Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Ask for help about NoScript, no registration needed to post
Guest

Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Guest »

Similar to clickjacking, it would be useful if NoScript Alerted you against WYSINWYC (What you see is not what you copy) attacks. Taking this recent example which contain suspicious span tags:
http://thejh.net/misc/website-terminal-copy-paste

I also tried "Copy as Plain Text" FireFox addon to no avail. As of yet ther appears to be no solution to mitigating this type of attack without copying and pasting everything into a text editor first.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0
User avatar
Thrawn
Master Bug Buster
Posts: 3106
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:46 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Thrawn »

Wow. Potentially nasty. It would have to be much more limited on Windows, though, right?

I'd say this is in the same category as clickjacking and cursorjacking, probably worth doing.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0
dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by dhouwn »

Thrawn wrote:It would have to be much more limited on Windows, though, right?
Why that?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0
User avatar
Thrawn
Master Bug Buster
Posts: 3106
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:46 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Thrawn »

Afaik, Windows shell is much less powerful. You wouldn't normally be able to curl and execute a script, for example. But maybe I'm wrong.
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.1; en-gb; GT-S5570 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1
barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by barbaz »

Bump

Any plans to implement protection against this attack in NoScript?
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7991
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by therube »

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.25a2
barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by barbaz »

Bump (x3)
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20121011 Firefox/21.0
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 9557
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Giorgio Maone »

I've got no idea on how ensuring that the textual selection only contains visible elements, given the insane amount of ways you've got to conceal stuff on a web page (beside display: none, you've got opacity, font size, color combos, absolute positioning, 3d transforms, z-index... shall I go on?).
So, I lean toward WONTFIX here as well.
Only thing you may easily implement, if concerned, would be a surrogate or userscript to intercept the copy event and give user a confirmation prompt, but looks like a huge pain in the ass for little gain: if really concerned, you could just look a bit more carefully at whatever you paste out of a browser.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0
barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by barbaz »

OK thanks for the response Giorgio. Suppose I'll try to do something like that in a separate addon then, when I get the chance.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
Opera/12.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.10.289 Version/12.02
User avatar
Thrawn
Master Bug Buster
Posts: 3106
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:46 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Thrawn »

I don't suppose a similar approach to Clearclick would be feasible? Something that would compare the appearance of the selected area to the appearance of the selected text in isolation?
======
Thrawn
------------
Religion is not the opium of the masses. Daily life is the opium of the masses.

True religion, which dares to acknowledge death and challenge the way we live, is an attempt to wake up.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 9557
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Giorgio Maone »

Thrawn wrote:I don't suppose a similar approach to Clearclick would be feasible? Something that would compare the appearance of the selected area to the appearance of the selected text in isolation?
"In isolation" from what? ClearClick isolates an embedded document or plugin from its cross-origin embedder, but in this case we've got a single document.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0
barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by barbaz »

Giorgio Maone wrote:"In isolation" from what?
I think Thrawn means "compare the appearance of the selection in the page to the appearance of the selection as it would appear if copied and pasted into a blank page and all CSS stripped"
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64) AppleWebKit/537.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/23.0.1271.6 Safari/537.11
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 9557
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Giorgio Maone »

barbaz wrote:
Giorgio Maone wrote:"In isolation" from what?
I think Thrawn means "compare the appearance of the selection in the page to the appearance of the selection as it would appear if copied and pasted into a blank page and all CSS stripped"
It could never work IMHO.
If you remove all the CSS, you're almost sure to fire a false positive (what about font size, container size, colors and so on?)
If you start blacklisting CSS attributes (e.g. opacity) you're entering an arms race you cannot possibly win (what would you do with very similar background and foreground colors, for instance? Or how do you evaluate the visual effect of a complex transform/filter?)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0
User avatar
Thrawn
Master Bug Buster
Posts: 3106
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:46 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: Support against WYSINWYC attack

Post by Thrawn »

Fair enough. I've taken to pasting things into a text editor before a shell.
======
Thrawn
------------
Religion is not the opium of the masses. Daily life is the opium of the masses.

True religion, which dares to acknowledge death and challenge the way we live, is an attempt to wake up.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0
Post Reply