Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Browser. Show all posts

Chrome Blocks Port 10080 to Prevent Slipstreaming Hacks

Google Chrome has blocked HTTPS, FTP, and HTTP access to TCP (transmission control protocol) port 10080 to protect ports getting exploited from NAT Slipstreaming 2.0 attacks. In 2020, cybersecurity expert Samy Kamkar revealed a new variant of the NAT Slipstreaming vulnerability that lets scripts on illicit websites avoid a user's NAT firewall and hack into any UDP/TCP port on the target's internal network. By exploiting these vulnerabilities, hackers can deploy a variety of attacks, these include modification of router configurations and hacking into private network services. 

"NAT Slipstreaming was discovered by security researcher Samy Kamkar and it requires the victims to visit the threat actor's malicious website (or a site with maliciously crafted ads). To expose hosted services, the attack abuses certain NAT devices scanning port 5060 to create port forwarding rules when detecting maliciously-crafted HTTP requests camouflaged as valid SIP requests," reported Bleeping Computers in 2019. The flaw only works on selected ports configured by a router's ALG (Application Level Gateway), ports that don't receive much traffic are being blocked by browser developers. 

As of now, Chrome has blocked HTTPS, HTTP, and FTP access on ports 1719, 1720, 1723, 5060, 5061, 69, 137, 161, and 554. Recently, Google said that it is considering blocking TCP port 10080 in Chrome. Firefox had blocked TCP port 10080 already in November last year. But the most worrisome aspect relating to 10080 is may developers may start using it as a replacement to port 80. They may find it useful as the port ends in '80' which makes it attractive. Besides this, the port doesn't require root privileges for binding into Unix systems, said Adam Rice, developer at Google Chrome. 

For developers that want to continue using this post, Mr. Rice will add an enterprise policy that will allow the developers to use the port by overriding the block. If a port is blocked, the user is displayed a "ERR_UNSAFE_PORT" error message while trying to gain access to the port. "If you are currently hosting a website on port 10080, you may want to consider using a different port to allow Google Chrome to continue accessing the site," said Bleeping computer.

New Method to Perform XS-Leak Side Channel Attacks Disclosed

 

Luan Herrera, a cybersecurity expert committed to vulnerability reporting, detailed another approach to performing a side-channel assault variant known as XS-Leak abusing redirect hops to trigger a cross-site leak condition. Herrera's research centers around the XS-Leaks group of side-channel assaults, equipped for abusing a browser to extricate conceivably sensitive data into the exposed system, including administrator credentials. XS-Leak assault strategies depend on measuring network reaction time to gather information about site visitors by abusing communication channels that permit sites to communicate with one another to recreate a client's or system's profile. 

The documents mention a "novel technique" for abusing a limitation in the Fetch specification, a way that permits sites to call resources: “A limit of 20 redirect hops is set before a network error message appears; because of this limit, threat actors could count the number of redirect hops that occur in a cross-origin redirect by activating the redirect before reaching the victim’s endpoint, measuring network responses, and partially exposing the size of the URL list,” the report says. 

The expert additionally detailed a few different ways to detect and forestall these cross-redirects that can prompt a side-channel assault, including the utilization of SameSite cookies, COOP and frame protections. Google is likewise aware of this issue, so measures such as confining some chrome-accessible websites have just been announced to reduce the amount of data exposed in a potential side-channel assault. 

Herrera concurs that this assault can be forestalled in the same way that similar assault variations are forestalled, although he believes that a holistic perspective on the issue is required: “A comprehensive view of the problem is still being discussed on GitHub about whether it is possible to change the Fetch specification and the limit value in order to prevent the appearance of these attack variants,” adds the researcher. 

The report also incorporates the results of a challenge to deploy an XSS assault utilizing JavaScript code. A Google security expert known as "terjanq" also directed an investigation concerning the XS-Leak family of assaults, describing the launch of a cache polling assault against a small group of Google products, which could deploy a leak of sensitive data.

Firefox Web Browser Launching Its Own Paid VPN Service



The Firefox Private Network service launched in beta just the previous year as a browser extension for desktop versions of the Firefox web browser is all set to be renamed as Mozilla VPN.

According to a blog post, Mozilla VPN will move out of the beta and be available as a standalone service later this year with select regions, which will include the United States.

The VPN will be accessible for $4.99 every month and the user will have the option to utilize around five devices with a similar account. Mozilla specifies this pricing is just temporary yet has not clarified whether the price will be increased or new plans introduced for fewer devices.

Mozilla VPN will be launched as a standalone and system-wide VPN service for Android, iOS, Windows, ChromeOS, macOS, and Linux platforms throughout the next few weeks.

While the Android, iOS, Windows, and Chromebook clients will be available at first, Mozilla is likewise chipping away at Mac and Linux clients which have additionally been requested by the beta testers.

Mozilla, as opposed to other web browser makers like Opera, isn't offering the service for nothing. They claim that a paid service will permit the organization to continue offering the service without benefiting from users’ data.

The service, in its current form as Firefox Private Network, is fuelled by Mullvad VPN and has servers in excess of 30 nations. It runs on the WireGuard standard that offers more privacy and better execution when contrasted with customary standards like OpenVPN being another protocol; it may not be as steady as the 'legacy' ones.

In the event that the user wishes to be a part of the beta testing or express interest for the service to be accessible in their region, they can join the waitlist by signing up the official website of the Firefox Private Network VPN and they will be notified whenever Firefox Private Network is accessible for their device and region.

The link of which is provided below: https://fpn.firefox.com/vpn/invite