<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
> <channel><title>gHacks Technology News &#124; Latest Tech News, Software And Tutorials &#187; cross-site request forgery</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ghacks.net/tag/cross-site-request-forgery/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ghacks.net</link> <description>A technology news blog covering software, mobile phones, gadgets, security, the Internet and other relevant areas.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:54:04 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/> <item><title>CsFire, Protects Against Malicious Cross-Domain Requests In Firefox</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2010/10/22/csfire-protects-against-malicious-cross-domain-requests-in-firefox/</link> <comments>http://www.ghacks.net/2010/10/22/csfire-protects-against-malicious-cross-domain-requests-in-firefox/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:49:14 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Martin Brinkmann</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Browsing]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Firefox]]></category> <category><![CDATA[cross-domain requests]]></category> <category><![CDATA[cross-site request forgery]]></category> <category><![CDATA[csfire]]></category> <category><![CDATA[firefox add-ons]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=36122</guid> <description><![CDATA[Cross-Domain requests describe requests from one domain to another. A typical example of this are Facebook information on another domain, either to display a user&#8217;s friends on the site, or even to automatically log a user into the site if still logged into Facebook. But this example is obviously not malicious. There are two types [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cross-Domain requests describe requests from one domain to another. A typical example of this are Facebook information on another domain, either to display a user&#8217;s friends on the site, or even to automatically log a user into the site if still logged into Facebook.</p><p>But this example is obviously not malicious. There are two types of information that are traded that can be a problem for the Internet user. The first is privacy related. Information can be exchanged about the user&#8217;s visit, so that the other domain receives information about that visit. This is usually used for advertising purposes to track a user on the Internet.</p><p>The second is more dangerous, when malicious or undesired actions are triggered by the cross-domain request, called Cross-Site Request Forgery.</p><blockquote><p>CSRF is considered very dangerous, as indicated by its ranking in the OWASP top 10 and the CWE/SANS top 25. The problem with a CSRF attack is that it makes requests on behalf of the user, without his/her knowledge. For instance, if a site (e.g. example.com) makes hidden requests to another site (e.g. myonlinebank.com), it can potentially cause harmful effects (transfer funds, create accounts, &#8230;).</p></blockquote><p><img
src="http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/csfire-500x465.png" alt="csfire" title="csfire" width="500" height="465" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-36123" /></p><p>The Firefox add-on CsFire protects the Internet user against malicious cross-domain requests. The add-on basically nullifies them by removing authentication information like cookies and authentication headers to eliminate the possibility that these requests can be harmful to the user.</p><blockquote><p>CsFire provides a secure-by-default policy, which can be extended with fine-grained remote policies as well as fine-grained local policies. The remote policies are obtained from a policy server, to selectively allow certain harmless cross-domain requests (e.g. sharing items on facebook). The local policies allow you to specify certain cross-domain requests that should be treated differently, should you wish to do so (this is not required in normal surfing scenarios).</p></blockquote><p>CsFire is <a
href="http://outgoing.mozilla.org/v1/15d33c40d385064f9cba654013e9a3472d635c61/http%3A//people.cs.kuleuven.be/%7Ephilippe.deryck/papers/csfire.pdf">based on</a> an academic research paper CsFire: Transparent client-side mitigation of malicious cross-domain requests that was published on Engineering Secure Software and Systems 2010.</p><p>The <a
href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/csfire/">CsFire</a> add-on is available for all Firefox versions from Firefox 3.5 to 4.0b7. It is possible to force compatible to make it compatible with the latest nightly builds as well.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.ghacks.net/2010/10/22/csfire-protects-against-malicious-cross-domain-requests-in-firefox/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>9</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Google Implements Cross-site Request Forgery Protection</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2009/10/04/google-implements-cross-site-request-forgery-protection/</link> <comments>http://www.ghacks.net/2009/10/04/google-implements-cross-site-request-forgery-protection/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:50:33 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Martin Brinkmann</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Google]]></category> <category><![CDATA[cross-site request forgery]]></category> <category><![CDATA[gmail]]></category> <category><![CDATA[google accounts]]></category> <category><![CDATA[google security]]></category> <category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=16925</guid> <description><![CDATA[Cross-site Request Forgery are carried out from a computer system or user that is trusted by a website. Cookies that do not expire after a user closes the website or web browser are one of the most common forms of trust that can be exploited by cross-site request forgery attacks. The attacker needs to use [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cross-site Request Forgery are carried out from a computer system or user that is trusted by a website. Cookies that do not expire after a user closes the website or web browser are one of the most common forms of trust that can be exploited by cross-site request forgery attacks. The attacker needs to use the user&#8217;s web browser to send HTTP requests to the target website which is usually accomplished by posting these links in emails, forums, chats and other means of communication.</p><p><span
id="more-16925"></span><br
/><blockquote>At risk are web applications that perform actions based on input from trusted and authenticated users without requiring the user to authorize the specific action. A user who is authenticated by a cookie saved in the user&#8217;s web browser could unknowingly send an HTTP request to a site that trusts the user and thereby causes an unwanted action. (source <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery">Wikipedia</a>)</p></blockquote><p>Google has (finally) started to implement cross-site request forgery protections to protect Google users and their online services according to an article posted at the <a
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/02/google_web_attack_protection/">Register</a>.</p><blockquote><p>Sometime in the last three days, Google&#8217;s login pages began setting a cookie with a unique token on each user&#8217;s browser, according to Mike Bailey, a senior researcher for Foreground Security. That same value is also embedded into the login form. If the two don&#8217;t match, the user will be unable to log in.</p></blockquote><p>Security experts have criticized Google in the past for not implementing a cross-site request forgery protection. Google engineers were quick to close security vulnerabilities that were caused by this attack type but did not implement a generic protection against these types of attacks.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.ghacks.net/2009/10/04/google-implements-cross-site-request-forgery-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
