New answers tagged

2

You should be okay. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The practice is refereed to as Malvertising. The idea is to make it appear the machine is compromised or having issues. They then usually direct you to a fix or a recommended program. However those are actually the real malware. And they may be ransomware, adware, bots, a remote admin tool, or ...


8

SELinux will protect you against bugs created BY the chromium community, and their "oopses" or "hidden features" of that browser. You cannot put all eggs in one basket when it comes to security. Here, some examples where disabling selinux could not be a good idea: SELinux is preventing chrome-sandbox from write access on the file oom_score_adj - A ...


0

The first one - "You don't have permission to access this page" - doesnt sound like the browser. The second - "This page cannot be displayed" - could be. Different browsers react differently when they catch an XSS attack. If mode=block is set in the X-XSS-Protection header, both the latest version of Chrome and IE will give you a page similar to the one you ...


0

If you're really concerned about security issues, you might consider running Firefox in a separate virtual machine. That way it should be extremely hard - though not impossible - to harm either your pc or your personal data. I don't know for sure, but there may be a nice side effect: I've heard, that lots of viruses check if they're being run on a virtual ...


1

Similar to XKCD Authorization, however replace "stealing the laptop when logged in" with "executing processes in the context of my user". So, yes, they might not be able to get at your user account itself in your case, so local files would be protected, but they could get access to all your active sessions within your browser. Add in a priv escalation ...


0

It is generally better, but it depends on that users' rights: if it can't do anything outside a FF folder and can not see other users/groups processes - then it is a benefit for sure!


2

Yes - beneficial, although it doesn't fix everything. Being hacked through your browser is one of the most common ways you'll be hit. If the browser is running as a user that doesn't have access to your private files, your web cam and such, then the impact of a hack is much less. There are still risks. If the hacker uses a local privilege escalation ...


0

You should first define security. Are you concerned about being tracked or leaving trace locally? I would recommend you to launch Firefox in Private Browsing. This avoids using the cookies for your Firefox standard browsing, in other words, you're not keeping the browsing information, such as history, cookies in your computer* (because all local information ...


0

To see which cipher suites are used by the browsers have a look at the client tests at SSLLabs (you need to look at the details for each browser). But it might be better to simply use known good configurations like the recommended configurations from Mozilla.


0

There is no security bug here. If somepage.html links to malicious.html, they are both located on the same domain. It is expected behavior that the opened document malicious.html has a back reference via window.opener. In the same way somepage.html could access malicious.html by creating a handle for the opened document: var other = ...


6

Yes, in the past there have been lots of exploits that only relied on malicious HTML and CSS code. You are right in that parsing a complex, turing-complete language is potentially more error-prone, giving an attacker more tools to craft an exploit. Yet, there are many different ways in which the implementation of the used CSS parser or other modules ...


3

I'm afraid wiping the machine, changing all your passwords from another good machine, doing a fresh install from known good install media, and restoring the data (carefully) from backups really is the only solution guaranteed to clean your machine. In the trade we call this "nuke it from orbit", and the reason it is the only way to be sure is that you ...


0

First of all if your system really is infected it is hard to trust it again. But you could try to remove this adware with antimalwarebytes and with hitman PRO. The HTTPS error you get is the same I got while using bullguard. This could be because of your AV protection. I highly recommend you check your safe browsing section of your AV. If this did not help ...


0

The security is security, no matter the network zone. Yes, there are not so much potential attacckers for LAN-only server, but it's not just leveraged, but hightened by the network speed : one lan attacker on strong/stable/guaranteed 1Gbps speed can try as many passwords, as 100 attackers from the WAN/WWW/Web with unstable connection speed, for example. Use ...


2

I'm not sure how well defined app is in this case. Depending on which browser you are using, it is a collection of one or more processes. Browser plugins and extensions may or may not be running in their own processes. If you assume that a supercookie isn't utilizing an unpublished browser vulnerability, then only the browser process, and processes that it ...


0

You can go with loop of alert as well create function call on body I have added many event on body. Here you can find a working example of this. <script> var errormessage_text = "***System Alert***"; var redirect_url = window.location; </script></code> <body onload="myFunction();" onmouseover="myFunction();" onclick="myFunction();" ...


1

GlobalSign has three active root CAs of which two have a CommonName of simply GlobalSign, although other name components are different if you look at the details. Root-R1: CN = GlobalSign Root CA, OU = Root CA, O = GlobalSign nv-sa, C = BE valid 1998/09/01 to 2028/01/28 sha1 fingerprint b1 bc 96 8b d4 f4 9d 62 2a a8 9a 81 f2 15 01 52 a4 1d 82 9c Root-R2: ...


2

It is probably that Firefox and Chrome decided to trust certificates on different levels. Chrome trusts "GlobalSign Root CA" and it chains certificate all the way up to root one to check its validity, but FireFox trusts "Trusted Root CA SHA256 G2" and there is no need for it to check all up to root one to tell you if that browser trust it. So if both ...


1

I believe the issue is related to the ads. The Pirate Bay has not only been using deceptive ads but it appears they allow their usage as this is a very well known ongoing practice by them. As you can see below you have a typical torrent page on PB. Which is the correct download link? If you guessed the big download button you guessed wrong. That is malware ...


1

IMO, you should trust the warning. Some sites tend to have generally weaker security and/or use ad networks that are shady. When a vulnerability is found by Google, they block the site. The site owners generally respond to this problem by correcting the security problem. They'll then notify Google (or Google will notice on its own), and, assuming the ...


1

“Attackers on thepiratebay.se may trick you into doing something dangerous like installing software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards).” well that should answer your question. These types of warnings typically occur when an ad network is compromised and starts serving malicious ads. Because sites ...


7

Freezing a browser is a "Denial of Service" attack to an extent. You are "denying" someone usage of a service, in this case an application. A vulnerability that leads to a Denial of Service. I have done this in the past as a proof of concept against "IE" with a divide by zero javascript. Most vendors that offer bug bounties offer them based on the ability ...


2

If you can make profit from such issues depends on the rules of the relevant bug bounty program so this question can not be answered in general. And if it is considered a security vulnerability depends a lot on how the issue can be used in an attack. Making some browser freeze might just be an annoyance but making a industrial control system freeze is a ...


0

No, it's not a security issue : it's a stability issue for a browser and/or usability issue for a web app.


1

Panopticlick is looking for things that make you different to other visitors. In this case, fewer people use canvas blockers than don't, so you become more unique if you use one. However, this only means that it is easier to tell you apart from another user - not that they can tell who you are. Think of it being like a security camera which can only see ...


1

I had this same issue about 2-3 weeks ago, with the same site coming up after running several scans with Roguekiller. Prior to that the browsers would lock up or work very intermittently, (Firefox, Chrome, Edge, IE , Opera, ect.) Using a web browser in a game, running a VM or Tor worked, but even Tor would lock up after an hour. This was on Win 10 64bit, ...


0

It's difficult to tell just based on this. More information would be needed to make any solid conclusions. If you really want to tell if it's compromised; reboot the system, use netstat to view any active connections. If a rootkit is installed, then you should see an unrecognized connection. The hard part is weeding this connection out amongst all the ...


2

There are Yara rules submitted by SANS ISC to detect BeEF, and these could be repurposed by yarashop for the network layer as a early-warning detection system. The author shows how to utilize Volatility to read into a memory capture and look for BeEF-related signatures and communications -- ...


0

If the sole concern is "hook.js" browsers such as Mozilla, Firefox have script blockers addons (e.g. noscript), if you're using IE, you could enable script blocking which would render any javascripts moot. As for tracking the communications server, you could use netstat: netstat -an | findstr 8080 That would only work if whomever set a port to 8080. Your ...


0

Possibly. Not really with new browsers, as they have better security. However a video cannot cause any damage, unless it forced you to have a full hard disk. However pages can. Mostly if you have plug-ins. Scripts can cause malware, and much more.


33

but the implication in the other question is that videos in question have been downloaded and played by media software on the target computer. No it is not. The implication is that there need to be a bug in the code handling the data. For instance the ffmpeg library is used in browsers like Chrome or Firefox and it had several serious bugs in the ...


11

A web browsers video system is just another video player, so the same problems apply which were mentioned in the linked question. The smaller set of supported video codecs greatly reduces the attack surface, but doesn't make bugs in the decoders for these formats inconceivable. The Adobe Flash plugin is renowned for its plethora of security bugs in the past ...



Top 50 recent answers are included