Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Application Security

Malicious Code Injected via Google Chrome Extension Highlights App Risks

An open source plug-in purportedly introduced tracking and malicious download code to infect nearly 2 million users, reports say.

Google has removed a Chrome plugin used by approximately 2 million users after reports that the browser extension had been compromised and installed potentially malicious code and tracking software on users' systems.

The Great Suspender utility for Chrome has a very simple task—reduce the memory consumed by the browser through shutting down tab processes that are old, removing their content from memory. Yet, the original maintainer of the open-source project sold the code to an unknown group, who changed the functionality of the plugin and installed updated code on users' systems without notification and without publishing the code to the plugin's repository on GitHub, according to some reports.

This recent Chrome plugin incident, along with SolarWinds and other software compromise, highlight how attackers are focusing on software ecosystems outside the main application stores such as the Apple Store and Google Play store, says Vinnie Liu, the CEO of Bishop Fox.

"The secure development lifecycle has for 15 years been focused on preventing the inadvertent introduction of vulnerabilities by developers, and not against identifying and preventing the purposeful insertion of malicious code or behavior into an existing application," he says. "Developers are unprepared for this. Most enterprise security programs are unprepared for this." 

Neither Google - which removed the software on Feb. 4 - nor the original developer of the software, Dean Oemcke, had responded to requests for comment as of this posting.

Application security firms have warned that open-source components and third-party software should be vetted for vulnerabilities and, increasingly, as a supply-chain issue. The cyber espionage attack that infected customers of SolarWinds by adding code to the software, and the spread of the NotPetya worm through the compromise of a Ukrainian accounting software update, both highlight the dangers of third-party security failures.

"We should use systematic detection—like publicly verifiable software bills of material—of software, so we can check, detect, and track changes," says Stefan Frei, security officer at SDX Security and a lecturer on application security at ETH Zurich, a large public university in Switzerland. "Unexpected, or large changes in a popular upstream app, plugin, [or] project would trigger closer investigation to understand the type of changes introduced."

Unanswered Questions

The full story behind the changes in the Great Suspender remains unclear. In June 2020, the maintainer of the open-source project reportedly sold the project to an unidentified group. Three months later, the extension available on the Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge stores appeared to contain questionable code. Microsoft removed the Edge extension in November, but Google continued to offer the extension in its store until last Thursday.

Information on the functionality of the malicious code also is still hard to find. An analysis of the situation posted by Callum McConnell in November noted that the latest versions available in the stores appeared to load intentionally-hidden data. 

"Because the malicious code loaded from a server by the extension ... was heavily obfuscated, it is hard to say what may have been compromised," the analysis stated. "However, those who did manage to conduct [a] successful analysis of the code reported no password-stealing functionality in the copies that were archived."

Related Content:

Concerns Over API Security Grow as Attacks Increase

Special Report: How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem

New From The Edge: What's the Difference Between 'Observability' and 'Visibility' in Security?

Companies should track software bill-of-materials and ensure that software on users' systems is analyzed for security issues - and any changes to the code is tracked. Software component analysis (SCA), which tracks the state of open-source components and other libraries, has quickly become important for software makers' secure development lifecycle (SDL) initiatives.

A broader initiative may also be necessary, involving an industry associate or government agency to run such a service, says SDX Security's Frei.

"Maybe we need a government or industry to run such a shop ... for the common good," he says. "Coupled with code signing (and) rules that [code] certificates get revoked if ownership is changes without proper process [or] notice."

Users and companies should expect attackers to continue to create campaigns that focus on smaller ecosystems. With Apple, Google, and Microsoft investing more money into software security, using popular software with less-robust security measures will be more common, says Bishop Fox's Liu.

"The attackers are going to adapt by moving into these other areas that have not gotten the same security scrutiny," he says. "There are cheaper ways to get what they want, so we are seeing adversaries adapt to those changing economics."

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
In SPIRE before versions 0.8.5, 0.9.4, 0.10.2, 0.11.3 and 0.12.1, the "aws_iid" Node Attestor improperly normalizes the path provided through the agent ID templating feature, which may allow the issuance of an arbitrary SPIFFE ID within the same trust domain, if the attacker controls the v...
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.11.3, as used with Xen PV. A certain part of the netback driver lacks necessary treatment of errors such as failed memory allocations (as a result of changes to the handling of grant mapping errors). A host OS denial of service may occur during m...
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel 5.9.x through 5.11.3, as used with Xen. In some less-common configurations, an x86 PV guest OS user can crash a Dom0 or driver domain via a large amount of I/O activity. The issue relates to misuse of guest physical addresses when a configuration has CONFI...
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
An issue was discovered in OSSEC 3.6.0. An uncontrolled recursion vulnerability in os_xml.c occurs when a large number of opening and closing XML tags is used. Because recursion is used in _ReadElem without restriction, an attacker can trigger a segmentation fault once unmapped memory is reached.
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
This affects the package xmlhttprequest before 1.7.0; all versions of package xmlhttprequest-ssl. Provided requests are sent synchronously (async=False on xhr.open), malicious user input flowing into xhr.send could result in arbitrary code being injected and run.