Mozilla's Block List

Talk about internet security, computer security, personal security, your social security number...

Mozilla's Block List

Postby therube » Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:20 am

All well & good, at this point, https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting.

But then we get into something tastier.

https://blocked.cdn.mozilla.net/

27
24
23
22
20
16
16
16
15
15
13
06
(And August isn't even over yet ;-).)

Can you say a never ending stream of malware.
And Mozilla, in their "openness" is rather dearth on details.
Often not even listing the "common names".
Often only having GUIDs in the bug.

Take 27.
Forty one, lets say that again, forty one, as in 41 separate GUIDs, all presumably for the same piece of drek, or the same piece of drek from the same malware mill.

And these are the ones they've come across.

And with that "openness" we the users are (purposely) none the wiser.
Totally unaware just what we should be on the lookout for.
(All that we are "privileged" to know is that some piece of malware has been blocked "for our benefit".)

Sad.
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 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
 
Posts: 7128
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Mozilla's Block List

Postby therube » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:25 am

So anyone can get any extension signed by Mozilla "for personal use".
Is that the idea?

You will need to create an AMO account and submit your add-on. There will be an option where you indicate the add-on won't be listed on AMO, and you'll be able to submit your add-on files without having them published on the site. Please read the Distribution Policy for more details.
You can also use the jpm sign command to generate a signed XPI that can be self-hosted.
There is an API you can use for signing.


And then anyone can those host "their" extension on their website, & once a user is enticed to that site, the most FF will do is to give you some bland notification that it can't install from there - with an option to allow it?


Would you please tell me how that is in any way any type of "security"?


(A real example. PROCEED WITH CAUTION. https:// fireabsorb.fun/test2.php.)
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 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
 
Posts: 7128
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Mozilla's Block List

Postby therube » Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:19 am

(reformatted)
Code: Select all
Oct 26 11:07:24 <Timvde>   Given the (mostly negative) feedback on
                automatically reviewed add-ons, what's the plan for moving forward? Will
                add-ons that haven't been reviewed by a person be marked as such on
                AMO? What about automatic updates?
Oct 26 11:52:00 <TheOne>   Timvde: we don't plan on doing that
Oct 26 11:53:45 <Timvde>   TheOne: Why not? How will you guarantee
                the safety of non-manually reviewed add-ons?
Oct 26 11:54:46 <TheOne>   because it will discourage users from
                installing add-ons which have not been reviewed yet, which puts those
                developers at disadvantage
Oct 26 11:54:46 <Timvde>   I read articles about malware on Chrome's
                add-on store all the time, I don't want this to happen to Firefox too :/
Oct 26 11:55:35 <Timvde>   TheOne: And now you're putting users at
                a disadvantage, because they cannot know whether an add-on ships malware
                or not...
Oct 26 11:56:22 <TheOne>   human review does not prevent malware
Oct 26 11:56:37 <TheOne>   and as we did in the past, we are very
                quick with taking down listing that are malicious
Oct 26 11:56:40 <Timvde>   Not completely, but *a lot* better than
                automated review
Oct 26 11:57:01 <Timvde>   TheOne: if an add-on update has already
                been shipped to thousands of people, it's too late
Oct 26 11:57:07 <TheOne>   upfront review is just not sustainable,
                given the load of submissions we get
Oct 26 11:57:25 <TheOne>   Timvde: we have and will blocklist
                malware immediately. No change of process there
Oct 26 11:57:52 <TheOne>   if you come across malware, please let
                us know right away
Oct 26 11:58:54 <Timvde>   TheOne: I understand. And I suppose that
                automatic review is an acceptable solution for many users, given the
                number of Chrome users (although I mostly think that they don't realise
                the problem or think about it).
Oct 26 11:59:33 <Timvde>   But for people who *do* care, having an
                option to distinguish between automatically and manually reviewed add-ons,
                and only enable automatic updates after add-ons have been reviewed,
                is a must.
Oct 26 11:59:53 <Timvde>   It's by far the biggest advantage AMO
                has over the Chrome store
Oct 26 12:00:04 <TheOne>   Timvde: and to be fair, the malware
                submission rate in the past has been very close to 0%. Of course that
                might change now that add-ons are approved automatically, but we are
                prepared for that
Oct 26 12:00:18 <Timvde>   How are you prepared for that?
Oct 26 12:00:56 <Timvde>   If you can give other guarantees that
                malware won't get a chance to flourish in AMO like it does in the Chrome
                store, I'm happy too.
Oct 26 12:01:15 <Timvde>   But at this moment, I'm really worried.
Oct 26 12:01:38 <TheOne>   unrevieweds add-ons are not unsafe by
                default and we don't want to give that impression to the user
Oct 26 12:03:13 <TheOne>   no one can guarantee that there won't
                be a single malicious add-on on AMO, and no one did, even before
                post-review. However, will have been and continue to do our best to
                prevent it
Oct 26 12:03:15 <Timvde>   TheOne: They are definitely *untrusted*
                by default.
Oct 26 12:03:31 <TheOne>   Timvde: that's an entirely different thing
Oct 26 12:03:49 <TheOne>   reviewed add-ons don't ensure trust
Oct 26 12:04:33 <Timvde>   They don't ensure full 100% trust,
                no. But it's a scale. My trust in non-reviewed add-ons is unexisting,
                my trust in reviewed add-ons is pretty high.
Oct 26 12:04:52 <TheOne>   that is not what review is about
Oct 26 12:06:16 <Timvde>   What is review about, then?
Oct 26 12:07:13 <Timvde>   For me (and many others), it's about
                Mozilla confirming that they have read through the source code, and as
                far as they can see, the add-on does what it states to do, there are no
                security issues and there is no hidden extra functionality (like a coin
                miner or user tracking)
Oct 26 12:13:39 <Timvde>   TheOne: It's not about guaranteeing
                that there won't ever be a single malicious add-on on AMO, it's about
                reducing the risk and making the number of malicious add-ons be close
                to 0%, and not having news articles all the time about "add-on x started
                to ship malware".
Oct 26 12:14:41 <Timvde>   I understand the need of faster
                throughput, but at least some way to distinguish between automatically
                and manually reviewed add-ons is necessary. In the worst case, I can
                fall back on manually updating my add-ons.
Oct 26 12:15:09 <TheOne>   Ok, how would you solve it?
Oct 26 12:18:33 <Timvde>   Mark add-ons as automatically
                reviewed/human reviewed in some way on AMO, and give an option (even a
                hidding about:config switch would be fine for me) to only auto-update
                add-ons after the human review has happened.
[...]
Oct 26 23:25:04 <TheOne>   Timvde: I think I explained why we can't
                expose that information
[...]
Oct 27 22:17:05 <Timvde>   TheOne: I It's still an improvement
                over not releasing at all (old system), and I'd be fine with having it
                somewhere in the small letters. But users who *do* care, should be able
                to access the information.
Oct 27 22:17:27 <Timvde>   Manual reviews are in general quoted as
                a large advantage of Firefox over Chrome
Oct 27 22:18:18 <Timvde>   By not exposing review information,
                you are putting users second
[...]
Oct 28 09:30:46 <TheOne>   Timvde: no. We have not exposed review
                information before post-review, so nothin changes here. And developers
                disagree that manual reviews is an advantage in Firefox. Developers are
                part of the community too. If we can’t attract them, users won’t even
                get great add-ons
Oct 28 09:32:45 <Timvde>   TheOne: Add-ons before post-review were
                just not available, and I'm not sure what the yellow "Experimental"
                button exactly meant, but at least it notified users that they should
                be careful for some reason. I'm sure that some developers will disagree
                that manual reviews are better, but given the vast superiority of Firefox
                add-ons in the past, that doesn't sound like a major problem.
Oct 28 09:33:36 <TheOne>   oh, it was a huge problem and that’s
                why we had to change process
Oct 28 09:34:55 <Timvde>   TheOne: I'm not asking to remove the
                automatic review, by the way. I understand the disadvantages of manual
                reviews. Just give us *some* way to disambiguate.
Oct 28 09:35:15 <Timvde>   It doesn't even have to be a big warning
                label for me
Oct 28 09:35:53 <Timvde>   But given the history of Chrome add-ons,
                I just *can't* put any trust in automatically reviewed add-ons.
Oct 28 09:37:07 <TheOne>    I already explained why we can’t do
                that. It puts most developers in disadvantage, as low risk add-ons
                (which might not need human review) will appear as not as safe as others
Oct 28 09:38:49 <Timvde>   If you don't put a big warning label,
                but just some small notice in the sidebar, most people won't even know
Oct 28 09:39:17 <Timvde>   And are you now claiming that for
                "low-risk add-ons" human reviews might even be skipped completely?
Oct 28 09:39:25 <Timvde>   What's a "low-risk" add-on?
Oct 28 09:40:31 <TheOne>   For example, I have a very simple
                add-on that allows you to open multiple URL’s at once, it has almost no
                permissions and the code is only a few lines. It will likely never get
                reviewed because there is pretty much no risk here. But I wouldn’t want
                that information show up on my listing page, since users will hesitate
                to install it
Oct 28 09:41:44 <Timvde>   How will you identify whether it is
                necessary to review? You can't without actually reviewing, right?
Oct 28 09:41:52 <TheOne>   Saigon, unreviewed doesn’t man
                unsafe. Which is what you imply if you expose that information
Oct 28 09:41:55 <Timvde>   A review for such an add-on will only
                take a few minutes anyway
Oct 28 09:42:06 <TheOne>   *Again
Oct 28 09:42:20 <Timvde>   But unreviewed means untrusted.
Oct 28 09:42:47 <TheOne>   That is right, it will only take a few
                minutes, but those minutes are better spent on a more complex add-on
Oct 28 09:42:55 <Timvde>   There is indeed a difference between both,
                but I also want to know about untrusted add-ons.
Oct 28 09:43:39 <TheOne>   Ok, we‘re going in circles here (Like
                I said, review is not about trust). I’m off doing something else
Oct 28 09:44:08 <Timvde>   TheOne: You haven't actually explained
                what reviews are about, according to you.
Oct 28 09:45:20 <Timvde>   I explained my point of view, but if
                you aren't giving yours, of course we can't have a proper discussion

https://gist.github.com/Timvde/cd51df89ba6f4e73120c44cebeac7871


-------


"reformatted"

so what I (ended up) doing was:
fmt -s
%s/^[a-zA-NP-Z]/^I^I&/
& then subsequently, %s/^I^I/ /, to make it work in this forum.

what I wanted to do was say NOT start with O, but I didn't get the correct.
how to do that?


edit: oh, I did a fmt -s first
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 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
 
Posts: 7128
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Mozilla's Block List

Postby therube » Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:47 am

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 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
 
Posts: 7128
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Mozilla's Block List

Postby barbaz » Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:50 am

therube wrote:"reformatted"

so what I (ended up) doing was, %s/^[a-zA-NP-Z]/^I^I&/
& then subsequently, %s/^I^I/ /, to make it work in this forum.

what I wanted to do was say NOT start with O, but I didn't get the correct.
how to do that?

Try this? -
Code: Select all
%s/^[^O]/^I^I&/

(Well, that does "start with a character that's not O", but I would think that's close enough for this purpose.)
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
Board search is currently partially broken: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21752
Workaround: use your favorite search engine, add site:forums.informaction.com to your query
-
barbaz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 8620
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Mozilla's Block List

Postby therube » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:29 am

That's fine as far as layout goes, but I'm not understanding why lines start with O are also affected?

Code: Select all
Oct 28 09:40:31 <TheOne>        For example, I have a very simple
                add-on that allows you to open multiple URL’s at once, it has almost no
                permissions and the code is only a few lines. It will likely never get
                reviewed because there is pretty much no risk here. But I wouldn’t want

rather then

Code: Select all
Oct 28 09:40:31 <TheOne> For example, I have a very simple
                add-on that allows you to open multiple URL’s at once, it has almost no
                permissions and the code is only a few lines. It will likely never get
                reviewed because there is pretty much no risk here. But I wouldn’t want


When I had tried, I used a different NOT which was not it ;-).
Code: Select all
%s/^[!O]/^I^I&/
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 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
 
Posts: 7128
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA


Return to Security

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest