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.

Risk

10/25/2006
08:45 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

MySpace Hacker: Fix Is Flawed

The researcher who published proof-of-concept code of a MySpace flaw explains why he developed it - and why MySpace's fix might not hold

Sometimes, it's not curiosity, recognition, or money that motivates a bugfinder. The hacker who exposed the latest MySpace vulnerability did so because he needed a zero-day to qualify for a special hacker team.

Kuza55, who released proof-of-concept code on a zero-day vulnerability on MySpace this week, says he had never before checked the social networking site for holes. "I was prompted to find the MySpace vulnerability because I wanted to join the w4cking.com zero-day team so that I could see other people's research and ideas," he says. "And they had asked for a zero-day to show that I actually had some skills and could contribute to the group." (See Zero Day Flaw Found in MySpace.)

He decided to release the proof-of-concept code to demonstrate that the vulnerability wasn't just there, but that it was real and usable, he says. The POC could be used to steal cookies, impersonate a user, or get people to post comments or add friends to their circle, he says.

MySpace has now fixed the flaw, kuza55 says. But the fix is "rather near-sighted," he says, because it appears to just address only his POC, not related XSS attacks.

As of this story's posting time, security officials at MySpace had not yet responded to inquiries.

Security experts point to blacklists in XSS filters as the problem, but kuza55 disagrees. "I don't think this has anything to do with whitelists and blacklists in XSS filters," he says. "Blacklists are obviously a bad idea because you have to know everything bad that could be done. Whereas with whitelists, you only need to know that a certain amount of things are definitely safe... I don't see how this could have been avoided using whitelisting."

Kuza55's tips for protecting your site from XSS fragmentation attacks: Use an XSS filter that doesn't allow unfinished or unclosed tags. "It's just another path to XSS, and it's something else people who write XSS filters need to keep in mind," he says. "It has the exact same severity as XSS attacks because it is an XSS attack... It's just another way to defeat filters."

— Kelly Jackson Higgins, Senior Editor, Dark Reading

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/5/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).