Firefox Susceptible To QuickTime Security Flaw 231
Hugh Pickens writes "Apple's QuickTime media player software contains a previously undocumented security weakness in the way QuickTime handles the RTSP media-streaming protocol. The vulnerability is present in QuickTime versions 4.0 through 7.3 (the latest version) on both Windows and Mac systems. Symantec has tested the publicly available exploit code and found that it failed to work properly against Internet Explorer 6/7 or Safari 3 Beta but the exploit works against Firefox if users have chosen QuickTime as the default player for multimedia formats. Firefox users are more susceptible to this attack because Firefox farms off the request directly to the QuickTime Player as a separate process outside of its control, while IE loads the QuickTime Player as an internal plugin and when the overflow occurs, standard buffer-overflow protection is triggered, shutting down the affected processes before any damage can occur."
And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess they want the more hits by throwing Fox into the mess though, but really, why have Mozilla fix Apple's flaws?
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Why? Just why?
Every website that has a quicktime video, I just go straight to youtube and search for the equivalent.
This is mainly due to the fact that the quicktime plugin traditionally hasn't been able to automatically install. You have to actually go to their website and install some adware filled crap that will never leave your system tray alone.
*bends over ready for -5 apple bashing*
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, this is Slashdot. Since when did the headlines make sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Further, a fix to FF will NOT fix the problem (the exploit will still exist in QT), it will only fix it if FF acts as a container for plugins, something that's caused no end of pain from IE.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Lets just hope that Apple doesn't turn around and blame Mozilla like Mozilla Corp. did to Microsoft when they had a similar problem [secunia.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
Glass half empty, half full type thing. Of course, Quicktime is causing the problem, but would you rather have a browser that arbitrarily trusts the plugin, or does some bounds checking?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But that's just me talkin'.
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
So taking your logic further, the OS should be responsible for all of this, so it's not even Firefox's problem. ^_^ Apps should be purpose built and responsible for that purpose. If you do the blame game up the line, you'll find tremendous bloat (more so than it already is) creeping into all first-line programs and even more so to the OS. If you don't blame Microsoft and OSX (the only two platforms Quicktime runs on, IIRC) as much as Firefox, you have violated your own thinking line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
IE uses a plugin interface to deal with QuickTime. As such, it has a standard framework which does some bounds checking and can find buffer overflows like this one and kill a plugin (or iexplore.exe if necessary) preventing damage.
Firefox just passes parameters on to an external program.
Pick your poison, you can probably make justifications for either, but to me the IE method makes more sense. It's embedded content, it should be handled as a plugin to the parent application. You are a programmer, I'm sure you are familiar with the concepts of parents and children
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had QT crash my Ffx dozens of times, but never any problems with QT crashing IE. Which seems backward to me...
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Funny)
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The scientist says there is
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Jack Bauer found out where the glass was, who drank the water, and which government they worked for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Miami's CSI team is still busy determining the water's pH level, checking the glass for DNA samples, upsampling a security recording of the glass to full HD quality, walking around in slow motion and taking off their sunglasses while making painfully dramatic remarks.
Reults are expected in about two days, just in time to stop the half-emptyer from half-emptying another glass of water. And probably shoot h
Re: (Score:2)
I say you have big glasses! I've been looking for something to hold an entire bottle of la fin du monde [unibroue.com], yours sounds like it could even fit some head!
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, babysitting probably takes up more resources so a paranoid OS will slow down. But IMHO the solution is still to taint dangerous stuff (what you got just downloaded) and have the OS babysit it.
Because of the end appearance (Score:5, Insightful)
So while it isn't FF's responsibility to fix the specific bug, it could be an indication of how things should be done better.
Your initial premise is incorrect (Score:2)
When you use QT in Firefox, it appears in the FF window itself, it in a very real way seems to be part of FF. We aren't talking about opening a file that ten spawns another app, we are talking about opening something embedded in a page itself. As such FF is the one that is going to get blamed. Also, one can argue, they should share some of the blame. If you are loading a plugin in your app, perhaps you should load it in such a way that your app can keep control over it. Seems that the other browsers do this.
So while it isn't FF's responsibility to fix the specific bug, it could be an indication of how things should be done better.
No, the testing done in the article was not embedded inside the Firefox window. It did indeed spawn a completely separate app. http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/upload/2007/11/Image_FF.html [symantec.com]
Apples and oranges here. The plugin inside IE is protected via IE's features. The standalone app outside Firefox, as expected, is not protected by any features of Firefox.
I don't know why it's run as a standalone app rather than as a plugin inside Firefox. Perhaps they didn't install t
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope. (Score:2)
That's not far from:
It is possible to write an OS in which malicious programs can be run, and are unable to do anything harmful, due to reduced privileges. Most of us don't do this, even to the extent that most modern OSes allow.
Think about it -- why stop with plugins?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I mean help me understand how it simply farming the request to an external app, where the external app has the security problem, is a firefox problem?
Because Internet browsers are one of the commonest entry-points for malware. While one could argue that this strictly speaking isn't a Firefox problem, I for one would still expect a modern web browser to place as many barriers as possible between itself and my OS. The fact that it is standard practice in IE 6/7 to sandbox apps like this as an internal plugin should be enough of a motivation for the Firefox team to go the same way. Being upstaged in security features by a Microsoft product is pretty embar
Re: (Score:2)
They would have blamed it on IE, but they couldn't find any way to make any connection (and for the first time ever, IE just kind of sat off to the side and shrugged it's shoulders in disinterest that it isn't affected).
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, while it's not directly firefox's probl
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:4, Informative)
It does not really matter that the 'actual' vulnerability is in Quicktime. Firefox is the application that controls whether this vulnerability will affect the user, since it is obvious that is it possible to have code in Firefox that stops this exploit from working.
It is also a Firefox problem because any other plugin of this type is equally vulnerable using Firefox. From a secure coding point of view, is it your problem if you create an avenue whereby an exploit can occur? Damn straight! In this case, perhaps running the plugins in a controlled and monitored sandbox would be a good design change, instead of forking another process...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And this is a firefox problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
I 90% agree with you; however, I do think operating systems should handle transactions with internet applications differently than normal processes. Both Vista and Leopard and any Linux distro with SELinux enhancements has the ability to sandbox certain processes for added security. The reason this exploit does not work with IE is because runs it as a plug-in and sandboxes all of those plug-ins within IE. I'd argue that any process to which data is "handed off" by a Web browser, e-mail client, or chat client should run in a sandbox as an extra layer of protection against this common type of attack.
Yeah, Quicktime is the culprit here and Firefox is not to blame, but I'd argue that the OS (all of them currently) is partly to blame for not sandboxing data coming into the machine via the Web.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel your pain. But you can change your setting so that when you plug in your iPod, it doesn't load iTunes automatically. I did.
I still use iTunes, but it is not my default player. That way if I just want to open a sound file real quick, I can let Winamp handle that in 1 second. But if I'm going to start a nice long playlist while I hang out, I use iTunes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That does it for me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That does it for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that security is not touted as much as a feature anymore compared to the early Firefox releases.
Re: (Score:2)
Stay Secure on the Web
Firefox continues to lead the way in online security, and now includes active protection from online scams to keep you safer.
I'd say they're still pumping the security angle in their marketing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. I thought I was safe. We need a new version of Firefox that dis-allows Quicktime. I vote we call it Pornzilla.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
27% in europe, over 40% in some countries.
http://www.xitimonitor.com/en-us/browsers-barometer/firefox-september-2007/index-1-2-3-110.html [xitimonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I run Vista and Windows Server 2008 as a normal user, not as administrator. I use IE 7, protected mode, enhanced security configuration as my default browser. A few web sites go into my IE trusted sites zone.
Since IE is so locked down, I also run FireFox with NoScript installed. I am very careful whose javascript I run. I have not installed plugins and I block Flash.
Even if you get past my usage controls,
How is this a firefox problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Non-Firefox browser: exploit fails to execute, instead protected by bounds checking
Firefox: exploit executes unchecked
How is that NOT a Firefox problem? If you don't use Firefox, you're immune. If you do, you're vulnerable. Even if the final cause is currently QuickTime, it's only a matter of time until some other plugin is found vulnerable and exploitable under Firefox but nowhere else.
Besides, Firefox and IE use different plugin models.
Re: (Score:2)
The plugin (and the app itself) are where the flaw lies. Now, firefox could sandbox its plugins, at some arbitrary performance penalty, as it's rivals do, and that would certainly fix the problem from the FireFox pov.
But the problem is still within QuickTime, and any other non-sandboxing app could be corrupted. One of the things I leanred in my computer science classes, is that if you have error checking at every level, you
Re: (Score:2)
RT2FA: It's NOT a Firefox plugin issue (Score:4, Informative)
Non-Firefox browser: exploit fails to execute, instead protected by bounds checking
Firefox: exploit executes unchecked
How is that NOT a Firefox problem? If you don't use Firefox, you're immune. If you do, you're vulnerable. Even if the final cause is currently QuickTime, it's only a matter of time until some other plugin is found vulnerable and exploitable under Firefox but nowhere else.
Besides, Firefox and IE use different plugin models. Apparently the flaw is with Firefox's plugin model - clearly a Firefox problem.
The headline should read "Vulnerability in QuickTime. IE mitigates attacks via its QT plugin. Firefox doesn't fix problem in QT."
Per the Symantec article, the issue as related to Firefox is not with a plugin. The article states that QuickTime is run as a plugin inside IE and Safari. The vulnerable software is run inside the browser, and thus falls under the browser's control. http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/upload/2007/11/Image_IE.html [symantec.com] shows this. However, in the case of Firefox, QuickTime is run as a standalone app outside the browser. See http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/upload/2007/11/Image_FF.html [symantec.com]. In this case, Firefox gets Item A and sees that the system is configured to handle that type of item with Program B. Therefore, Firefox hands Item A to Program B. It works exactly the same as launching the malicious file from the Run box.
Once again, it is not a problem with Firefox's plugin system because this is not running as a Firefox plugin. Let me correct your quote. See how that makes it a little less cut and dried?
If there were a vulnerability in your email or FTP program, would you blame Firefox because it hands off mailto: and ftp: links to those external programs? Should Firefox be held responsible for malicious files (of any type - Word, MP3, .exe, etc.) that you download and then run externally? The Symantec article also mentions emailing attachments as an attack vector. Uh oh, Outlook and Thunderbird are also flawed, because they hand the file off to QuickTime to open too!
Also, judging by the IE pic, it appears that their "buffer overrun protection" is "crashing the browser". In this case, the QT vuln is also a DoS against IE, while Firefox does not have that vulnerability.
I agree that every program should do what it can to limit damage. However, Firefox can't do much about completely external programs. In this case, Firefox has no understanding of the data being downloaded, just that the system is configured to handle the data with a certain program. The only way to fix this is with filename/URL blacklisting so it doesn't open the bad URL (gee, that's practical) or by coding Firefox to understand every type of data it encounters. Essentially, code every other program into Firefox itself so that it can determine if the data is good or bad before handing it off (gee, that's practical). If this were a problem with a Firefox plugin, I would agree with you fully. However, it's a completely external program which Firefox has no control over, so I can't disagree more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of like how on an old operating system that doesnt have seperate address spaces it isnt the OSes fault if you run a program that brings down the entire system. But there is a better OS design they could have used that would have prevented that. Same thing here, there is a better browser design that would have prevented this.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the other process isn't spawn with greater privileges, there's no problem, right? Oh... you're talking about Windows, where EVERYONE logs in with root privileges...
Never mind then.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If this was an IE problem, you know the tagging beta would be full of 'defectivebydesign' and 'haha' remarks. But this is Firefox, so all is forgiven.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is this a firefox problem? Firefox spawns off another process that has a flaw and it crashes. This process is completely outside of the memory space of firefox at this point.
It isn't a Firefox problem. per se. Firefox did nothing but what was asked of it: call this user-specified external program to deal with a piece of data.
Applications should be well-written and behaved, but we expect our OS to compensate for them when they are not. Browsers are evolving, becoming an operating environment unto themselves, and Firefox's competitors have taken a stance similar to the OS makers. Plug-ins should be well-written and behaved, but they'll take steps to minimize the damage caused
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me why the term "firefox" doesn't belong in the vulnerability writeup when only firefox users are exposed?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. IE users are not vulnerable. Firefox users are.
Explain to me why the term "firefox" doesn't belong in the vulnerability writeup when only firefox users are exposed?
If you look at the Symantec article, the malicious file ran in the standalone QT app, not in a Firefox plugin. http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/upload/2007/11/Image_FF.html [symantec.com]
It's really apples and oranges. In the IE test, the malicious file was running inside IE via the plugin. In
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should check out IE7. I hear they have tabs now, and I'll be more secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you simply didn't take the blame-game quite far enough...
See, if we can blame FireFox for flaws in 3rd party code it forks off, then we can also, by proxy, blame Windows for letting FireFox let the same buggy code run.
It all balances out in the great karmic wheel of "Always Microsoft's Fault, Somehow".
What version of Firefox? Or IE? (Score:2)
mild oops (Score:2)
I use Safari for most browsing and I just upgraded my Firefox to 2.0.0.10
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CERT Vuln. Note [cert.org] gives somewhat better information and workarounds than I have seen elsewhere. (Some places say, "just block port 554 and you're safe." Nope.)
I would like to note that while the exploit released doesn't work on IE, Symantec notes that, with work, a new exploit could target IE. (And likely other browsers. As people have noted elsewhere - this isn't really a browser issue.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, better safe than CRACKED. When someone comes up with a hack for this, the problem is fixed.
Don't you know where you are? This is slashdot, not the wall street journal. Hacking is when you turn your transistor radio into a fuzzbox or your lawnmower into a robot. Hacking is NOT "breaking into a computer system" you silly normal person.
-mcgrew
Apple software not secure. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how many of these examples do we need to demonstrate that Apple software is not secure, and is only less exploited because it's less popular?
Try - one. This isn't it.
This does show that Apple provides no magic bullet; Apple can (and does) put out crap code. If you think buying / using Apple software means never having to worry about bugs (and consequently exploits) then you've been deluded.
What this doesn't do is settle why Apple's bugs don't become fertile ground for malware. In fact, since this particular exploit isn't (yet) actively used in the wild it doesn't even enter the debate. But then it's only a matter of time. Industrious malw
If Just A Simple Buffer Overflow (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Good question. I was thinking the same thing. Someone mod parent up ... and can anyone provide an answer?
Re: (Score:2)
How does NX affect performance? I've not heard of any performance hit for using it, unless it's interrupting all the time due to attempts to execute data.
Troll -1 (Score:4, Funny)
MOD Parent Funnt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it matters, as all it takes is one bad site with an embedded malicious video...
Design for maliciousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Software should be pessimistic. Design the code to handle incoming requests as potentially malicious, and you'll never be disappointed.
Phew (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you Apple for protecting me from, well, Apple!
A bigger problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't about:plugins just have a 'disable' box on each plugin? Or, better yet, a standard preferences menu list which just lets me disable them there and then?
Re:A bigger problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Quicktime is the FF plugin from hell (Score:5, Informative)
2. You HAVE to install Quicktime if you want to use iTunes
3. You (sort of) HAVE to install iTunes if you want to use an iPod (although I strongly recommend people consider Winamp, which has native support now, or the excellent ml_ipod plugin for Winamp)
4. Quicktime's browser plugin commandeers associations with a whole range of media types whether you want it to or not
5. QT doesn't give you the option of launching QT in a totally separate window - it automatically opens things embedded in the browser and starts playing them
6. QT seems to totally screw the ability to get Firefox to go back to launching media files with the good old "Open with..." dialog box, which lets you decide whether to open it, what to open it with, or whether to save it to disk
7. QT has absolutely no regard for what other media players and file association you might already have configured for your browser
and I guess we can add 8, although it was already implied
8. QT is a buggy p.o.s. with worse functionality and security than any half-decent media player including VLC, Winamp, and (in my humble opinion) even the dreaded WMP.
All of this reflects Apple's horrible attitude to developing software for the PC, which is essentially that they will utterly ignore the now well-established conventions of the platform in terms of installation behaviour, GUI and menu structure, and plugin behaviour and just run roughshod over the whole thing. Which would probably be more acceptable if their software JUST WORKED and was as fully featured as other options on the PC - but unfortunately that is not the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because without Quicktime installed in Windows it is simply not possible to do kind of important stuff like, I dunno... play music, is it?
Microsoft better make it part of the default Windows install pronto to give millions of users worldwide the ability to actually play music
Re: (Score:2)
Poor Dialog (Score:2)
The dialog requires that each file type be individually changed.
This would seem to be a VERY poor design.
Symantec is wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-rtsp-quicktime-flaw-affects-both.html [blogspot.com]
Standard buffer overflow protection doesn't work, Symantec was wrong. It seems that parts of Quicktime are not enabled for ASLR making these attacks possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) Someone has apparently figured out a way to launch the exploit that avoids the protection works correctly in Internet Explorer
2) QuickTime (and its libraries) are not marked to allow ALSR, which would make this much harder to exploit.
Website's fault (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing worse... (Score:2, Informative)
This is Apple's screwup in its code. Could FireFox handle it differently? Sure. But it ain't the code that they wrote that is the problem here.
The answer is Mplayer (Score:2)
I've have strongly disliked Quicktime for a long time, because it sticks it's little fingerprints into things worse than anything I've ever seen that's not from Redmond. I ripped my XP configuration out with Nlite, and setup my install CD with registry keys that hook everything to Mplayer. Short, sweet, runs everything that's not encrypted, and it doesn't try
Firefox already patched (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply put... NO. IE will not crash, the plug-in however will be unloaded for that instance. This isn't just about crashing the browser either, its a buffer overflow error and the article implies you can send some payload to the machine to be executed. But unless your running FF as root that really shouldn't be a big a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, trashing your home directory and/or having private data uploaded from the home directory is no big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
But Chuck Norris uses Firefox, and Chuck Norris says it's Steve Jobs' problem.