Items tagged clickjacking, javascript
Filters: clickjacking × javascript × Sorted by date
Busting frame busting: a study of clickjacking vulnerabilities at popular sites (via) Fascinating and highly readable security paper from the Stanford Web Security Research group. Clickjacking can be mitigated using framebusting techniques, but it turns out that almost all of those techniques can be broken in various ways. Fun examples include double-nesting iframes so that the framebusting script overwrites the top-level frame rather than the whole window, and a devious attack against the IE and Chrome XSS filters which tricks them in to deleting the framebusting JavaScript by reflecting portions of it in the framed page’s URL. The authors suggest a new framebusting snippet that should be more effective, but sadly it relies on blanking out the whole page in CSS and making it visible again in JavaScript, making it inaccessible to browsers with JavaScript disabled. # 24th May 2010, 11:40 am
Twitter Don’t Click Exploit. Someone ran a successful ClickJacking exploit against Twitter users, using a transparent iframe holding the Twitter homepage with a status message fed in by a query string parameter. Thiss will definitely help raise awareness of ClickJacking! Twitter has now added framebusting JavaScript to prevent the exploit. # 12th February 2009, 7:56 pm
Ehy IE8, I Can Has Some Clickjacking Protection? (via) IE8 has built-in protection against clickjacking, but it’s opt-in (with a custom HTTP header) and IE only. It turns out the usual defence against clickjacking (using framebusting JavaScript) doesn’t work in IE as it can be worked around with a security=“restricted” attribute on an iframe. # 29th January 2009, 1:39 pm
Dealing with UI redress vulnerabilities inherent to the current web (via) The best explanation of clickjacking I’ve seen yet, complete with discussion of a number of non-ideal potential solutions. It looks like frame busting JavaScript will defeat it, but only for users who have JavaScript enabled—which means that in this case extensions like NoScript actually make you less safe. UPDATE: NoScript is smarter than I thought; see the comments. # 7th October 2008, 9:59 am