Firefox hit by multiple drive-by download flaws

Summary: Mozilla's flagship Firefox browser is vulnerable to at least 11 "critical" vulnerabilities that expose users to drive-by download attacks that require no user interaction beyond normal browsing.

Mozilla's flagship Firefox browser is vulnerable to at least 11 "critical" vulnerabilities that expose users to drive-by download attacks that require no user interaction beyond normal browsing.

The open-source group shipped Firefox 3.5.4 with patches for the vulnerabilities, which range from code execution risk to the theft of information in the browser's form history.

One of the critical issues affect media libraries introduced in Firefox 3.5 when audio and video capabilities were added.

Here's the skinny on the high-risk issues in this Mozilla Firefox patch batch:

  • MFSA 2009-64 (Critical) -- Crashes with evidence of memory corruption.  Four different vulnerabilities were documented. Some of these crashes 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.
  • MFSA 2009-63 (Critical) -- Mozilla upgraded several third party libraries used in media rendering to address multiple memory safety and stability bugs identified by members of the Mozilla community. Some of the bugs discovered could potentially be used by an attacker to crash a victim's browser and execute arbitrary code on their computer. liboggz, libvorbis, and liboggplay were all upgraded to address these issues.  Three different vulnerabilities were documented.
  • MFSA 2009-59 (Critical) -- A heap-based buffer overflow in Mozilla's string to floating point number conversion routines allows an  attacker to  craft some malicious JavaScript code containing a very long string to be converted to a floating point number which would result in improper memory allocation and the execution of an arbitrary memory location. This vulnerability could thus be leveraged by the attacker to run arbitrary code on a victim's computer.
  • MFSA 2009-57 (Critical) -- The XPCOM utility XPCVariant::VariantDataToJS unwrapped doubly-wrapped objects before returning them to chrome callers. This could result in chrome privileged code calling methods on an object which had previously been created or modified by web content, potentially executing malicious JavaScript code with chrome privileges.
  • MFSA 2009-56 (Critical) -- A heap-based buffer overflow in Mozilla's GIF image parser. This vulnerability could potentially be used by an attacker to crash a victim's browser and run arbitrary code on their computer. This flaw does not affect products built on the Gecko 1.8 browser engine such as Thunderbird 2.
  • MFSA 2009-54 (Critical) -- Recursive creation of JavaScript web-workers can be used to create a set of objects whose memory could be freed prior to their use. These conditions often result in a crash which could potentially be used by an attacker to run arbitrary code on a victim's computer. Web Workers were introduced in Firefox 3.5 so this vulnerability did not affect earlier releases such as Firefox 3.

The Firefox 3.5.4 update will be distributed via the browser's automatic update mechanism.  It should be deployed within the next 24 to 48 hours.  Alternatively, users can use the "Check for Updates" tool to manually apply the update.

Topics: Security, Browser

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

Talkback

285 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Thank god I am still using 3.0.xxx

    I still don't understand why the need to make all things software larger and more featured. Also I will never understand why people rush to use the latest larger, bloated package...
    jacarter3
    • Bigger is always better...

      ...that's why we're fat! =D
      Fark
      • Sadly, that really is the attitude of most software makers nowadays.

        Everything just keeps becoming less efficient,
        less compact, and less functional. It's a sad
        state of affairs.
        AzuMao
        • Ummmm....except that Microsoft permits this stuff!

          My MacBook Pro has been, until today (and beyond, I'm sure), immune! Deal with that Windows fanbois!
          No More Microsoft Software Ever!
          • Put down the Apple Kool-Aid fanboi

            Errr...sorry. I almost forgot. If you own an Apple you drank all the Apple Kool-Aid first, before you bought the Apple, now your broke and cannot afford any more Kool-Aid.

            Be careful, because when the Apple Kool-Aid wears off, you might wake up and see reality.
            Cayble
          • Ya.

            I'm definitely the epitome of Windows fanboyism.
            AzuMao
          • Drive by downloads?

            If it downloads on your computer it's the fault of the OS allowing it to do so.

            To blame FF has the same amout of truth as a right-wing email.

            MS loves this stuff, it diverts attention to the driver, hardware, peripheral, application, etc. when failure is noticed.

            Basically, MS want's to sit back and let everyone else handle it's interface problems. I'm sure there's a business plan for it. Why fix the OS when someone else will cover the holes?
            Joe.Smetona
          • No ISP Oversight

            Some of the fault could be microsoft, but being stationed in Germany, most should fall towards the Internet Service Providers for not responding to the growing threats from hackers.

            I am constantly attacked by a number of Chinese hackers (thanks to my Smoothwall for prortection), and I reported a number of IP's to their Net Handle administrators. Since there seems to be no oversight of these matters, Microsoft continues to provide patches to all the 'joes' of computing and promise free antivirus protection because people have to place the blame to what they are using.

            So it's funny that one or two people are convicted for releasing the dreaded Melissa virus (1999-2000 timeframe), but if you visit the SANS Internet Storm center, the same IP addresses remain at the top ten for spyware... for more than 3 years....no oversight.
            smitheo1@...
          • What OS are you using?

            I've used Linux for about eight years, Linux Mint (now rev. 7), is very impressive when called on to be Windows like and run Windows apps through the Wine Doors API interface.

            I haven't had any issues, even with never having used AV.

            It's astounding how easy it is to install with all the necessary drivers being supplied automatically with the installation. Firefox, even with all the issues with Windows never stumbled with Linux, ever.

            Basically, switch to Linux mint and you don't get invaded and you don't get viruses. Operation is so close to Windows, they don't want to acknowledge it.

            ISP protection means a lot to Windows user's, but isn't an issue with Linux. Neither are all those silly anti-malware programs.

            You might want to give it a try. It comes with Firefox, CD/DVD burning software and OpenOffice Suite.
            Joe.Smetona
          • What happens with Linux and viruses.

            First, relying on an ISP to provide protection isn't very effective in todays mobile world.

            I maintain two notebooks and a netbook. They are always connecting to different ISP's through the RJ-45 connector and wireless. If I was using Windows, there would be a problem, but with Linux, there is no concern. My brother once told me he connected his wireless Windows laptop at a Burger King Hot Spot and picked up 3 trojans.

            My daughter used Linux on her notebook all through high school and is now in college with it. She uses OpenOffice for all her assignments without any difficulty.

            I haven't had to do any AV maintenance and never had to remove any malware - even once.

            She has an iPod and recently asked about using a P2P service like LimeWire to download music and video files. I know it's bad news for Windows, but she found a Debian (.deb) (Linux Mint type install) on the official site.

            I thought we would give it a try. I downloaded and installed the interface and it installed perfectly. I thought I would give it a try and selected 4 songs.
            Three of the songs appeared to download, but in the last few seconds were terminated from the website with a message that they contained malicious code that should not be present in music files. One song downloaded without any problem. My daughter now wanted to remove the program from her computer. She already belongs to legalsounds.com and pays only .09 per song.

            So, if you had a library with 500 (windows virus) infected songs on your Linux computer, nothing would happen and you would be fine, but just don't share 300 of the songs with your friend using Windows. :-(
            Joe.Smetona
        • "A complex system that doesn't work...

          ... invariably evolved from a simple system that worked well."

          Heck, look at Vista. ;-)
          914four
          • Not always..

            ..it's always possible that said system was pulled
            straight out of one's bowels, with no
            transitionary phase whatsoever.
            AzuMao
          • Snow Leopard, Windows 7

            Not true...it is only great as it's programmers and project managers.

            I'll take Vista SP2 and Snow Loepard over XP any day.....because XP was supposed to only be a testbed for Windows 7 for instance...(hence XP or eXPerience, according to Microsoft)

            All the older OS's were sometimes crashing so it's the opposite (Windows ME, 2000, XP, 95, 98, NT)
            smitheo1@...
    • 3.5.X versions are safe too

      On every OS besides Windows.
      AzuMao
      • False...

        Unless you can prove me that MacOSX and Linux can magically prevent buffer overruns/heap overruns.... most of those flaws may allow remote execution of code usually with the credentials of the current user.
        Ceridan
        • I agree

          All OS's would be vulnerable to a javascript attack. It don't know from OS's. So if carefully constructed, a javascript could do considerable damage or retrieve form data on any system.
          ArnoldZiffle
          • Not quite

            This is just not true... javascript is just that, it's a script, something has to take that script and make sense of what it is and actually perform the work, that would be up to javascript engine; this is what is vulnerable. It's very possible that the same javascript engine could be perfectly secure under one OS and vulnerable under another. Also, one web browser's js engine could be completely different from another web browser's, which is why one browser could be vulnerable to a certain attack while the other is safe, even on the same OS.
            CLovegren
        • That would only be so if..

          ..it was compiled on them using the same libraries
          the Windows one was linked against.
          AzuMao
          • Windows libraries

            <i>That would only be so if it was compiled on
            them using the same libraries
            the Windows one was linked against.</i>

            1) Are you claiming that these vulnerabilities
            are really sitting in Windows system libraries?

            2) Or are you claiming that Mozilla uses
            another set of libraries on Windows compared to
            other OSes?

            Firefox is cross-platform. <b>Please post
            documentation that the libraries with the vulns
            exist only on Windows.</b>

            Can't? Well, I thought so.

            honeymonster
          • Ugh

            You're right. I thought it linked to different
            libraries on different OSs, but they are multi-
            platform.
            AzuMao