Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Security > Security Fixes and Improvements

March 20th, 2010, 12:19 GMT · By

Mozilla Confirms Critical Firefox Vulnerability

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

Mozilla admits Firefox 3.6 suffers from critical bug
Enlarge picture
Mozilla has finally acknowledged the existence of a zero day flaw in Firefox 3.6, after lacking enough information to confirm it for nearly a month. A patch for the vulnerability has been included in Firefox 3.6.2, which is scheduled to land on March 30.

On February 19, we reported that a security researcher named Evgeny Legerov has released working exploit code for a previously unknown remote code execution bug in Firefox 3.6. The exploit was included in VulnDisco, an add-on for a professional exploitation framework called Immunity CANVAS.

Mr. Legerov, who is the founder of Moscow-based vulnerability research firm InteVyDis, has clearly expressed his disagreement with what is known as the "responsible disclosure policy" in the security industry. According to him, the practice of notifying vendors in advance of going public with information about new vulnerabilities is the equivalent of quality assurance work for free.

Secunia was the first to issue an advisory about the unspecified remote code execution bug allegedly discovered by Legerov. Mozilla responded by stressing that it did not have enough information to replicate the alleged issue and confirm the report, which led to some people accusing the vulnerability intelligence company of fueling a hoax.

However, in a statement posted on its Security blog yesterday, Mozilla announced that in the end the security problem proved to be a very real threat. "The vulnerability was determined to be critical and could result in remote code execution by an attacker. The vulnerability has been patched by developers and we are currently undergoing quality assurance testing for the fix," the company said.

Secunia also came out to explain its position on this incident. "We consider Evgeny Legerov a credible source and he has cooperated with us on a number of occasions when we contacted him with questions for additional information during our verification process. He has similarly cooperated with other players in the security industry and software vendors. So far, he has not given us any reason to doubt him and, unless he one day does, we will continue to consider his vulnerability reports credible," Carsten Eiram, the company's chief security specialist, commented.

He went on to say that a researcher's failure to adhere to responsible disclosure practices was not a strong enough reason to dismiss their findings and that Secunia made it a point to thoroughly verify each report before releasing an advisory. "There is a reason that Secunia is considered the most reliably source of Vulnerability Intelligence and has an almost flawless track record. So, unless you see hard evidence [...] that what we've posted is 'fake' or 'a hoax', then you can safely trust that since a Secunia advisory was issued, the vulnerability is real," Mr. Eiram concluded.

Firefox 3.6.2, which addresses this vulnerability, is scheduled for release on March 30, but a beta version can be downloaded from here.

Update: Firefox 3.6.2 was released on March 22, one week earlier than expected. You can download it from our secure servers.

Correction: For the benefit of more clarity, we have changed the wording in the first and fourth paragraphs to reflect that Mozilla did not dismiss, but rather did not confirm Secunia's report.



5,186 hits · 5 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Exploit Code Available for Unpatched Firefox Bug

Oracle Breaks Regular Patch Cycle Because of Zero-Day Bug

Mozilla Retracts Malware Accusations Against Firefox Extension

Infected Extensions Discovered on Mozilla's Add-Ons Repository

Firefox Bug Used to Harass Entire IRC Network

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Firefoxer on 21 Mar 2010, 09:17 UTC reply to this comment

@ Softpedia:

I would take the step of blaming both Mozilla and Secunia.

Secunia gave a "CAT 4" rating based on their past experience with Evgeny Legerov.

However, he did not give details of the exploit. How nice!

Mozilla denied the exploit initially and all of a sudden, they admitted that such an exploit exists!

Secunia should be blamed because:

1. No details of the exploit WAS available for 4 weeks.
2. Secunia is a respected firm. I still do not understand their actions.
3. Just because Evgeny Legerov has helped a lot in finding lots of exploits in the past does not mean he would do that for "FREE":).
4. They should have taken the trouble to contact Mozilla and both of them could have worked together.

Mozilla sat on the issue for 4 weeks:(. The hacker, refused to give out details and all of a sudden bang! he sends an e-mail to Mozilla and gives details. What's going on here?

Comment #1.1 by: Lucian Constantin on 22 Mar 2010, 10:22 GMT

Hello Firefoxer,

You raise some very good points and I'll try to answer a few of them. However, please keep in mind that what I'm about to say represents my personal opinion and I am in no way entitled to speak on behalf of Secunia or Mozilla. That being said:

1. "No details of the exploit WAS available for 4 weeks." - I believe a working exploit was available in VulnDisco, an add-on for pentesting framwork Immunity CANVAS, developed by Mr. Legerov's company. Mr. Legerov was under no obligation to provide details of the exploit publicly and potentially decrease sales of his product.

2. "Secunia gave a 'CAT 4' rating based on their past experience with Evgeny Legerov." - Secunia states that it generally seeks out more information from the researchers, but that "sometimes this additional information is provided to us in all confidentiality and is, therefore, not included in our advisories nor disclosed to anyone else outside the Secunia Advisories team." We have no way of knowing what additional information was provided by Mr. Legerov to Secunia in confidence.

After all, it was in Mr. Legerov's best interest for Secunia to release an advisory that would be picked up by others and eventually generate more noise for his own product.

3. "Just because Evgeny Legerov has helped a lot in finding lots of exploits in the past does not mean he would do that for 'FREE' :)" - No one said he did it for free and I fail to see why that should matter. In an interview for a different publication, Mr. Legerov mentioned that he anonymously submitted numerous times vulnerabilities through TippingPoint's Zero Day Initiative (ZDI), a program which pays researchers for vulnerabilities. Mozilla has its own monetary reward system for vulnerability disclosure.

4. "They should have taken the trouble to contact Mozilla and both of them could have worked together." - See "confidentiality" in #2. Secunia doesn't want to loose a reliable source of vulnerability intelligence by betraying the source's confidence. Journalists often do the same.

5. "Mozilla sat on the issue for 4 weeks:(. The hacker, refused to give out details and all of a sudden bang! he sends an e-mail to Mozilla and gives details. What's going on here?" - Maybe he felt that four weeks long enough for this single vulnerability to be used to advertise his product.


Comment #2 by: Bob Smith on 21 Mar 2010, 23:42 UTC reply to this comment

I want that picuture as my Icon.

Softpedia can you make an auto-updater like filehippo and cnet. Thanks.


Comment #3 by: Lucas Adamski on 22 Mar 2010, 18:27 UTC reply to this comment

Being unable to confirm a vulnerability is in no way the same as dismissing a vulnerability report. As our blog entry clearly states, we take all reports of vulnerabilities seriously and encourage the community to provide us with sufficient detail to fix the underlying issue. http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/02/22/secunia-advisory-sa38608/

For the record Secunia did not provide us with any additional information over what little was already public. Nor did they reproduce the issue themselves.

Lucas Adamski, Mozilla Security

Comment #3.1 by: Lucian Constantin on 23 Mar 2010, 08:58 GMT

Hello Lucas,

We have changed our article to more clearly reflect that Mozilla did not have enough information to confirm Secunia's report. See "Correction" at the end.

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM