skip to main content
10.1145/1315245.1315248acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

An analysis of browser domain-isolation bugs and a light-weight transparent defense mechanism

Published:28 October 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Browsers' isolation mechanisms are critical to users' safety and privacy on the web. Achieving proper isolations, however, is very difficult. Historical data show that even for seemingly simple isolation policies, the current browser implementations are surprisingly error-prone. Isolation bugs have been exploited on most major browser products. This paper presents a focused study of browser isolation bugs and attacks. We found that because of the intrinsic complexity of browser components, it is impractical to exhaustively examine the browser implementation to eliminate these bugs. In this paper, we propose the script accenting mechanism as a light-weight transparent defense to enhance the current domain isolation mechanism. The basic idea is to introduce domain-specific "accents" to scripts and HTML object names so that two frames cannot communicate/interfere if they have different accents. The mechanism has been prototyped on Internet Explorer. Our evaluations showed that all known attacks were defeated, and the proposed mechanism is fully transparent to existing web applications. The measurement about end-to-end browsing time did not show any noticeable slowdown. We also argue that accenting could be a primitive that is general enough for implementing other domain-isolation policies.

References

  1. Firefox Cross-Frame Vulnerabilities. Security Focus Vulnerability Database. Bug IDs: 10877, 11177, 12465, 12884, 13231, 20042. http://www.securityfocus.com/bidGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Opera Cross-Frame Vulnerabilities. Security Focus Vulnerability Database. Bug IDs: 3553, 4745, 6754, 8887, 10763. http://www.securityfocus.com/bidGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Netscape Navigator Cross-Frame Vulnerabilities. Security Focus Vulnerability Database. Bug IDs: 11177, 13231. http://www.securityfocus.com/bidGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Clover. CSS visited pages disclosure, 2002. http://seclists.org/lists/bugtraq/2002/Feb/0271.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Don Box. Essential COM. ISBN 0-201-63446-5. Addison Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Richard S. Cox, Jacob G. Hansen, Steven D. Gribble and Henry M. Levy: "A Safety-Oriented Platform for Web Applications," IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Douglas Crockford. "JSONRequest," http://www.json.org/JSONRequest.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. E. W. Felten and M. A. Schneider, "Timing attacks on web privacy," in Proc. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2000 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. A. Goguen and J. Meseguer, "Security policies and security models," in Proc. 1982 IEEE Symposium on Security and PrivacyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Collin Jackson, Andrew Bortz, Dan Boneh, and John C. Mitchell. "Protecting Browser State from Web Privacy Attacks," in Proc. the 15th ACM World Wide Web Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Martin Johns. "SessionSafe: Implementing XSS Immune Session Handling," in Proc. the 11th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Hamburg, Germany, September, 2006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. MSDN Online. http://msdn.microsoft.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. The "Javascript:" Protocol. http://www.webreference.com/js/column35/protocol.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Benjamin Livshits and Monica S. Lam. "Finding Security Vulnerabilities in Java Applications with Static Analysis," in Proc. Usenix Security Symposium, Baltimore, Maryland, August 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Wei Xu, Sandeep Bhatkar and R. Sekar. "Taint-Enhanced Policy Enforcement: A Practical Approach to Defeat a Wide Range of Attacks," in Proc. the 15th USENIX Security Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. The XMLHttpRequest Object. W3C Working Draft 27 September 2006. http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Cross-site scripting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross _site_scriptingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Common Language Runtime (CLR). MSDN Online. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa497266.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An analysis of browser domain-isolation bugs and a light-weight transparent defense mechanism

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CCS '07: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
      October 2007
      628 pages
      ISBN:9781595937032
      DOI:10.1145/1315245

      Copyright © 2007 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 28 October 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      CCS '07 Paper Acceptance Rate55of302submissions,18%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader