Closed Bug 239121 Opened 20 years ago Closed 20 years ago
Unblock port 1080
Tentatively marking as security-sensitive. I'd like for us to consider unblocking port 1080. Bbaetz says SOCKS (the most common port-1080 application) is a binary protocol, so there's no risk of a malicious site using a SOCKS server on behalf of a visitor. Other browsers don't block port 1080 and 1080 is a fairly common http port. For example. it is used by the 3ware raid configuration tool. Also, the exploit that seems to be based on SOCKS was on port 2080, not 1080. See http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/509/exploit/ (have we been blocking the wrong port?)
Bbaetz, what say you. looking back at my notes, suggest that we agreed that 1080 could be blocked.
Err, no. I was always against 1080 being blocked. The orignal list I came up with was taken from the ns4 list of blocked ports, plus port 587. See (for example) bug 92769 comment 22
that is good enough for me. I say we unblock for the next release.
Comment on attachment 145077 [details] [diff] [review] proposed patch (Actually, it may have been more than just 1080 and 587 we added. I can't really recall. 1080 is the only one people ahve complained about, though.) r=bbaetz
Attachment #145077 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 145077 [details] [diff] [review] proposed patch sr=darin
Attachment #145077 - Flags: superreview+
Comment on attachment 145077 [details] [diff] [review] proposed patch a=chofmann for 1.7
Attachment #145077 - Flags: approval1.7? → approval1.7+
Checking in nsIOService.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsIOService.cpp,v <-- nsIOService.cpp new revision: 1.170; previous revision: 1.169 done Marking fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
*** Bug 92769 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The only potentially security-sensitive thing that came up here was: > Also, the exploit that seems to be based on SOCKS was on port 2080, not 1080. > See http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/509/exploit/ (have we been blocking the > wrong port?) Is that worth keeping this bug marked as security-sensitive? Should a bug be filed for blocking 2080? (I don't think 2080 needs to be blocked -- the problem is the buffer overflow in an old version of Wingate, not that the exploit can appear to come from a Mozilla user visiting a malicious site.)
-> security qa to me, allplats, for 1.7f
Component: Browser-General → Security: General
OS: Linux → All
QA Contact: general → benc
Hardware: PC → All
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.7final
Not an exploit. No one has stepped up to defend keeping this confidential and we default to openness without good reason otherwise --> removing flag
V/fixed. Mozilla 1.7RC2, Linux
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Whiteboard: [sg:nse] → [sg:nse] checkmac checkwin
VERIFIED: Windows XP, 1.7RC2.
Whiteboard: [sg:nse] checkmac checkwin → [sg:nse] checkmac
Comment on attachment 145077 [details] [diff] [review] proposed patch Very low risk, high gain for this as this fix will allow 3ware raid configuration software to work. a=blizzard for 1.4.3
Attachment #145077 - Flags: approval1.4.3+
I just checked this into the 1.4 branch.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.