So someone found some sort of vulnerability in Angular 1, told Mozilla about it, but told them not to tell the Angular team?
What is going on here?
What is going on here?
JS in addons runs in a different, more privileged environment than normal web pages, and isn't restricted by things like same-origin (although this is improving with Firefox's new extension APIs). Any project the size of Angular is bound to have security issues when run outside of the environment it was designed for.
It looks like Firefox extension architecture has design problems.
And I don't like the presentation. One could think that Angular is vulnerable which is not true. The vulnerability appears when it is used in a wrong way in a browser extension.
They can. They can also manipulate the page DOM.
> Why would anyone run Angular on a browser page?
Because you want to manipulate its DOM and Angular is what you're familiar with?
> It would probably conflict with existing application
Note that it would operate on the same _DOM_ but not in the same scripting environment. That is, if you have a DOM element "foo" that comes from the web page, then doing:
foo.somePropNameIMadeUp = 5;
foo.setAttribute("id", "myId");
foo.id = "myId";
So the risk is that an add-on would inject angular 1.x into an external web site, this web site being malicious, it modifies its own DOM, so that angular would eval expressions from this DOM within the scripting environment running at a higher privilege.
What if the malicious web site does something like <script src="resource://dumb-addon/angular.min.js"></script> ? On Firefox, i verified this loads angular into the web site, but what about the privilege level ? Will it be the original one from the page or higher ?
As a side note, doing the Chrome equivalent <script src="chrome-extension://dumb-addon/angular.min.js"></script>, the loading fails with an exception saying "chrome-extension://" is not an allowed source.
In my extension, i modified the angular.min.js file to insert this as the first line:
(typeof window!=="undefined" && window.location && window.location.href && window.location.href.startsWith("resource://my-extension/")) || (function() { throw "Library loading not allowed" })();
Basically, it throws an exception if the library is not loaded from a local "resource://" page (hopefully considered as safe since it is part of the add-on code). I verified this prevented loading angular using the <script src="resource://..."> trick or if angular was inadvertently injected using a Firefox frame-script (nsIFrameScriptLoader.loadFrameScript) and add-on sdk/page-mod or sdk/content/worker modules.
Can we consider it is safe to use angular 1.x only from local add-on panels to run the user interface ?
That will run with the website's privileges. Just like site A loading a script from site B will run it with site A's privileges.
> the loading fails with an exception saying "chrome-extension://" is not an allowed source.
Chrome extensions (and webextensions) have a way to flag particular files as "web-exposed". Ones that are not can't be loaded via the web.
Firefox has something similar for chrome:// URIs in non-webextensions, but resource:// allows loads from the web in certain contexts, which include <script> elements.
> Can we consider it is safe to use angular 1.x only from local add-on panels to run the user interface ?
I don't know the details of what the security issues reported on angular 1.x are, so I can't claim that it's safe or not safe. But at first blush, as long as angular is only interacting with the addon's own DOM, and the addon DOM never injects any text from a page DOM into itself, it _seems_ like it should be safe.
>Why would anyone run Angular on a browser page? It would probably conflict with existing application.
Adding additional widgets or tools directly within an existing webpage is a common thing for extensions to do. And if you're adding a lot of UI, you might want to use an existing UI library like you would on a normal webpage instead of doing all the DOM by hand. Not all UI libraries work out well for this apparently.
For example: arbitrary user input from a web page is passed to the addon. Angular handles it, and does "eval-like things"[0] with it. Now the attacker is running arbitrary code in a privileged environment.
[0] eval-like things is a core part of how Angular works. So the vulnerability doesn't necessarily apply to Angular 1.x in a normal web page. But it wasn't designed to be run with higher privileges.
Yet they have some privileges a normal script doesn't have, for example the ability to post messages to parent extension which can be exploited.
$(element).html(user input);
UPD: I was wrong, jQuery inserts a script tag into DOM instead of directly calling eval() so the code above is not equivalent to eval and is another type of vulnerability.
In the context of an extension manipulating a web page, though, the jQuery thing you quote will evaluate the script with the permissions of the web page, not the permissions of the extension. On the other hand, doing eval() with a string from the web page will evaluate things with the permission of the extension.
So there is a pretty subtle (and irrelevant in web pages!) but important distinction between the two kinds of script injection here. In a web page they are more or less equivalent in terms of leading to XSS if you have untrusted input. But in an extension, the jQuery one is OK if your input comes from the web page itself, and the eval() version is not.
[Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla, but not on extension policy.]
It's not safe for a 3 year old to drive a car, even if there's nothing wrong with the baby or the car.
I tried to understand whether the same is possible in Chrome - injected scripts there have less privileges and use some form of isolation - but the manual [1] doesn't give a clear answer. The injected (and exploited) content script has lower privileges than an extension but has some API methods not available to scripts on a page. For example it can send messages to an extension and it could be exploited too.
But generally Chrome extension architecture provides more isolation and looks more secure especially when extensions are written by not very experienced developers.
[1] https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/content_scripts
UPD: Firefox uses the same security model for its web extensions as Chrome so both browsers are equally vulnerable.
They have their own javascript-wrappers around the DOM, so an extension is not vulnerable to a webpage overwriting DOM methods, but obviously the DOM still has the same content visible in it, and this can't protect extensions from using libraries which eval content within the DOM.
Imagine a case when some front-end developer gets JSON data from the remote data source by REST, having no idea about data source origin. Then for example there is a need to apply $watch for some fields of the received JSON object. Lets assume some of the fields contain JS code (for now it would be a sandbox bypassing snippet, but since v1.6 seems it can be plain JS with no obfuscations). As a result XSS happens. They would better disable string based expressions evaluating for the listed methods https://docs.angularjs.org/guide/security and allow only passing function as an argument, then it would be clear for developers that data sanitizing is up to developer and it's supposed to be implemented in the custom functions. But design issue would still exist.
On the contrary - they reacted removing sandbox completely giving up handling sandbox bypassing snippets, the problem is in the design of the framework and it can't be just fixed.