RE: [FD] Mozilla extensions: a security nightmare

[Frank Waarsenburg <fwaarsenburg () ram-it nl>]

Time to unsubscribe from Bugtraq. I follow that list to be informed of vulnerabilities, not to get spammed by fighting 
ego's. Get a life.

___________________________________

Frank Waarsenburg  
Chief Information Security Officer

RAM Infotechnology

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Friedl [mailto:steve () unixwiz net] 
Sent: vrijdag 7 augustus 2015 8:17
To: 'Stefan Kanthak'; 'Mario Vilas'
Cc: 'bugtraq'; 'fulldisclosure'
Subject: RE: [FD] Mozilla extensions: a security nightmare

> Posting on top because that's where the cursor happens to be is like
sh*tt*ng in your pants because that's where your *ssh*l* happens to be!

Here, let me fix this for you:

> "I don't expect to be taking seriously by any technical community"

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Kanthak [mailto:stefan.kanthak () nexgo de]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Mario Vilas
Cc: bugtraq; fulldisclosure
Subject: Re: [FD] Mozilla extensions: a security nightmare

"Mario Vilas" <mvilas () gmail com> wrote:

> W^X applies to memory protection, completely irrelevant here.

I recommend to revisit elementary school and start to learn reading!

http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2015/Aug/8

| JFTR: current software separates code from data in virtual memory and
|       uses "write xor execute" or "data execution prevention" to
|       prevent both tampering of code and execution of data.
|       The same separation and protection can and of course needs to be
|       applied to code and data stored in the file system too!

> Plus you're saying in every situation when a user can overwrite its 
> own binaries in its own home folder it's a bug

Again: learn to read!

<http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2015/Aug/14>

| No. Writing executable code is NOT the problem here.
| The problem is running this code AFTER it has been tampered.
| (Not only) Mozilla but does NOT detect tampered code.

> - that would make every single Linux distro vulnerable whenever you 
> install some software in your own home directory that only you can use.

# mount /home -onoexec

> If you're talking about file and directory permissions it makes sense 
> to talk about privilege escalation.

No.

> But I don't think you really understand those security principles 
> you're citing. For example, can you give me an example of an attack
scenario?

The attack vector is OBVIOUS, exploitation is TRIVIAL.

> Also, take a chill pill. Your aggressive tone isn't really helping you 
> at all.

Posting on top because that's where the cursor happens to be is like sh*tt*ng in your pants because that's where your 
*ssh*l* happens to be!