Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the yoink dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Websites Can Exploit Browser Extensions to Steal User Data

While web applications are bound by the Same Origin Policy (SOP) and cannot access data from other web applications unless mechanisms such as Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) are implemented into both, browser extensions are not subject to the same rule, meaning they can read and write data on web applications.

The extensions also have access to a broad range of sensitive user information, including browsing history, bookmarks, credentials (cookies) and list of installed extensions, and can download files and store them on the user’s device.

Browser extensions and web applications are executed in separate contexts, but they can interact by exchanging messages, regardless of the browser. This allows web applications to exploit extension privileged capabilities and steal sensitive user information, Dolière Francis Somé from the Université Côte d'Azur, Inria, France, says in a research paper (PDF).

The researcher analyzed the communication interfaces exposed to web applications by Chrome, Firefox, and Opera browser extensions and discovered that many of them can be exploited for access to privileged capabilities. 

“Through extensions’ APIs, web applications can bypass SOP and access user data on any other web application,” Somé explains.

“Our results demonstrate that the communications between browser extensions and web applications pose serious security and privacy threats to browsers, web applications and more importantly to users,” the researcher continues.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Tuesday January 22 2019, @08:03AM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday January 22 2019, @08:03AM (#789986) Journal

    If you look at Table I, you'll see that they tested 66,401 Chrome extensions, but only 9,391 Firefox extensions and just 2,523 Opera extensions. Which means that 0.26% of all tested Chrome extensions, 0.17% of all tested Firefox extensions and 0.40% of all tested Opera extensions were vulnerable. In other words, while Firefox is better than Chrome in this respect, its advantage is far less than the numbers you quoted suggest. And Opera is actually worse than Chrome.

    You do have a point on the response by the corresponding providers, though.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:14AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:14AM (#790011) Homepage Journal

    Which means that 0.26% of all tested Chrome extensions, 0.17% of all tested Firefox extensions and 0.40% of all tested Opera extensions were vulnerable. In other words, while Firefox is better than Chrome in this respect, its advantage is far less than the numbers you quoted suggest. And Opera is actually worse than Chrome.

    A good point. I did some cursory poking around and discovered that determining the total number of extensions available for each browser (not counting extensions that aren't available through the relevant cetralized add-ons/extensions sites for each browser -- HTTPS Everywhere for example), would be a time consuming task. As such, it's likely that the number of vulnerable extensions is higher (perhaps significantly higher) than the number of vulnerable extensions found in the study.

    Interestingly, Figure 3 [inria.fr] details the distribution of users per extension. More than half of the extensions tested have fewer than 1000 users.

    It's rather annoying that the specific extensions found to be vulnerable were not detailed. It's unclear why that is. I could hazard a few guesses, but I'll refrain for the moment.

    You do have a point on the response by the corresponding providers, though.

    That was the primary point I was making, given Google's (non)response.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr