Closed Bug 190532 Opened 17 years ago Closed 17 years ago

IRC may need port restriction to avoid SMTP exploit


(Other Applications :: ChatZilla, defect)

Windows 2000
Not set


(Not tracked)



(Reporter: security-bugs, Assigned: rginda)



(1 file)

From Georgi:
   We may want to restrict the ports that IRC can use, since it might be
possible to use a link like
<a href="irc://localhost:25">IRC TO localhost:smtp</a>
to send mail in another user's name, similar to a problem we once had with Gopher.
I don't see how it would be possible to send anything that looks like SMTP over
irc:, but I could be wrong.

It looks to me that chatzilla shouldn't allow connections over questionable
ports, but I've never actually seen this function get called.  Mitch, what's the
deal with nsIProtocolHandler.allowPort?  Is it only supposed to be called for
questionable ports, or all ports?  Any idea why it isn't being called for me?
rob: you need to call nsIIOService::allowPort from your implementation of
newChannel if you want to use the standard port blocking mechanism. 
nsIOService::AllowPort will invoke your nsIProtocolHandler::allowPort to give
you the opportunity to override a port that the io service would otherwise
block.  see nsIIOService.idl and nsIProtocolHandler.idl for more details.  this
stuff is sort of documented there.
btw: this issue is not just with SMTP... we generally block other ports as well.
 the list is in nsIOService.cpp.
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
Patch uses allowPort as described by darin.  I also took the opportunity to
remove some of the aUseless aArgument aPrefixes that I hate so much in
Attachment #113511 - Flags: review?(darin)
Attachment #113511 - Flags: approval1.3b?
Comment on attachment 113511 [details] [diff] [review]

r/sr=darin (looks good!)

i really wish we had chosen different names for nsIIOService::allowPort and
nsIProtocolHandler::allowPort, since the sense of the return value is
inconsistent :-(

the protocol handler one should have been called something like
"overridePortBan" or something more to the point.
Attachment #113511 - Flags: review?(darin) → review+
Attachment #113511 - Flags: approval1.3b? → approval1.3b+
checked in.
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Bugs published on the Known-vulnerabilities page long ago, removing confidential
Group: security
Product: Core → Other Applications
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.