Of course, you must trust the source just as you must trust the source when you install an exe file or Unix executable file.

Java Web Start is in no way comparable to Flash, Java Applets or the like that start executing in your browser without your permission and where a sandbox is used to run the code.

I thought this should be made clearer... ;-))

Re:Some precisions.... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796108)

This is worse that I thought, further research reveals that : ;-)

In their default configurations:

1) Firefox prompt you with a dialog similar to "open file abc.exe". ;-))

2) IE8 opens the unsigned application right away without prompting. ;-((

http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/desktop/javawebstart/demos.html [sun.com]

Also Web Start use some sandboxing, but I have trusted it since I have never looked it up ;-))

Re:Some precisions.... (1)

essinger (781940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796122)

Yeah, when I saw Web Start I knew it was nothing serious. Just another anti-Java Slashdot article.

Re:Some precisions.... (1)

essinger (781940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796608)

Alright, a little worse than I thought. More just annoying really, unless you don't keep your software up-to-date.

On the positive side.... (1)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795890)

This means that there will be a JDK 1.6u20 out soon.

Java has had a built-in backdoor (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796006)

This isn't a bug. This is a backdoor inserted by someone at Sun.

The article says there is an "undocumented parameter" which allows specifying, on the command line, which run-time system to load. That allows loading arbitrary executable code. It's a built-in backdoor.

Re:Java has had a built-in backdoor (5, Interesting)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31796414)

Personally I doubt this was deliberate.

The ability to load a different version of the jvm dll sounds like a debugging feature and normally someone running java from the command line would have the ability to run anything else anyway so it wouldn't really seem like a security flaw.

Processing untrusted stuff to allow it to be passed to an interface designed to take trusted stuff is known to be something that is easy to fuck up. Just look at all the sql injection attacks over the years.

HURRY!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31796034)

Both users of Java Web Start need to be contacted immediately!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>