If the GoogHOle wasn't wide enough, yesterday Petko D. Petkov AKA pdp posted another "semi-disclosure" about how you can redirect someone else's GMail incoming messages to your account.
Petko declared "
I am not planning to release this vulnerability for nowâ€, but this counts as a full disclosure in my book, since the details he gives away are far more than enough to put up a proof of concept in 10 minutes, if the reader knowns the very basics of Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF).
- Victim must be logged in GMail.
- Victim must visit a malicious web page: most likely scenarios are clicking an external link from an incoming message or surfing porn while checking email from time to time.
- The malicious web site forges a POST request to GMail's "Create Filter" wizard, possibly using an autosubmit invisible form to build a filter which forwards incoming messages to a mail recipient owned by the attacker.
- Since user is already authenticated, her session cookie is passed along with the forged request and the GMail filter gets silently implanted, with all the output hidden inside an IFRAME.
- The new GMail filter now acts as a persistent backdoor stealing incoming messages, and it will go unnoticed forever unless the victim is a power GMail user who creates or edits from time to time her own filters, which are deep buried in the "Settings" user interface: I, for instance, never saw them until yesterday!
Very clever and very dangerous.
As I said, this surely counts as a 0day public full disclosure: no matter if pdp omitted an explicit PoC. How many of us, having minimal web coding experience, wouldn't be able to build a working exploit using the info above?
As usual, now that's been publicly disclosed, this vulnerability is being patched very quickly by the great Google development crew.
Nonetheless, many other holes of this kind are still around. That's why CSRF is called â€œThe Sleeping Giantâ€: some web coders may still need to learn how to fix or prevent them, and users surely want to know how to protect themselves.
1. Web Developers
Please use form keys!
- Generate a random identifier (form key) every time you display a form meant to be submitted by authenticated users only.
- Echo your key as an hidden field of the form and bind its value to the user session data kept on the server side.
- As soon the form is submitted, compare the returned key with the one stored in session data: if they don't match, throw away the request because it is probably forged.
The above is a simple yet effective anti-CSRF technique. It will work fine unless a further Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability is present too, allowing attacker to read your form key on the fly and forge a seemingly valid requests.
2. Web Users
This GMail incident proves how even the best trained web developer in the world can fail at implementing CSRF countermeasures.
Most of the existing literature about XSS and CSRF will tell you that poor users can do nothing to protect themselves from these attacks, but this is blatantly false.
A quite radical, not very usable but effective approach would be using different browsers (or different profiles, if you use Mozilla derivatives) for each "sensitive" web site you access, and force yourself not to follow any external link nor browse any other site while logged in.
Anyway, if you prefer not to make your life miserable by spawning multiple browsers and scanning every single link with a magnifying lens, your answer is, once again, Firefox + NoScript (sorry to sound repetitive, but that's it).
-- but just impossible if malicious scripts are blocked by NoScript.
The obvious objection, raised for instance by both pdp and Adrian Pastor at GNUCITIZEN, sounds like:
True, but NoScript effectively defeats this attack as well!
It certainly does, but NoScript actually enhances browser security in several other ways.
A very incomplete list:
- It blocks Java, Flash, Silverlight and other plugins on untrusted sites, and optionally also on trusted pages, while letting you activate the plugin content on demand, with a click.
- It prevents malformed URIs to exploit buggy URI handlers, i.e. the foundation for many cross-application exploits discovered by Billy Rios, Nate McFeters and Thor Larholm.
- It implements the most advanced and effective anti-XSS protection available on the client side.
One of them also provides an effective defense from CSRFs of the kind affecting GMail: in facts, NoScript intercepts POST requests sent from untrusted origins to trusted sites and strips out their payloads.
This means that, even if the attacker exploits a scriptless vector to launch his POST CSRF through social engineering, NoScript users are still safe as long as the malicious site is not explicitly whitelisted.
When he learned this, pdp commented:
Giorgio, sounds good, but doesnâ€™t that break things?
I mean, CSRF is one of the most fundamental Web characteristic.
Disabling it might be OK for people like us, but for the general population, that is a no go!
Petko, my friend,
- The very foundation of the Web is CSR (Cross Site Requests, AKA Hyperlinking), not CSRF (Cross Site Request Forgery) which is an unwanted side effect of bad coding practices.
- RFC 2616 defining HTTP (hence, in a certain sense, the Web itself), clearly states that while GET requests (the ones we generate by following hyperlinks or submitting a search form) are idempotent, i.e. should not modify the receiving system, POST is reserved to requests which cause a permanent change. NoScript just prevents untrusted sites from modifying data held by trusted sites, and this looks Pure Good™: why could you want the contrary?
- Even if you actually wanted the contrary, you can either use the "Unsafe reload" command, available whenever a request is filtered by NoScript, or permanently configure some sites of your choice as unfiltered recipients of unsafe requests by listing them in NoScript Options/Advanced/XSS/Exceptions
The NoScript feature we're talking about has been in place for more than six month now.
I guess it's transparent enough if security researchers like you, Adrian or .mario -- people "like us", much more attentive to what happens inside their browsers than "the general population" -- did not even notice it... ;)