ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes

By | August 16, 2011, 4:00pm PDT

Summary: The vulnerabilities are serious enough to allow an attacker to launch harmful code and install software, requiring no user interaction beyond normal browsing.

Mozilla has shipped a critical Firefox update to fix at least 10 security vulnerabilities, some serious enough to expose web surfers to drive-by download attacks.

According to an advisory from the open-source group, 8 of the 10 vulnerabilities are rated “critical,” meaning that they can be used to run attacker code and install software, requiring no user interaction beyond normal browsing.

Here’s a glimpse of the critical issues:follow Ryan Naraine on twitter

Mozilla identified and fixed several memory safety bugs in the browser engine used in Firefox 4, Firefox 5 and other Mozilla-based products. Some of these bugs showed evidence of memory corruption under certain circumstances, and we presume that with enough effort at least some of these could be exploited to run arbitrary code.

These include a WebGL crash, a JavaScript crash, a crash in the Ogg reader, memory safety issues and unsigned scripts.  These all affected Firefox 4 and 5.

Mozilla also credited researcher Michael Jordon of Context IS  with reporting a pair of critical issues — that an overly long shader program could cause a buffer overrun and crash in a string class used to store the shader source code; and a potentially exploitable heap overflow in the ANGLE library used by Mozilla’s WebGL implementation.

Some additional security problems fixed:

  • Security researcher regenrecht reported via TippingPoint’s Zero Day Initiative that a SVG text manipulation routine contained a dangling pointer vulnerability.
  • Mike Cardwell reported that Content Security Policy violation reports failed to strip out proxy authorization credentials from the list of request headers. Daniel Veditz reported that redirecting to a website with Content Security Policy resulted in the incorrect resolution of hosts in the constructed policy.
  • nasalislarvatus3000 reported that when using Windows D2D hardware acceleration, image data from one domain could be inserted into a canvas and read by a different domain.
Firefox 6 is being distributed via the browser’s automatic update mechanism.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ryan Naraine is a journalist and social media enthusiast specializing in Internet and computer security issues.

Disclosure

Ryan Naraine

The most important disclosure is of my employment with Kaspersky Lab as a member of the global research and analysis team. Kaspersky Lab is a global company specializing in anti-malware and secure content management technologies. I do not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Ryan Naraine

Ryan Naraine is a journalist and social media enthusiast specializing in Internet and computer security issues. He is currently security evangelist at Kaspersky Lab, an anti-malware company with operations around the globe. He is taking a leadership role in developing the company's online community initiative around secure content management technologies.

Prior to joining Kaspersky Lab, Ryan was Editor-at-Large/Security at eWEEK, leading the magazine's and Web site's coverage of Internet and computer security issues and managing the popular SecurityWatch blog, covering the daily threats, vulnerabilities and IT security technologies. He also covered IT security, hacker attacks and secure content management topics for Jupiter Media's internetnetnews.com.

Ryan can be reached at naraine SHIFT 2 gmail.com. For daily updates on Ryan's activities, follow him on Twitter.

58
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I'd rather live with the security holes for now
YellowBikeSheds 17th Sep
Right now, I'd rather live with the security holes, than suffer two problems. My primary machine is a Linux machine running a variant of ubuntu. Getting firefox to work, update and upgrade has always been an issue.

Secondly I have a lot of addons. I develop websites for small and home businesses for a living, and so my machine has a lot of addons to help make my job easier. I don't want to have a one way migration that will break some of these addons.

Given that the machine is pretty much sandboxed and does nothing else, I am more than happy to live with the current setup for another six months.
0 Votes
+ -
So, those stuck on v5 have been using a vulnerable browser for how long now, and won't get patched up. How wonderful. I love this new thing of waiting until the next release to fix security vulnerabilities. Great job Mozilla team for leaving your users open to attack, because you're too busy to release a fix for older versions.
0 Votes
+ -
What are you talking about?
ScorpioBlue Updated - 16th Aug
I just downloaded a 6.6MB security update on FF5. It upgraded to 6.0.

Big deal.
0 Votes
+ -
That is you
ZenithY 16th Aug
@ScorpioBlue
Enterprise won't do it this way. It has its version control policy.
0 Votes
+ -
Well maybe they need to re-think that
ScorpioBlue Updated - 16th Aug
And not get so hung up on version numbers.

Besides, Cylon didn't mention enterprise. He mentioned himself.
0 Votes
+ -
Rather, they will rethink using Firefox
D. W. Bierbaum 16th Aug
@ScorpioBlue
Really, they won't use Firefox in the Enterprise anyway, since there is no MSI managed installer to use with Group Policy...
@ScorpioBlue
I am sure system administrators can find a way to deploy it.

When our first .net application was deployed in a big enterprise, they don't even have .net framework there (9 years ago). They just packed all dlls and deployed it. When .net framework finally got in the system, our application was broken. They have to uninstall old package, install framework, then install application again.

Anyway, in enterprise, especially in goverment, version control is no small issue. Ask anyone about TRM (Technology Refernce Model), that is guidance for software/hardware approval processes.

I guess firefox is not for enterprise...
0 Votes
+ -
Ignore him.....
linux for me 17th Aug
@ScorpioBlue

Cylon Centurion is a Microsoft shill and troll. He thinks that Microsoft Idiot Explorer never had an issue and never had a patch before....Idiot Explorer has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@ScorpioBlue

Big deal? You consider broken addons not to be? Mozilla is pretty much telling me to either suffer broken addons or suffer security holes which won't be patched, unless I upgrade. That's ********. As a heavy Firefox user, that is total ********.
  • Flagged
@ScorpioBlue I'm rethinking using Firefox, because my ZoneAlarm browser security doesn't fully work with FF6.

Man! This is annoying!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes
ScorpioBlue Updated - 17th Aug
Big deal?

That's right. Big deal.

You consider broken addons not to be?

And you think by calling it 6.0 instead of 4.3.1.8 it's going to make any difference? If it was going to break because of the name, then it would've broken them anyway regardless what name they called it.

Mozilla is pretty much telling me to either suffer broken addons or suffer security holes which won't be patched, unless I upgrade.

And what broken add-ons have you had? You won't know if you'll have any unless you upgraded. Did you do that? Or are you just speculating?

That's ********.

What's that? I didn't get that. lol...

As a heavy Firefox user, that is total ********.

I still didn't get that. Speak man, speak... grin

I really think you're making a big deal out of nothing.
0 Votes
+ -
@ScorpioBlue

Yes, I have a broken addon. Stylish doesn't work. I use Stylish to correct a few quirks with the UI that I find annoying.
That's one. Out of how many?

Besides Stylish Custom 0.7.7 works just fine. Try that.
0 Votes
+ -
@ScorpioBlue

Just having one broken addon is too many. Now, tell me again, why Mozilla is playing this numbers games again?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes
ScorpioBlue Updated - 18th Aug
Just having one broken addon is too many.

No, you're looking for an excuse to whine. One broken add-on is nothing and I made a suggestion about an alternative earlier.

Or maybe you really don't use FF and are here to badmouth it because it's not a Microsoft product. Isn't that right?

Now, tell me again, why Mozilla is playing this numbers games again?

Now who really cares besides you and a few whiners on zdnet?
@Cylon Centurion -- Why are they stuck on v5? Without explaining that it's hard to know if you have a point or not.
@LeoD True. It is hard to know if he has a real point, or is just acting as the MSFT shill. But I do know that sometimes people are stuck on the previous version, because they need their Add Ons to work. Yet even with this release, FFox breaks at least one Add On, 'firecookie'. So if you really need that Add On, you cannot upgrade to FF6 yet.

What other Add Ons did they break this time? Who knows?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes
Cylon Centurion Updated - 17th Aug
@LeoD @mejohnsn

You can't just keep playing this game of upgrading every six weeks. This silly game with the version numbers are breaking addons faster than the developers can fix them. To make matters worse Firefox 3.5, 4, and now 5, are unsupported. Meaning if holes are found, you're out of luck.

Users wanting to patch these listed holes will have to upgrade to version 6 or die.

Plus, how was my comment shilling for MSFT?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes
ScorpioBlue Updated - 17th Aug
@LeoD
He doesn't have a real point. The new version numbers just aren't something he's used to, that's all.

If it really broke his extensions, he'd tell us about it and what those extensions are. But I haven't heard anything beyond complaining in general.
0 Votes
+ -
@ScorpioBlue

See above.
And I still think you're making a big deal about nothing.

If you can't keep up with it then go back to IE9 and have sh!tty pop up ads and Flash animations galore.
0 Votes
+ -
@ScorpioBLue

I run IE9 with ActiveX Filtering and Tracking Protection turned on. Works the same as AdBlock does.
I run IE9 with ActiveX Filtering and Tracking Protection turned on. Works the same as AdBlock does.

Ah well now the truth emerges. You really don't use Firefox very much and IE9 is your main gig.

In case you're wondering, Adblock isn't just for tracking protection but it's also used to clean up the visual ad clutter on certain websites. Something IE9 isn't capable of doing.

If you used FF on a regular basis, you'd know that. But based on your answers, you don't so...
@Cylon Centurion They waited six whole weeks.
0 Votes
+ -
@Cylon Centurion

Quit whining.
@betelgeuse68

His whining just isn't generating a lot of sympathy here.

I can tell you that in some of the enterprises that I've worked in, they're still using 3.6 and they're happy with that. Obsessing over future numbers is silly.
0 Votes
+ -
I call BS
thx-1138_@... 18th Aug
@Cylon Centurion .. running FF 5.0 (on XP) auto-prompted for update - installed, done.

Auto-prompted in Natty Narwhal, updated, fixed, done.

If you're running FF 5.0 this will be identical in Windows or Linux, so quit with the lame @$$ FUD milling, you dumb redeye.
0 Votes
+ -
@Cylon Centurion This is where the add-on Nightly Tester tools comes in handy. You can force add-ons to work.
@Cylon Centurion :

I think the enterprise version, if it is just like the "plain" version, will not be adopted until they find out why this version is the slowest thing I have ever seen Mozilla make. I proved it to myself, on three different computers/ networks.
0 Votes
+ -
Ah ya gotta love FOSS, always good for massive security holes.

What ever did happen to the "many eyes" security ideal ?

When your quality management system relies of "someone noticing something wrong" you know you are in deep trouble.
@Aussie_Troll

And when we rely on Microsoft to FINALLY patch a 17 year old exploit vector in Windows NT, 2000, XP, Vista AND 7.... we wonder how many more of these types of exploits exist.

http://www.zdnet.com/news/17-year-old-microsoft-flaw-affects-windows-7/385616

Yes, it is over a year old. That does not negate the fact that it existed for almost 2 decades. It's probably better to have the "many eyes" security ideal (as you put it) than to have the "not so many eyes" security reality at MS.
@Aussie_Troll I don't think they're in "deep trouble" if the holes were patched before anyone exploited them. Sounds like their method is working, not failing.
@Aussie_Troll Your ZDnet 'handle' is apt. You really are trolling. What you decry as "deep trouble" has been the MSFT model for years.

The real truth is that there are MORE security experts finding and patching holes in FFox than MSFT could ever make happen for IE, despite this embarrassment.
0 Votes
+ -
New versioning scheme = constantly "breaking" extensions. This is annoying.
@Mike (not Cox) AGREED 100%. I guess now extensions will spend half the time "broken" by the latest upgrade. I was never a fan of how, for example, going from FF 4.0 to 4.01 should *ever* break an extension. And now this, jumping whole numbers? It's going to be worse.
@Mike (not Cox) Also agreed. Not only does this new version every six weeks become a hassle for users, it is also a hassle for extension/add-on developers. Think about it: How many of these authors might conclude that it is simply easier to quit supporting an extension rather than deal with the constant release updates to handle new version numbers?
@Mike (not Cox)

Breaking of extensions is annoying, but it has NOTHING to do with the version numbering scheme.
And this is why I run NoScript.
@Aerowind NoScript is good. But there are so many websites out there that are completely non functional without Javascript, that I spend too much of my time whitelisting the sites I try to use. And once whitelisted, I don't have much protection if THAT site is hacked.
0 Votes
+ -
ditto
thx-1138_@... 18th Aug
@Aerowind .. the auto-updater for FF 5.0 automatically informs of incompatible addons / plugins and alerted me about Video Download Helper (incidentally) with an auto detect of the latest, compatible version! All sorted and fixed within a couple of minutes - NoScript was automatically ported as well to FF 6.0.

happy
0 Votes
+ -
I am back to Microsoft Internet Explorer, because the Google Toolbar extension which I used lost compatibility starting with FF 5.0 (a surreptitious upgrade) and now we have FF 6.0. But Google Toolbar works fine with IE 9.0, but is not even available for Chrome(!!!), and FF releases a new version every 15 mins.

I think security should be the responsibility of Anti-Virus Software and not every Application we run need to have all the "holes" fixed.

These regular upgrades to "fix security vulnerabilities" which keep breaking browser add-ons and extensions, feels very much like airport security post 9/11, that we feel it would be more comfortable taking a chance with the bombs going off rather than suffer frequent searchers (tappings, feelings, gropings by security staff) and we still arent really guaranteed 100% security.
@harishkumar09@...
It was Google who dropped support for Google toolbar for Firefox, NOT Mozilla.

http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?answer=1342452&topic=15356

So stop lying.

Besides, who uses stupid toolbars nowadays? You can add Google to FF's built-in search engine in the upper right search field.

Or is this just another excuse to whine by somebody who doesn't use it?

I think security should be the responsibility of Anti-Virus Software and not every Application we run need to have all the "holes" fixed.

That's so ridiculous the rest isn't worth commenting on.
Hi to all you complainers! Wow maybe I'm just a little guy with none of the "Great Knowledge" some of you complainers possess, but can I ask a simple question here? Firefox seems to have found a problem and has issued a "fix" to correct it.... Right? OKaaaaay so why are there so many complainers about this? How much money did any of you pay for the FREE version of Firefox you have on your PC? How much money have you contributed into the FREE services Firefox provides into your daily computing lives? Oh my how we quickly forget that it's a free service to the user public! And Yes, believe it or not, nothing is perfect. Not even the "paid for" stuff! Get on with your lives!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Firefox 6 patches 10 dangerous security holes
frizzllefry Updated - 22nd Aug
@OMatrix

So, your logic suggest that everyone should accept whatever digital tripe is presented to users, simply because it is "free"?

There are some of us in the IT world who take this very seriously... When I have to recode a clients site because Firefox no longer seems to consistently render standards compliant code with any degree of consistency, or hurries out yet another version release, while seemingly ignoring vulnerabilities within two previous releases, it is not simply a matter of "complaining". It is a matter of spending the resource of time, which translates into money, to keep my clients happy by presenting them with a product that runs consistently across as many browser platforms as possible. However, by your logic, I should just be telling my clients to tell all of their clients to not use Firefox...simply because it's "free."

Perhaps none of this matters to you, since your degree of browser usage goes no further than Facebook and mindless, online RPG's.

I would venture to guess that is the case, since you dedicated the effort in composing a post to complain about people complaining, and counseling people on how to manage their lives. All of this without even moderately researching where Firefox resides in the IT world, where it's source of funding comes from, how developers like myself spend time beta testing for Mozilla (so they can turn out a "free" product and continue to receive funding), and how all of that ties into the profitability of companies where Firefox users account for nearly 38% of their customer base.

Scamper back to playing World of Warcraft, topics here seem to be beyond your scope.
All I know,, is that for me,, new firefox is very very slow opening certain pages( like this one).
0 Votes
+ -
Apple Mac OS X?
hantms 17th Aug
The article doesn't mention the operating systems affected. Does this affect Mac OS X equally?

Can't believe this omission.

I don't mind the version number jump, they're just numbers, it matters not that soon we will be on Firefox 347. Anyone objecting is just a conservative silly-boy (or girl) who thinks version numbers with fractions serve any particular purpose.
0 Votes
+ -
@hantms Sounds like you're a lucky dude. The jump in numbers results in broken extensions for days/weeks (or even forever) depending on how dedicated the developer is to creating constant updates for their addons.

This move of Mozilla's is gonna be forcing devs into making the decision whether to keep creating updates over short periods of time or simply quit supporting it. I think the latter of the two is much simpler, don't you plain With the developers disappearing the fox will be losing it's flaming tail, and gradually it's users.
0 Votes
+ -
@hantms
The version numbers themselves never really mattered, but the development philosophy that underscored them was very useful.

Under the old system, when a modification was made which stood a good chance of fundamentally changing user interactions, or of breaking backward compatibility with supported add-ons, then the major version number would change.

In the mean time, if a modification was made which was only intended to improve the stability or security of the software, but which was not intended to fundamentally break the way the software interacts with the user, with HTML constructs, or with other software (ie plug-ins), then a minor version number was assigned.

Often, minor updates were released for two or three major version numbers in parallel (eg. Firefox 3.5.19, 3.6.17, and 4.0.1, which were all released together on the same day, offering the same security enhancements to all three browsers, while maintaining compatibility with each version's existing requirements.)

If a so-called "minor" release did, in fact, result in breaking backwards compatibility with previous minor versions, then that itself would be classified as a bug, which could be fixed by another minor update along the same line of software.

Clearly, you cannot keep on supporting older versions forever, as human resources would be stretched too thin. But a benchmark of keeeping the last 2 or 3 older versions updated while you work on the next major version seemed like a good compromise, which tended to allow people an average of 1 year or so to let the dust settle (and most of the major bugs/last-minute oversights to be resolved) on the next new version before joining the bandwagon.

Now, with only the bleeding edge receiving support, you have no choice but to take the bad with the good. You cannot stick with the old version for the sake of preserving compatibility with your favourite plug-ins and web apps, because the old version has publicized security vulnerabilities which would make you a target. So, in order to take advantage of the new security enhancements, you also have to take all the feature modifications which may or may not work with your plug-ins and web apps.

And if your in-house, business-critical intranet web app is broken by the new version, then you are stuck with zero productivity until your web developer has a chance to catch up with all the changes -- if you're lucky enough to have an in-house web developer who has enough time to do the catch-up work. All the while you'll be racing against the clock because the next new version might only be a few weeks away, and it might also contain some new "features" which will force you to start over again from ground zero.
0 Votes
+ -
For security, I run Windows in a non-Admin mode. However the "Apply Update" button in Firefox's About box did nothing. I had to open Firefox as an admin and then it was able to patch.
0 Votes
+ -
on second thoughts
thx-1138_@... Updated - 18th Aug
EDIT: Mozilla need to re-code certain parts of the engine, so that FF only requires low-level access in order to execute without elevated privileges. This would be ideal to implement for all processes: incl. updates (as honey monster, correctly, points out).

(n.b. honeymonster, my bad. feel free to pillory me for not carrying out ancillary background on relevant-to-subject materiel.)
0 Votes
+ -
Right now, I'd rather live with the security holes, than suffer two problems. My primary machine is a Linux machine running a variant of ubuntu. Getting firefox to work, update and upgrade has always been an issue.

Secondly I have a lot of addons. I develop websites for small and home businesses for a living, and so my machine has a lot of addons to help make my job easier. I don't want to have a one way migration that will break some of these addons.

Given that the machine is pretty much sandboxed and does nothing else, I am more than happy to live with the current setup for another six months.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix