Setting [channel|docshellLoadState|*] original uri in a (compromised) content process may be used to trigger loading of cross-origin pages in a wrong content process
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Navigation, defect, P2)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: smaug, Assigned: smaug)
References
(Regressed 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: sec-high, Whiteboard: [adv-main131+][adv-esr128.3+][adv-esr115.16+])
Attachments
(5 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
tjr
:
sec-approval+
|
Details | Review |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
phab-bot
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
phab-bot
:
approval-mozilla-esr128+
|
Details | Review |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
phab-bot
:
approval-mozilla-esr115+
|
Details | Review |
|
165 bytes,
text/plain
|
Details |
bug 1899154 is a subset of this.
We could at least make this a bit harder by comparing original uri and channel's uri in IsolationOptionsForNavigation.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•1 year ago
|
||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•1 year ago
|
||
Need to still audit some code/behavior.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•1 year ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9410812 [details]
Bug 1905843, prevent unexpected use of result site origin, r=nika
Security Approval Request
- How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch?: I think it is relatively well hidden where the actual issue happens - on needs to have a compromised content process
- Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem?: Unknown
- Which branches (beta, release, and/or ESR) are affected by this flaw, and do the release status flags reflect this affected/unaffected state correctly?: all
- If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw?: None
- Do you have backports for the affected branches?: No
- If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be?: I think this should be trivial to rebase. I might even work as is.
- How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need?: I've tried to limit the scope as much as possible, but it is not regression-risk-free.
- Is the patch ready to land after security approval is given?: Yes
- Is Android affected?: Yes
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 4•1 year ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9410812 [details]
Bug 1905843, prevent unexpected use of result site origin, r=nika
Approved to land and uplift
Comment 6•1 year ago
|
||
Backed out for causing build bustages @ nsContentSecurityManager.cpp
Backout link: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/1f8b95c394153cd47e44d34dd72ed2237d39fb0c
Comment 8•1 year ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 9•1 year ago
|
||
Original Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D215496
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 10•1 year ago
|
||
beta Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: Compromised content process might load cross-origin pages in it
- Code covered by automated testing: no
- Fix verified in Nightly: yes
- Needs manual QE test: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing: One needs to inject for example code from bug 1899154 to Firefox, rebuild and test
- Risk associated with taking this patch: medium
- Explanation of risk level: It has been a bit hard to test all the code paths locally, since this requires injecting broken code to content processes
- String changes made/needed: NA
- Is Android affected?: yes
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 11•1 year ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 12•1 year ago
|
||
Please nominate this for ESR128 and ESR115 also. It grafts cleanly to both.
Updated•1 year ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 13•1 year ago
|
||
Original Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D215496
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 14•1 year ago
|
||
esr128 Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: Compromised content process might load cross-origin pages in it
- Code covered by automated testing: no
- Fix verified in Nightly: yes
- Needs manual QE test: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing: One needs to inject for example code from bug 1899154 to Firefox, rebuild and test
- Risk associated with taking this patch: medium
- Explanation of risk level: It has been a bit hard to test all the code paths locally, since this requires injecting broken code to content processes
- String changes made/needed: NA
- Is Android affected?: yes
| Assignee | ||
Comment 15•1 year ago
|
||
Original Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D215496
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 16•1 year ago
|
||
esr115 Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: Compromised content process might load cross-origin pages in it
- Code covered by automated testing: no
- Fix verified in Nightly: yes
- Needs manual QE test: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing: One needs to inject for example code from bug 1899154 to Firefox, rebuild and test
- Risk associated with taking this patch: medium
- Explanation of risk level: It has been a bit hard to test all the code paths locally, since this requires injecting broken code to content processes
- String changes made/needed: NA
- Is Android affected?: yes
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 17•1 year ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 18•1 year ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 19•1 year ago
•
|
||
Backed out from esr115 for causing build bustages @ nsContentSecurityManager
Backout link: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr115/rev/db45208786822204bc7706a668c4da76b555e01c
Comment 20•1 year ago
|
||
:smaug can you take a look at the esr115 failures?
Comment 21•1 year ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Comment 22•1 year ago
|
||
Comment 23•1 year ago
|
||
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•1 year ago
|
Updated•7 months ago
|
Description
•