Is Mozilla's Firefox 'click-to-play' feature a sound response to drive-by malware attacks?
Summary: In an attempt to slow down drive-by malware attacks, Mozilla plans to introduce 'click-to-play' feature in upcoming versions of its flagship Firefox browser.
According to a blog post by Mozilla's software engineer Jared Wein, Mozilla plans to introduce 'click-to-play' feature in upcoming versions of their flagship Firefox browser.
The feature -- available to NoScript users for years -- aims to prevent the systematic exploitation of browser plugin based client-side exploitation campaigns, by allowing end users to choose whether they would want to active content to load in the first place.
A logical question emerges - is this a sound response to preventing the currently ubiquitous exploitation of client-side vulnerabilities on end and corporate PCs, especially in times when the average user is running a number of remotely exploitable third-party applications and browser plugins?
Not necessarily. How come? Pretty simple.
Basically, what Mozilla's 'click-to-play' feature really does, is slowing down the systematic exploitation of client-side vulnerabilities, not preventing it. On the majority of occasions, drive-by malware attacks are launched with a social engineering element in an attempt to increase the probability for a successful infection.
Cybercriminals entice end users and provoke end user interaction by promising something in return for clicking on the malicious link found found in spamvertised emails. If the end user originally clicked on a link promising him a video clip, access to personal data, notification, or verification email, Firefox's 'click-to-play' feature will only slow down the exploitation process, as the end user will eventually enable the showing of active content in an attempt to access the promised content.
Moreover, as we've seen in the past, cybercriminals are masters of visual social engineering, successfully impersonating well known brands, consumer products, and product features, such as for instance Firefox's security alert, and SafeBrowsing initiative's warning page. It would take long before they start mimicking Mozilla's 'click-to-play' feature, offering additional advice to users for enabling it in order to view the promised content.
What do you think? Is Mozilla's 'click-to-play' feature a sound response to preventing drive-by malware attacks? Or are social engineering elements embedded in these campaigns undermining the usability of Mozilla's feature?
Talkback.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback
Yes, please Firefox!
As for stopping attacks, yes it can help as you often aren''t sure what page will actually be displayed until it loads, and this way you can assess the risk, if any, first!
Should have been sooner
In addition to added security you will get faster browsing, lower resource usage especially visible on older hardware.
Is Mozilla's Firefox 'click-to-play' feature a sound response to drive-by m
f/f
kind of inconvenient at times but it helps
intelligent users
@preferred user .. small price to pay with NoScript
kind of inconvenient at times but it helps "[/i]
Sure, it may be a tad inconvenient but it's really a small price to pay for what i will go on record as saying, makes the safest browsing environment of any current browser version.
But this move by Mozilla is long overdue. I'm surprised the major browser vendors haven't implemented similar secure, counter-measures into their browsers to date.
At any rate, i've used NoScript for over 4 years ... so the sight of click-to-play, NoScript placeholders is long past second nature to me.
Keep up the great work Mozilla with the continuing drive toward ever secure-conscious, browser conceptualization and design.
Ultimately how effective
Haha!
.. PICNIC anyone?
What is PICNIC
PICNIC explained
PICNIC - Problem in chair, not in computer.
I think it would help those 'Oops' moments
Possibly, Not Iron Clad
Who taught you guys grammar?
Should be "slow down," and "not prevent it." Does nobody edit content anymore?
RE: Does nobody edit content anymore?
Someone high up in an ivory tower, probably determining a novel way to [i]increase shareholder value[/i], decided that proofreaders and editors were an unnecessary cost; and thus sent them packing.
Remember, ZDNet is part of CBS these days. Need I say anything else?
I will take that even further
(Patent pending)
Since we all live in a perfect world....
I see two things which might help. One is treating cyber hacking and the like to be treason against humanity, punishable by summary execution.
The other is beyond the scope of this forum, and recognises the similarity between the hackers and the current ruling/monied classes.
RE:... treason against humanity, punishable by summary execution.
In limited circumstances
To me, this seems like a well thought out balance between security and usability, and I applaud Mozilla for putting the user first.
[i]Disclosure: Mozilla is one of several companies that funds the nonprofit organization I work for.[/i]
You can't stop a dumb user, but...
"Click to Play" not sufficient by itself...