malicious javascript injected into 100,000 websites
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- A malicious CDN has been caught shipping javascript exploits on over 100,000 websites. This is truly one of the craziest attacks I've ever seen.
Issue: github.com/pol...
Writeup: lyra.horse/blo...
🏫 COURSES 🏫 Learn to code in C at lowlevel.academy
📰 NEWSLETTER 📰 Sign up for our newsletter at mailchi.mp/low...
🛒 GREAT BOOKS FOR THE LOWEST LEVEL🛒
Blue Fox: Arm Assembly Internals and Reverse Engineering: amzn.to/4394t87
Practical Reverse Engineering: x86, x64, ARM, Windows Kernel, Reversing Tools, and Obfuscation : amzn.to/3C1z4sk
Practical Malware Analysis: The Hands-On Guide to Dissecting Malicious Software : amzn.to/3C1daFy
The Ghidra Book: The Definitive Guide: amzn.to/3WC2Vkg
🔥🔥🔥 SOCIALS 🔥🔥🔥
Low Level Merch!: lowlevel.store/
Follow me on Twitter: / lowleveltweets
Follow me on Twitch: / lowlevellearning
Join me on Discord!: / discord
javascript? NO THANKS. learn ASSEMBLY at lowlevel.academy (and get 20% off)
Yeah but I need something to run on the server though - I heard JS is the best for that
@@Kane0123 🤔
Assembly? NO THANKS. Only self-made compilators running on TempleOS
@@Kane0123 😂
@@spythere a true man of culture right here, or there? 👍
when the child says googie : 🥰
when the hacker says googie : 💀
true hackers say googIe (capital I)
@@NguyenTran-cx3uy you are so freaking epic !!! buddy !!!
The example that I saw in class was Ρaypal, with the Greek rho character or the Cyrillic er character.
They're super hard to pick out compared to i and l
@@GyroCannonis there a way to change those in the font so theyre easily visible? 👀
@@NguyenTran-cx3uy it may have gotten lowercased along the way
btw mozzila uses spider monkey not v8
thank you
and webkit (safari) uses javascriptcore. only chromium uses v8
@@se7ense7ense7ense7ense7en and yet it's still most browsers!
@@se7ense7ense7ense7ense7en not only chromium, more like all of chromium based use v8
it’s called gecko not spider monkey ???
i totally agree with the guy who commented “i just farted”
same
A little too bit political to me but yeah, I agree
He has the cat pfpf tho lol
hell nah this comment section is becoming instagram
@@𰽚𰽚𰽚mood
Lol, nope. Firefox don't use V8.
Being the inventor of JavaScript, they use the engine they developed during Netscape's heyday. Mozilla has maintained it ever since.
That is specific to Chromium-based browsers.
ty
specific to chromium based browsers sounds like there's just a few of them. but right now i'm not sure there are any that don't use chromium. Firefox is one and not sure about safary or lynx.
still this affects most of the browsers.
@@Miha-hq4hd Safari also uses its own JavaScriptCore
Firefox can have sandbox scapes too. This is not specific to chromium based browsers. They could just as fine put a sandbox escape for any other browser there, if it exists and they know it.
comes with up and downs...
how good is the firefox sandboxing?
like they arent using compressed pointers like v8 right?
6:26: "in V8's interpretation of C++" should be "in V8's interpretation of Javascript"
Nobody could have guessed that automatically using other people's code on your site could be dangerous 😂
LOL.
Yes because of the blind trust
Yes, who could have predicted that "Trust me bro" would be desecrated like this?
Just out of curiosity... did you write all the software that runs on your machine (or in your products if you are a developer)?
Because most of us have to trust an unspecified number of strangers to have our stuff working and be commercially viable.
Linux for instance is a huge dependency tree composed by code written by thousands of strangers without any guarantee of correctness, accuracy or even a simple promise that it will somewhat do what you expect it to do (and nothing else).
I too despise having too many dependencies in my code, but if you want to deliver a product that works and looks good/okish you pretty much have to.
Long are gone the times when users were ok with small software written in BASIC with a minimal UI composed of mostly bare text.
So, what are we even talking about here?
Especially from a Chinese company, who could've predicted this? 😮
I was recommended this channel by the algorithm - it's incredible how well it got to know me in the last 17 years since my account is technically active.
Polyfill is still a thing, but it’s usually compiled with the code rather than a link to another website.
JS and nodeJS are already notorious for memory issues
12:04 what is there to say about open source?
Whenever an open source project comes out to have malicious code injected it's always the same story: "oh I really wonder if open source was a good idea, just saying you know. I wonder what this means for the future of open source".
The only reason we found out about this and many previous vulnerabilities and the word got spread is because of open source and open source platforms like github.
Would you have liked it better if polyfill were closed source and were just as popular? Without a community board or forum to discuss these things openly?
You think Microsoft's proprietary IE js interpreter was any more resilient compared to the same era Chrome interpreter because it was closed source? No, ofc not and even Microsoft knows that now.
What a naive way of looking at the world.
Opensource wins every time. yeah bad shit sometimes get put in opensource code but it also gets noticed generally quickly. closed source stuff like microcrap who the fuck knows that they are doing and it wouldn't shock me one bit if some windows exploits from 20 years ago nobody but a select few know about are still in current versions.
not to mention you can make a fork add a fix and be ready to go before maintainer sees you opened an issue
I think it's funny that says "googie analytics" because he doesn't notice that the lowercase L in "anaiytics" has also been replaced
wee need spell check for all text regardless wheatear or not it is in a text box.
Given JavaScript ability to monkey patch globals, can the hacker just monkey patch commonly used object such as fetch to steal away the credentials?
Instead of trying to jailbreak the Javascript sandbox, this would much more likely be used to steal login credentials or credit card numbers.
Off topic, but as an outsider it seems to me that >95% of the JavaScript is not written to enhance my browsing experience, and some healthy percentage of that is just downright annoying. But I'm one of the seemingly very few people who is willing to pay a few cents to access Internet content, sans advertisement and any JavaScript, that took effort to create, if there were a way to do that "on-the-fly" without subscriptions, although I would subscribe to an Internet version of a reader's digest web site that parceled out my subscription fees to the creators who's content I accessed. If you calculate advertising revenue, you realize that you are, in effect, working for a tiny fraction of poverty level wages watching ads.
Er when do you use a cdn without the code hash?
I find this stuff very interesting. Could I really get into low level cyber security without a degree?
So basically V8 should now be written in Rust?
50 mil sweet, you not even gonna get the real estate required for a global cdn
Never understood why anyone uses cdn
05:59 firefox uses spidermonkey
Web dev here. Although V8 hack is possible, I am almost certainly sure this code is actually intended to still user sessions, user input or any other security tokens etc.
It's especially useful if you get admin session or credentials on things like wordpress, as from that you can hack the server and use it as a bot farm for DDOS or hoping that wp will give you access to other systems.
ah interesting. thank you!
LinusTechTips got hacked using these session exploits only
In many ways hijacking sessions is a more severe problem than RCE.
And this is why you don't store session tokens in localStorage, or non-HttpOnly cookies, folks. Fortunately Wordpress sends session with HTTPOnly cookie, so they wouldn't be affected unless the user of that WP instance uses a plugin that happens to bypass this security feature.
JS hosted from some other domain (like a cdn) cannot read the HTTP only cookies of other domain page (which is including the cdn js) so stealing sessions is not possible in such a case. This malicious code can do other things like opening a popup or overlay and show a google login page etc to fool users into giving up their credentials.
Every project that uses NPM is basically a security problem too. Like setup a basic project and you already have a billion dependencies nobody knows what they do.
using a web browser scripting language for anything else...
using it for serverside programs
...
using an especially retarded web browser scripting language for serverside programs.........
ALSO,
I just KNEW hosting a couple of small files instead of linking cdns was safer.
The worst thing is, this also happens outside of NPM too. `sudo apt install nodejs npm` on Debian pulls ~300 dependencies, most of which match "node-*"
makes me think of 'kik' npm debacle
Seriously. React takes many minutes to download just because of all the random dependencies and their dependancies and their dependancies dependancies.
Its dependancy diarrhea and I dont think anything has it as bad as JavaScript, and I think its just because of the batteries not included nature of node. You need to find little modules to do everything and this causes dependency hell for the simplest libraries.
@@BeefIngot that's why I prefer compilers like Svelte. No cdn or dependencies, just serving pure HTML/CSS/JS to the browser. Always wondered what would happen to react websites if meta's CDN is down
If you are including scripts from a CDN, you should always use the integrity="sha..." attribute. The feature has been supported by browsers for around 5+ years, and protects you from supply chain attacks, as the browser will refuse to load the script if the checksum does not match.
@@klausgrnbk6862 That wouldn't work with this Polyfill service, as it's not a static file. It sends back the polyfills that the browser requesting the URL needs. So for most modern browsers it will return nothing. For older browsers, it returns whatever polyfills that particular browser needs.
@@klausgrnbk6862 thanks for this. I've never heard of this attribute before and will start using it in the future.
@@klausgrnbk6862 is there a perf hit with this?
And also CSP header that can be easily setup to refuse to connect to any googie-woogie domain names
The code is pretty easily de-obfuscated. All it does is attempt to redirect you to other (probably malicious) websites. It has a few interesting features, like its own custom base64 decoder, its own implementation of RC4, and some code to check if you have an admin cookie set (probably so it won't redirect the developer.) But it's definitely not some kind of memory exploit.
Yeah I realize that now. Another issue is those sites you’re redirect to could also be doing the memory exploity stuff. My bad on that
@@LowLevel-TVwouldn't it be a waste of resources, even from a state-sponsored attacker, to burn a V8 0 day on some random people who used their cdn?
I would imagine that if you had such an exploit you could do much more than just that
Didnt the XZ exploit contain base64 decoder and encryption implementations too?
There are also attacks on browsers that don't need a vulnerability in the JS engine.
One could for example:
- mine crypto currency
- attack other hosts (ddos)
- collect user data (phishing)
- record user interactions
- crash or modify websites
Which, considering how many applications are web based nowadays, is already really bad.
@@LowLevel-TV Releasing memory exploit to the public like that wouldn't make sense because as the time goes on the harder it gets to find new ones. More likely just going to direct users to some phishing site. Memory exploits are probably reserved for high value targets to avoid getting them patched.
Firefox uses gecko not V8, its their own engine and one of the main reasons we need it alive. V8 is however, really optimized at this point.
Also with Firefox Quantum added in, but we need Servo as a modular replacement to Gecko so it can actually compete with chromium/electron.
IIRC, Chromium uses Blink (Webkit based) as rendering engine, and V8 for JS. Firefox uses Gecko and Spider-Monkey respectively
@@nonamenolastname8501 lmao yes google is their biggest funder
@@nonamenolastname8501 it actually literally is. Look for videos on the latest Mozilla finance report… google is (iirc) like over 2/3 of their funding rn - billions just to be the default search engine. Depressing but true
Ff is still around, because its the best browser that exists.
Its faster than ch4ome, uses less memory, is less vulnerable to exploits, et cetera.
The web is the only place where it's generally accepted to run 100k lines of code* to render text
Disclaimer: If you're reading this as a smart expert: I'm talking about application code. We have abstractions for a reason 🙂
This comment took 252k lines of code to render and it's still running in the background, doing post-rendering tasks. 👍
You think it takes less than 100k loc to open your terminal app? This is a popular, lazy, incoherent take. It's not an issue with code size as much as it is with trust and sourcing.
@@B0wser998 gotta need to emulate the CPU instructions in the background
@@chipmo that's not application code.
Let's not remove the browser, js and css engine from the equation if you really want to change topics
PS: your browser adds a terminal on top
text rendering is generally a very complicated task
Another reason why we don’t use 3rd party libraries or cdn’s. you can’t secure what you don’t control
KISS- keep it simple, stupid. The more externalities you depend on the more likely it is to all break
Thats why you pack all the js your website depends on on your own host and never update ;)
I feel like we need a better middle ground between that and this always update state where no one can possibly keep up with the changes in their dependencies.
@@BeefIngot stable updates in the style of debian?
Better yet don't use so much javascript and write all that you need. 99.999999% of what people do with JS didn't need to be done.
@@BeefIngot Yeah, a form of "code splitting". I think the name suits my idea pretty well; it splits the code into individual chunks that can then be cached individually. You could even group different dependencies together, e.g. if those dependencies also have shared dependencies. Would be cool. But alas, I think it would be really hard for anyone to do and will likely not happen in the next 10 years.
@@dealloc code splitting is very much a thing and not that hard to do, look up webpack chunks and React.Lazy, it comes out of the box
Will he call himself Ed or LowLevelLearning… place your bets!
Both! 0:55
I'm gonna start messing with you guys... get ready.
"hey ed this is lowlevel videos where I cyber about security!"
@@LowLevel-TV you can start using random names each video if you really wanna mess with people, Bob.
@@LowLevel-TV, Please do! That would be perfect!
@@ProtossOPthat a genius move… Lester
That "..., showcasing the true power of capital." line sounds like it comes from Senator Armstrong in Metal Gear Rising. "We are making the mother of all omlettes. Can't fret over every egg."
its such a heavy-handed bond villain line, wish we could get more honesty like that tbh
Strong "This isn't even my final form" vibes
And people are still confused as to why I "waste" so much time developing tools from scratch for my medical data company's web app
“But I digest” is such a great eggcorn.
That is why the guy down in the comments farted
TIL about eggcorns.
Neat!
lol.
@@davecgriffith TIL what TIL means.
Neat!
While escaping the js runtime certainly is a possibility, especially if they're targetting old unpatched browsers, my mind with this sort of exploit immediately jumps to user data theft rather than RCE.
Either that or throwing easy to replicate CVE's at old browsers, but I agree with what you're saying.
V8 is part of blink (Chromium's web engine) and a fork of JavaScript-core (which is safari's JavaScript engine)
Firefox uses SpiderMonkey which is part of Gecko (Firefox's Web engine)
JavaScript-core is a fork of KJS which was part of the KDE desktop project.
everything is a fork of some other thing
@@animezia and forks are part of forknife
forknife mentioned 🗣🗣🗣
@@AJenbo that is where the entirety of webkit originated, not just javascriptcore. KDE project birthed webkit and javascript core and then which blink came from. KDE are the heroes of the modern web world
I feel a real level of vindication right now given how I went to lengths to avoid the practice of loading chunks of JS from third party domains that so many of my colleagues would happily partake in. Admittedly I don't feel great about NPM either.
oh no. so now you're going to write everything yourself and not include other's js
I am 100% confident that this code is NOT trying to escape the V8 sand box and exploit C++ bugs. First, that is extremely difficult to do at this point. Second, you do not need a supply chain attack to do that, you could just host that code on your own domain.
A more likely scenario is that the goal is to capture data or authentication tokens on a target site. That (1) is way easier to do and (2) requires a supply chain attack to do, as you generally cannot capture data across domains. I.e. JavaScript in your website cannot steal data the user enters on their bank's website.
Totally agree, I was also surprised how LowLevelLearning drops that connotation
This is why I always host all the JavaScript for my sites internally.
That is a good first step. Ideally, you also checked all that code to make sure no evil stuff is now being hosted by you.
Same, I keep it in my butt
@@kensmith5694 yeah, that is the next steps. There are some good tools out there to scan for vulnerabilities. In most companies I’ve worked for we had a toolchain in the build process that was easy to integrate. For indie folks there are good plugins for the CI platforms out there.
but you didn't create the js
@@MrTweetyhack When trees were small and computers were large, people wrote the scripts for their sites from scratch
I just got from work, made enormous shit and I feel good
Well done.
😎
Proud of you, son.
I'll say that as an engineer (not a security researcher), I've always worried about supply chain vulnerabilities, partly because my peers clearly didn't give a crap about it. You don't even have to be security paranoid to be concerned. When every build is a roll of the dice for what gets included with "modern practices", you cannot even control for which external bugs you're shipping.
But when you start to take practical steps to limit the exposure, vetting updates and locking versions, storing external dependencies locally in a verifiable way, etc, the powers at your company will always push back that this is non-essential work, and try to get you to focus on pushing out the latest feature tweak because some customer that will never even use that feature is trying to establish dominance over some sales rep.
The reason why Chrome sets the standard is simple.
Chrome has a monopoly.
And they are really pushing the limits of this with manifest v3.
Its the most clear example of why the conflict of interest with an ads and telemetry company dominating how the internet is browsed is bad for the world.
@@BeefIngot Ohh I never said that's a good thing or anything.
@@PhilippBlum Oh no, I didnt think you were. I was just adding my own thoughts.
Ironically the ability to simply disable js per site is what got me to switch to chrome before they nerfed malware blockers. Noscript is cumbersome.
i mean, that's what happens when you offer a better engine than the competition
10:15 Congrats to having a working digestive tract.
lol
I too, digest. lol
I opened the comments to find this comment hahaha
Polyfilling, as it says on the MDN page on the screen, is the name given to backporting features by rewriting them in compatible older JS, it doesn't refer to some specific library.
Even more than that, this questions client side code execution in general, sandbox or not. Which was always an insane proposition to begin with, let's be real. Everyone tells you to not open email attachments from random sources, but our browesrs JS sandbox gets bombarded by potential malicious code from random sources constantly.
What exaclty should be the alternative? Using a remote Desktop like protocol to transfer Video from the server and User input to the server?
This will be way to expensive for hosters, use way more bandwith, cost more ressources for clients, require high bandwith, etc.
We *need* client side code execution, there is currently no feasible way around it.
A possibility could be a JS Engine thats writen in a memory safe Language. That would probably be Rust since speed is essential here.
Mozilla does have a Rust implementation of spidermonkey but Firefox seems to use the c++ implementation.
@@user-to7ds6sc3p if you absolutely need code execution client side, supply an application that the user needs to install explicitely and that doesn't sideload code from domains you don't control.
why is there no space after the comma on your shirt?
i hate grammer 😤
He writes in C, whitespace doesn't matter
I have to....
*grammar
It was removed at compile time.
Web development is such a shit show. This kind of stuff happens all the time because people assume cdns and random code are safe to use. It's so dumb.
cdns are used so client can use same js file on multiple sites, less download means faster load time
I lowkey want like a 2 hour malware analysis video on that obfustaced pastebin code
It's not only system takeover but also simple things like listening to all user input like user names and passwords
Even if it's not an exploit to get out of the browser's sandbox. They would still have access to the website and all user data and their security tokens would get leaked to that company. And as even financial institutions used it, that's a big issue.
Maybe someday people will finally figure out that trusting other sources to deliver their libraries to clients is a bad thing.. maybe.
if user already has that filed downloaded it speeds up page load times, there is a very good reason why people do it this way
@@fulconandroadcone9488 I know why people do it, but with the many issues this can raise. I don't see the value outweighing the downsides.
They should be using SRI. Some people say that wouldn’t work for polyfill, but in general that’s the way to make shared CDN usage safer.
This is actually why I don't buy into the modern dev cycle of dependency management... yeah I'm a dinosaur... 1) don't use dependencies 2) if you do bake them and review them yourself and basically don't EVER update them. Sure it COULD be dangerously outdated; but it COULD be way safer too...
You say dependency; I say attack vector...
You mean std::vector
I wish it was possible but I don't think you can build a medium or large website today without a framework, you need change detection.
@@sourandbitter3062 there are plenty of relatively tiny frameworks with no dependencies, consider smth like preact (which is basically react, but tiny and with no deps)
@@sourandbitter3062 Thats BS. The problem is no one really wants to pay the technical debt of 100% rolling their own implementations and the dev market is flooded with coders who can't do anything without a framework and IDE IntelliSense helping them. Vulnerabilities and breaches have exploded with the reliance of FOSS.
You say attack vector, I say business opportunity
By the way, the usage of SRI would have prevented this entire situation. The website owners are to blame for not protecting end users.
It can't though given that the entire point of the polyfill service was that it reads your UA and generates appropriate script by including only the necessary polyfills needed for that UA. Anytime that changes, you break the integrity.
@@dealloc Hmm...good point.
Time to start downloading libraries instead of using CDNs
They keep saying that PHP is insecure, but in reality, it was due to inexperienced programmers, and obviously, there were flaws that got fixed. But in JavaScript, being so popular, the same thing starts to happen. Many new programmers and people who don't even know the basics make the system insecure. And if you add to that the belief that learning JS is just using the framework and it's secure by default... we're heading in the wrong direction.
All my homies enable noscript
As soon as you said "Chinese" I already knew what's up
Can web browsers just have a collection of JavaScript libraries by default? I know there are extensions like LocalCDN and Decentaleyes, but it's a bit silly and redundant to have like 5 copies of a javascript library (with the chance of a library being poisoned) because different websites chose different CDNs.
I was up entirely too late last night redoing comments in code, turning them into ascii art. Now im running on 4hrs of sleep on a 12hr shift at a factory job, and my code looks like it belongs in an 80s videogame according to my wife.
having a wife who recognizes 80s videogames is hot
@@acters124fr, lucky man.
@@acters124he won in life frfr
@LowLevelLearning please read article I posted in my other comment. I think yarn is also an issue which is a BIG deal in web dev.
One of the reasons why I was never in favour of CDNs. I understand that larger sites can actually off load some amount of traffic that way, however just the fact that you integrate code from a third party that could change at any time without you noticing always was my biggest concern. Apart from the analytics they get. In the project's I worked in we most of the time put an actual copy on our machine. Versioning has to be handled by us the developers anyways. Often times you can not simply load the most recent version of a library because it may not be backwards compatible. So you usually load a specific older version anyways.
@@Bunny99s back in around 2010/2011 when html5 really took of I beleive people used the CDN construct so that the client browser would retrieve the js library from cache more, and thus loading new websites/domains more quickly, as opposed to receiving it for every website/domein.
@@bjorn1761 Yes, this was one of the main reasons CDNs took off and a huge benefit both for users and for sites. But unfortunately it also made it trivial to track users through the browser caching.
Already by 2013, WebKit had already changed the caching strategy and removed resource-caching across sites and domains to prevent this. Chrome followed along in 2020 since v86 and Firefox v85 in 2021.
Though, that doesn't mean CDNs are useless; CDNs still take a huge load off the server and more importantly, can host the content globally and deliver it closest to the end-user-there are always tradeoffs when it comes to choosing where and how to host content.
@@bjorn1761 not just JS, CSS and icons too. with react this nocks, what, 300kb right on the start if user already visited page that pull react from cdn
Watching half way through this it's already terrifying...
35% of the planet is jabbed and asking for more is far more terrifying. This not so much.
@@CStoph1979 Oh my god man do you push your agenda everywhere? 😭
I'm extremely interested in the contents of the pastebin. Will you post your results?
So after looking at it some more, it just redirects the browser to another website. However, there are some other JS files that are loaded that are now missing. I'm working on finding those. Could still be memory exploitation.
@@LowLevel-TV by now, the payload would pretty much be impossible to find, until someone who had access to it publishes a security risk report
This vid was recommended to me. What does that mean in layman terms? Should I curl into fetal position and cry? Are we all fucked?
There seems to be a lot of people saying "don't use JavaScript" in UA-cam comments 🤨
Based takes.
@@Kane0123 it is a fine language, it is people taking short cuts all the time
I started returning to 6502 Assembly recently, thanks to digging up the old book from 1983 in my storage. ;w;
It's an older code, but it checks out.
i dont understand. One day polyfill was honest and its js was cached in CDNs where shit ton of websites used that URL. Another day polyfill is acquired, does some memory corruption js under the hood and releases url to js from their own CDN. And those shit ton websites have all updated without notifications? What the? Can anyone explain like im a child?
CDN is a link that makes it easier for the Author to update the contents of that package on the fly, and because all those websites already included it on their website it was a sure way to run it cached or not
It seems surprising to me for the thing to be trying to hack through the browsers. I would imagine it is trying to be either a piece of spyware or some kind of token stealer.
And this is exactly why NoScript is worth the hassle.
CEO's in the near future: It's not our fault, our AI workforce chose the malicious CDN.
and our mallicious AI was selected by... lowest bidder AI
That is one of the reasons Javascript was critisized since it existed. Besides the bloat it creats on websites.
So this only affects websites that use polyfill via cdn? Most webapps should use it as a node-module, which makes it safe?
via the polyfill.io cdn, yes. anything backed by cloudflare or another is fine.
11:04 ooo, Rebane. That's a name I recognize.
Not from normal development stuff, but from Minecraft.
They are a 2b2t player.
Do script, link or href tags have some kind of checksum attribute ? If yes, does it help preventing this kind of attack ?
Yes but if attacker controls checksum too like they could here, it's little help. Trust origins using noscript or notscripts or ublock
I've used polyfill, but I never put an external library link like that, unless it's one of those google libraries that are dynamically versioned for either Analytics or Maps.
My philosophy has been to bundle or re-host as much as we can, because we don't want the page to get stuck loading from a third-party server.
So whatever polyfills I've used are from the official npm registry.
maybe a why/reasoning about the weird googie 'typo' would have helped. if you replace the lowercase i with its uppercase counterpart in an url it looks just like an el not raising suspicion. urls are case insensitive, at least the hostnames are, not the path neceserlily
This.
This is why I use NoScript and only allow scripts from domains that I need for websites to work. Of course this doesn't fully prevent an attack however it does limit the attack surface and it also would prevent a connection that fake GA domain in the event that I loaded the modified JS file.
I've been using NoScript for over a decade and strongly recommend it.
Yep better than ublock and chromium has notscripts
Ditto. And it can really speed up browsing by not allowing so much of that garbage to load.
Go deeper and explain what this can be used for!
America is cooked when it comes to the cyber domain..
This is why Subresource Integrity checking is a thing.
So let’s say you visited one (or a few) of the affected websites, what would be best practices to do?
Supply chain attacks are not widespread. Their impact is.
Just pick an open source project and infiltrate the dev team. It's been done before multiple times. Whether to introduce pointless features or a complete backdoor (xz)
People really need to learn to self host their dependencies.
what about the rest other 100k websites?
My website has 0 JS.
Just some CSS, HTML, and a custom built build script written in a low level language to build the static pages.
(I have split the header and footer of the pages into template files because I couldn't be bothered to copy them into all the pages, and I don't want to update every page when I want to update the header or footer. So I wrote a program to do it for me.)
Very s@m4rt_
Lol it's called templates but nice try
There's no inherit problem with a Chinese company buying out a software that we use? My man knows nothing about geopolitics 😂
Luckily I disable Javascript on my browser and have done since 2000. Who’s laughing now?
(͡o‿O͡)
Meow...
rawr xd
That's why I kept getting logged out! I should've used NoScript like I normally do. Also, no point in worrying or complaining about systemd when you have modern browsers to scare you!
Although its not the only place this can happen, js devs are particularly reckless with pulling dependecies, even for tuings that would take a minute to write.
IMHO, most software devs are playing at developing by sticking blocks of code together like Lego. Scary to think this is the established methodology for most software projects nowadays and that managers have no idea of the problems it causes, or they just don't care.
@@_Stin_ I pull as few dependencies as I can, but even then its easy to get in trouble if your dependency also has a bunch of dependencies.
IMO this is on w3c/TC39/web browsers for standardizing a language with effectively no standard library.
... Always the same stupid story, I know why I host every single piece of JS myself, I know why I use frameworks, I know why I don't use any external CDNs, no also not CloudFlare
"...Moving forward, I will be fully dedicated to developing a global CDN product that surpasses Cloudflare, showcasing the true power of capital. I have already secured $50 million in startup funding, and the product design has been finalized." Pretty sure that was written by Musk.
Just FYI, Firefox doesn't use V8 as its JS engine, it uses SpiderMonkey. Spidermonkey compiles JS to an intermediary language which is interpreted, whereas V8 compiles JS directly to machine code.
At least it should shine a spotlight on the integrity attribute everyone should be using.
I really think there needs to be more of a push to make everything run on WebAssembly (including JS engine itself). My thought is given that assembly language is a much more simplistic language (not for humans to read of course, but simple, meaning no objects and fancy functions). Assembly language would have much less of an attack surface area. That assembly language would run in a JIT compiler written in C or C++ instead of running JS interpreter directly in C or C++. I think that would greatly reduce the number of exploits over time. An assembly language can only have so many instructions compared to a true programming language, so I think that over time the JIT could be patched to literal perfection (no possible exploits left).
Just in case anyone needed yet another reason for ad-blockers.
Always use Javascript blocker like the NoScript browser add-on/plug-in and be very cautious when allowing sources unless they come from impeccable companies (and even then mostly block ad delivery networks, etc - talking to you google - or use adblock plus etc). Also, only allow scripts that are necessary to use a site. And, while on Windows, be even safer by running your browser in a sandbox like sandboxie (there may be other widely used sandboxes idk). Only a very determined hack would defeat all these methods. Yeah, it is extra hassle, though.
I don't think this is an issue if you've setup your CORS correctly: it won't allow to connect to the fake GA.js. Of course, if the primary cdn domain you depend on is serving fake polyfill js, you're still in trouble.
My brother pointed me towards this. Freakin' wild. @LowLevelLearning do you believe this is the sort of issue where ICANN should be asked to step in and intervene regarding polyfill and googie-anaiytics out of public safety?
now im confident that i was never paranoid about polyfil but just beign realistic
Think about this: every open-source hack that we have seen in recent times (i.e. social engineering, binary injection, and -- now -- buying a site that hosts the software) ... is just as effective with closed-source software. Only difference is, you wouldn't know about the closed source incarnations of these attacks. My guess is that for every 1 open-source attack like these, there are at least 100 in the closed-source world, where it is WAY easier to go unnoticed.
IE7 didn’t even handle png transparency properly, polyfill used to matter for much more than just js API and CSS features.