ID CVE-2006-0884
Summary The WYSIWYG rendering engine ("rich mail" editor) in Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 and earlier allows user-assisted attackers to bypass javascript security settings and obtain sensitive information or cause a crash via an e-mail containing a javascript URI in the SRC attribute of an IFRAME tag, which is executed when the user edits the e-mail.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.1
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.2
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.3
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.4
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.5
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.6
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.7
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.7.1
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.7.2
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.7.3
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.8
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:0.9
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:1.0
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:1.0.1
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:1.0.2
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:1.0.5
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:1.0.6
  • Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7
    cpe:2.3:a:mozilla:thunderbird:1.0.7
CVSS
Base: 9.3 (as of 27-02-2006 - 10:24)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-20
CAPEC
  • Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
    This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the attacker finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
  • Server Side Include (SSI) Injection
    An attacker can use Server Side Include (SSI) Injection to send code to a web application that then gets executed by the web server. Doing so enables the attacker to achieve similar results to Cross Site Scripting, viz., arbitrary code execution and information disclosure, albeit on a more limited scale, since the SSI directives are nowhere near as powerful as a full-fledged scripting language. Nonetheless, the attacker can conveniently gain access to sensitive files, such as password files, and execute shell commands.
  • Cross Zone Scripting
    An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security. In a zone-based model, pages belong to one of a set of zones corresponding to the level of privilege assigned to that page. Pages in an untrusted zone would have a lesser level of access to the system and/or be restricted in the types of executable content it was allowed to invoke. In a cross-zone scripting attack, a page that should be assigned to a less privileged zone is granted the privileges of a more trusted zone. This can be accomplished by exploiting bugs in the browser, exploiting incorrect configuration in the zone controls, through a cross-site scripting attack that causes the attackers' content to be treated as coming from a more trusted page, or by leveraging some piece of system functionality that is accessible from both the trusted and less trusted zone. This attack differs from "Restful Privilege Escalation" in that the latter correlates to the inadequate securing of RESTful access methods (such as HTTP DELETE) on the server, while cross-zone scripting attacks the concept of security zones as implemented by a browser.
  • Cross Site Scripting through Log Files
    An attacker may leverage a system weakness where logs are susceptible to log injection to insert scripts into the system's logs. If these logs are later viewed by an administrator through a thin administrative interface and the log data is not properly HTML encoded before being written to the page, the attackers' scripts stored in the log will be executed in the administrative interface with potentially serious consequences. This attack pattern is really a combination of two other attack patterns: log injection and stored cross site scripting.
  • Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
    An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
  • Object Relational Mapping Injection
    An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject his or her own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database. The attack here is similar to plain SQL injection, except that the application does not use JDBC to directly talk to the database, but instead it uses a data access layer generated by an ORM tool or framework (e.g. Hibernate). While most of the time code generated by an ORM tool contains safe access methods that are immune to SQL injection, sometimes either due to some weakness in the generated code or due to the fact that the developer failed to use the generated access methods properly, SQL injection is still possible.
  • SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering
    An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack. On the service provider side, the SOAP message is parsed and parameters are not properly validated before being used to access a database in a way that does not use parameter binding, thus enabling the attacker to control the structure of the executed SQL query. This pattern describes a SQL injection attack with the delivery mechanism being a SOAP message.
  • Subverting Environment Variable Values
    The attacker directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The attacker's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the attacker.
  • Format String Injection
    An attacker includes formatting characters in a string input field on the target application. Most applications assume that users will provide static text and may respond unpredictably to the presence of formatting character. For example, in certain functions of the C programming languages such as printf, the formatting character %s will print the contents of a memory location expecting this location to identify a string and the formatting character %n prints the number of DWORD written in the memory. An attacker can use this to read or write to memory locations or files, or simply to manipulate the value of the resulting text in unexpected ways. Reading or writing memory may result in program crashes and writing memory could result in the execution of arbitrary code if the attacker can write to the program stack.
  • LDAP Injection
    An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
  • Relative Path Traversal
    An attacker exploits a weakness in input validation on the target by supplying a specially constructed path utilizing dot and slash characters for the purpose of obtaining access to arbitrary files or resources. An attacker modifies a known path on the target in order to reach material that is not available through intended channels. These attacks normally involve adding additional path separators (/ or \) and/or dots (.), or encodings thereof, in various combinations in order to reach parent directories or entirely separate trees of the target's directory structure.
  • Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
    This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service.
  • Variable Manipulation
    An attacker manipulates variables used by an application to perform a variety of possible attacks. This can either be performed through the manipulation of function call parameters or by manipulating external variables, such as environment variables, that are used by an application. Changing variable values is usually undertaken as part of another attack; for example, a path traversal (inserting relative path modifiers) or buffer overflow (enlarging a variable value beyond an application's ability to store it).
  • Embedding Scripts in Non-Script Elements
    This attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where malicious scripts are embedded in elements that are not expected to host scripts such as image tags (<img>), comments in XML documents (< !-CDATA->), etc. These tags may not be subject to the same input validation, output validation, and other content filtering and checking routines, so this can create an opportunity for an attacker to tunnel through the application's elements and launch a XSS attack through other elements. As with all remote attacks, it is important to differentiate the ability to launch an attack (such as probing an internal network for unpatched servers) and the ability of the remote attacker to collect and interpret the output of said attack.
  • Flash Injection
    An attacker tricks a victim to execute malicious flash content that executes commands or makes flash calls specified by the attacker. One example of this attack is cross-site flashing, an attacker controlled parameter to a reference call loads from content specified by the attacker.
  • Cross-Site Scripting Using Alternate Syntax
    The attacker uses alternate forms of keywords or commands that result in the same action as the primary form but which may not be caught by filters. For example, many keywords are processed in a case insensitive manner. If the site's web filtering algorithm does not convert all tags into a consistent case before the comparison with forbidden keywords it is possible to bypass filters (e.g., incomplete black lists) by using an alternate case structure. For example, the "script" tag using the alternate forms of "Script" or "ScRiPt" may bypass filters where "script" is the only form tested. Other variants using different syntax representations are also possible as well as using pollution meta-characters or entities that are eventually ignored by the rendering engine. The attack can result in the execution of otherwise prohibited functionality.
  • Exploiting Trust in Client (aka Make the Client Invisible)
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by placing themselves in the communication channel between client and server such that communication directly to the server is possible where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
  • XML Nested Payloads
    Applications often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. By nesting XML data and causing this data to be continuously self-referential, an attacker can cause the XML parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In most cases this type of an attack will result in a denial of service due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crash. However it may be possible to cause a crash resulting in arbitrary code execution, leading to a jump from the data plane to the control plane [R.230.1].
  • XML Oversized Payloads
    Applications often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. By supplying oversized payloads in input vectors that will be processed by the XML parser, an attacker can cause the XML parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization, and potentially cause execution of arbitrary code. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In many cases this type of an attack will result in a denial of service due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crash. However it is possible to cause a crash resulting in arbitrary code execution, leading to a jump from the data plane to the control plane [R.231.1].
  • Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
    In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
  • Cross-Site Scripting via Encoded URI Schemes
    An attack of this type exploits the ability of most browsers to interpret "data", "javascript" or other URI schemes as client-side executable content placeholders. This attack consists of passing a malicious URI in an anchor tag HREF attribute or any other similar attributes in other HTML tags. Such malicious URI contains, for example, a base64 encoded HTML content with an embedded cross-site scripting payload. The attack is executed when the browser interprets the malicious content i.e., for example, when the victim clicks on the malicious link.
  • XML Injection
    An attacker utilizes crafted XML user-controllable input to probe, attack, and inject data into the XML database, using techniques similar to SQL injection. The user-controllable input can allow for unauthorized viewing of data, bypassing authentication or the front-end application for direct XML database access, and possibly altering database information.
  • Environment Variable Manipulation
    An attacker manipulates environment variables used by an application to perform a variety of possible attacks. Changing variable values is usually undertaken as part of another attack; for example, a path traversal (inserting relative path modifiers) or buffer overflow (enlarging a variable value beyond an application's ability to store it).
  • Global variable manipulation
    An attacker manipulates global variables used by an application to perform a variety of possible attacks. Changing variable values is usually undertaken as part of another attack; for example, a path traversal (inserting relative path modifiers) or buffer overflow (enlarging a variable value beyond an application's ability to store it).
  • Leverage Alternate Encoding
    This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult.
  • Fuzzing
    Fuzzing is a software testing method that feeds randomly constructed input to the system and looks for an indication that a failure in response to that input has occurred. Fuzzing treats the system as a black box and is totally free from any preconceptions or assumptions about the system. An attacker can leverage fuzzing to try to identify weaknesses in the system. For instance fuzzing can help an attacker discover certain assumptions made in the system about user input. Fuzzing gives an attacker a quick way of potentially uncovering some of these assumptions without really knowing anything about the internals of the system. These assumptions can then be turned against the system by specially crafting user input that may allow an attacker to achieve his goals.
  • Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
    An attacker intentionally introduces leading characters that enable getting the input past the filters. The API that is being targeted, ignores the leading "ghost" characters, and therefore processes the attackers' input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API. Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. Perhaps these characters are considered redundant, and for this reason they are removed. Another possibility is the parser logic at the beginning of analysis is specialized in some way that causes some characters to be removed. The attacker can specify multiple types of alternative encodings at the beginning of a string as a set of probes. One commonly used possibility involves adding ghost characters--extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer. If the attacker has access to the API libraries being targeted, certain attack ideas can be tested directly in advance. Once alternative ghost encodings emerge through testing, the attacker can move from lab-based API testing to testing real-world service implementations.
  • Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
    This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form of this attack involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the attacker to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the attacker before it is sent back to the server. Here the attacker seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
  • Embedding Scripts in HTTP Query Strings
    A variant of cross-site scripting called "reflected" cross-site scripting, the HTTP Query Strings attack consists of passing a malicious script inside an otherwise valid HTTP request query string. This is of significant concern for sites that rely on dynamic, user-generated content such as bulletin boards, news sites, blogs, and web enabled administration GUIs. The malicious script may steal session data, browse history, probe files, or otherwise execute attacks on the client side. Once the attacker has prepared the malicious HTTP query it is sent to a victim user (perhaps by email, IM, or posted on an online forum), who clicks on a normal looking link that contains a poison query string. This technique can be made more effective through the use of services like http://tinyurl.com/, which makes very small URLs that will redirect to very large, complex ones. The victim will not know what he is really clicking on.
  • MIME Conversion
    An attacker exploits a weakness in the MIME conversion routine to cause a buffer overflow and gain control over the mail server machine. The MIME system is designed to allow various different information formats to be interpreted and sent via e-mail. Attack points exist when data are converted to MIME compatible format and back.
  • Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
    An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
  • Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
    This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An attacker can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
  • Overflow Variables and Tags
    This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The attacker crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
  • Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
    In this attack, the target software is given input that the attacker knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
  • Signature Spoof
    An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
  • XML Client-Side Attack
    Client applications such as web browsers that process HTML data often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. These adverse effects may include the parser crashing, consuming too much of a resource, executing too slowly, executing code supplied by an attacker, allowing usage of unintended system functionality, etc. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In some cases it may be possible to jump from the data plane to the control plane via bad data being passed to an XML parser. [R.484.1]
  • Embedding NULL Bytes
    An attacker embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s).
  • Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
    If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an attacker to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used.
  • Simple Script Injection
    An attacker embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
  • Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
    This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. An URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
  • SQL Injection
    This attack exploits target software that constructs SQL statements based on user input. An attacker crafts input strings so that when the target software constructs SQL statements based on the input, the resulting SQL statement performs actions other than those the application intended. SQL Injection results from failure of the application to appropriately validate input. When specially crafted user-controlled input consisting of SQL syntax is used without proper validation as part of SQL queries, it is possible to glean information from the database in ways not envisaged during application design. Depending upon the database and the design of the application, it may also be possible to leverage injection to have the database execute system-related commands of the attackers' choice. SQL Injection enables an attacker to talk directly to the database, thus bypassing the application completely. Successful injection can cause information disclosure as well as ability to add or modify data in the database. In order to successfully inject SQL and retrieve information from a database, an attacker:
  • String Format Overflow in syslog()
    This attack targets the format string vulnerabilities in the syslog() function. An attacker would typically inject malicious input in the format string parameter of the syslog function. This is a common problem, and many public vulnerabilities and associated exploits have been posted.
  • Blind SQL Injection
    Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the attacker constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The attacker can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the attacker determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection. For example, an attacker may try entering something like "username' AND 1=1; --" in an input field. If the result is the same as when the attacker entered "username" in the field, then the attacker knows that the application is vulnerable to SQL Injection. The attacker can then ask yes/no questions from the database server to extract information from it. For example, the attacker can extract table names from a database using the following types of queries: If the above query executes properly, then the attacker knows that the first character in a table name in the database is a letter between m and z. If it doesn't, then the attacker knows that the character must be between a and l (assuming of course that table names only contain alphabetic characters). By performing a binary search on all character positions, the attacker can determine all table names in the database. Subsequently, the attacker may execute an actual attack and send something like:
  • Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
    An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
  • URL Encoding
    This attack targets the encoding of the URL. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. An URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc. The attacker could also subvert the meaning of the URL string request by encoding the data being sent to the server through a GET request. For instance an attacker may subvert the meaning of parameters used in a SQL request and sent through the URL string (See Example section).
  • User-Controlled Filename
    An attack of this type involves an attacker inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
  • Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
    This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An attacker can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the attacker tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
  • Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
    This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An attacker would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the attacker many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
  • Buffer Overflow in an API Call
    This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An attacker who has access to an API may try to embed malicious code in the API function call and exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in the function's implementation. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
  • Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
    This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
  • Web Logs Tampering
    Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior. Additionally, writing malicious data to log files may target jobs, filters, reports, and other agents that process the logs in an asynchronous attack pattern. This pattern of attack is similar to "Log Injection-Tampering-Forging" except that in this case, the attack is targeting the logs of the web server and not the application.
  • XPath Injection
    An attacker can craft special user-controllable input consisting of XPath expressions to inject the XML database and bypass authentication or glean information that he normally would not be able to. XPath Injection enables an attacker to talk directly to the XML database, thus bypassing the application completely. XPath Injection results from the failure of an application to properly sanitize input used as part of dynamic XPath expressions used to query an XML database. In order to successfully inject XML and retrieve information from a database, an attacker:
  • AJAX Fingerprinting
    This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. In many XSS attacks the attacker must get a "hole in one" and successfully exploit the vulnerability on the victim side the first time, once the client is redirected the attacker has many chances to engage in follow on probes, but there is only one first chance. In a widely used web application this is not a major problem because 1 in a 1,000 is good enough in a widely used application. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on.
  • Embedding Script (XSS) in HTTP Headers
    An attack of this type exploits web applications that generate web content, such as links in a HTML page, based on unvalidated or improperly validated data submitted by other actors. XSS in HTTP Headers attacks target the HTTP headers which are hidden from most users and may not be validated by web applications.
  • OS Command Injection
    In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.
  • Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
    This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An attacker can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
  • XSS in IMG Tags
    Image tags are an often overlooked, but convenient, means for a Cross Site Scripting attack. The attacker can inject script contents into an image (IMG) tag in order to steal information from a victim's browser and execute malicious scripts.
  • XML Parser Attack
    Applications often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. These adverse effects may include the parser crashing, consuming too much of a resource, executing too slowly, executing code supplied by an attacker, allowing usage of unintended system functionality, etc. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In some cases it may be possible to jump from the data plane to the control plane via bad data being passed to an XML parser. [R.99.1]
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE
exploit-db via4
description Multiple Mozilla Products IFRAME JavaScript Execution Vulnerabilit. CVE-2006-0884. Dos exploit for linux platform
id EDB-ID:27257
last seen 2016-02-03
modified 2006-02-22
published 2006-02-22
reporter Georgi Guninski
source https://www.exploit-db.com/download/27257/
title Multiple Mozilla Products IFRAME JavaScript Execution Vulnerabilit
nessus via4
  • NASL family Mandriva Local Security Checks
    NASL id MANDRAKE_MDKSA-2006-052.NASL
    description The WYSIWYG rendering engine in Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 and earlier allows user-complicit attackers to bypass JavaScript security settings and obtain sensitive information or cause a crash via an e-mail containing a JavaScript URI in the SRC attribute of an IFRAME tag, which is executed when the user edits the e-mail. Updated packages have been patched to address this issue.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-19
    plugin id 21004
    published 2006-03-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21004
    title Mandrake Linux Security Advisory : mozilla-thunderbird (MDKSA-2006:052)
  • NASL family Solaris Local Security Checks
    NASL id SOLARIS10_119115.NASL
    description Mozilla 1.7 patch. Date this patch was last updated by Sun : Sep/13/14 This plugin has been deprecated and either replaced with individual 119115 patch-revision plugins, or deemed non-security related.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-30
    plugin id 22954
    published 2006-11-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=22954
    title Solaris 10 (sparc) : 119115-36 (deprecated)
  • NASL family FreeBSD Local Security Checks
    NASL id FREEBSD_PKG_61349F77C62011DAB2FB000E0C2E438A.NASL
    description Renaud Lifchitz reports a vulnerability within thunderbird. The vulnerability is caused by improper checking of JavaScript scripts. This could lead to JavaScript code execution which can lead to information disclosure or a denial of service (application crash). This vulnerability is present even if JavaScript had been disabled in the preferences.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 21440
    published 2006-05-13
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21440
    title FreeBSD : thunderbird -- javascript execution (61349f77-c620-11da-b2fb-000e0c2e438a)
  • NASL family Mandriva Local Security Checks
    NASL id MANDRAKE_MDKSA-2006-078.NASL
    description A number of vulnerabilities have been discovered in the Mozilla Thunderbird email client that could allow a remote attacker to craft malicious web emails that could take advantage of these issues to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges, spoof content, and steal local files, or other information. As well, some of these vulnerabilities can be exploited to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user running the program. As well, two crasher bugs have been fixed as well. The updated packages have been patched to fix these problems.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-19
    plugin id 21284
    published 2006-04-26
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21284
    title Mandrake Linux Security Advisory : mozilla-thunderbird (MDKSA-2006:078)
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-1051.NASL
    description Several security related problems have been discovered in Mozilla Thunderbird. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project identifies the following vulnerabilities : - CVE-2005-2353 The 'run-mozilla.sh' script allows local users to create or overwrite arbitrary files when debugging is enabled via a symlink attack on temporary files. - CVE-2005-4134 Web pages with extremely long titles cause subsequent launches of the browser to appear to 'hang' for up to a few minutes, or even crash if the computer has insufficient memory. [MFSA-2006-03] - CVE-2006-0292 The JavaScript interpreter does not properly dereference objects, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-01] - CVE-2006-0293 The function allocation code allows attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-01] - CVE-2006-0296 XULDocument.persist() did not validate the attribute name, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary XML and JavaScript code into localstore.rdf that would be read and acted upon during startup. [MFSA-2006-05] - CVE-2006-0748 An anonymous researcher for TippingPoint and the Zero Day Initiative reported that an invalid and nonsensical ordering of table-related tags can be exploited to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-27] - CVE-2006-0749 A particular sequence of HTML tags can cause memory corruption that can be exploited to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-18] - CVE-2006-0884 Georgi Guninski reports that forwarding mail in-line while using the default HTML 'rich mail' editor will execute JavaScript embedded in the e-mail message with full privileges of the client. [MFSA-2006-21] - CVE-2006-1045 The HTML rendering engine does not properly block external images from inline HTML attachments when 'Block loading of remote images in mail messages' is enabled, which could allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information. [MFSA-2006-26] - CVE-2006-1529 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1530 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1531 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1723 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1724 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1727 Georgi Guninski reported two variants of using scripts in an XBL control to gain chrome privileges when the page is viewed under 'Print Preview'. [MFSA-2006-25] - CVE-2006-1728 'shutdown' discovered that the crypto.generateCRMFRequest method can be used to run arbitrary code with the privilege of the user running the browser, which could enable an attacker to install malware. [MFSA-2006-24] - CVE-2006-1729 Claus Jorgensen reported that a text input box can be pre-filled with a filename and then turned into a file-upload control, allowing a malicious website to steal any local file whose name they can guess. [MFSA-2006-23] - CVE-2006-1730 An anonymous researcher for TippingPoint and the Zero Day Initiative discovered an integer overflow triggered by the CSS letter-spacing property, which could be exploited to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-22] - CVE-2006-1731 'moz_bug_r_a4' discovered that some internal functions return prototypes instead of objects, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting attacks. [MFSA-2006-19] - CVE-2006-1732 'shutdown' discovered that it is possible to bypass same-origin protections, allowing a malicious site to inject script into content from another site, which could allow the malicious page to steal information such as cookies or passwords from the other site, or perform transactions on the user's behalf if the user were already logged in. [MFSA-2006-17] - CVE-2006-1733 'moz_bug_r_a4' discovered that the compilation scope of privileged built-in XBL bindings is not fully protected from web content and can still be executed which could be used to execute arbitrary JavaScript, which could allow an attacker to install malware such as viruses and password sniffers. [MFSA-2006-16] - CVE-2006-1734 'shutdown' discovered that it is possible to access an internal function object which could then be used to run arbitrary JavaScript code with full permissions of the user running the browser, which could be used to install spyware or viruses. [MFSA-2006-15] - CVE-2006-1735 It is possible to create JavaScript functions that would get compiled with the wrong privileges, allowing an attacker to run code of their choice with full permissions of the user running the browser, which could be used to install spyware or viruses. [MFSA-2006-14] - CVE-2006-1736 It is possible to trick users into downloading and saving an executable file via an image that is overlaid by a transparent image link that points to the executable. [MFSA-2006-13] - CVE-2006-1737 An integer overflow allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary bytecode via JavaScript with a large regular expression. [MFSA-2006-11] - CVE-2006-1738 An unspecified vulnerability allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service. [MFSA-2006-11] - CVE-2006-1739 Certain Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) can cause an out-of-bounds array write and buffer overflow that could lead to a denial of service and the possible execution of arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-11] - CVE-2006-1740 It is possible for remote attackers to spoof secure site indicators such as the locked icon by opening the trusted site in a popup window, then changing the location to a malicious site. [MFSA-2006-12] - CVE-2006-1741 'shutdown' discovered that it is possible to inject arbitrary JavaScript code into a page on another site using a modal alert to suspend an event handler while a new page is being loaded. This could be used to steal confidential information. [MFSA-2006-09] - CVE-2006-1742 Igor Bukanov discovered that the JavaScript engine does not properly handle temporary variables, which might allow remote attackers to trigger operations on freed memory and cause memory corruption. [MFSA-2006-10] - CVE-2006-1790 A regression fix that could lead to memory corruption allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-11]
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-20
    plugin id 22593
    published 2006-10-14
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=22593
    title Debian DSA-1051-1 : mozilla-thunderbird - several vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Solaris Local Security Checks
    NASL id SOLARIS8_X86_120672.NASL
    description Mozilla 1.7_x86 for Solaris 8 and 9. Date this patch was last updated by Sun : Sep/02/08
    last seen 2018-09-02
    modified 2016-12-09
    plugin id 23772
    published 2006-12-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=23772
    title Solaris 8 (x86) : 120672-08
  • NASL family Solaris Local Security Checks
    NASL id SOLARIS9_120671.NASL
    description Mozilla 1.7 for Solaris 8 and 9. Date this patch was last updated by Sun : Aug/29/08
    last seen 2018-09-01
    modified 2016-12-09
    plugin id 24403
    published 2007-02-18
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=24403
    title Solaris 9 (sparc) : 120671-08
  • NASL family Windows
    NASL id SEAMONKEY_101.NASL
    description The remote Windows host is using SeaMonkey, an alternative web browser and application suite. The installed version of SeaMonkey contains various security issues, some of which may lead to execution of arbitrary code on the affected host subject to the user's privileges.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-27
    plugin id 21226
    published 2006-04-14
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21226
    title SeaMonkey < 1.0.1 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2006-0330.NASL
    description Updated thunderbird packages that fix various bugs are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4. This update has been rated as having critical security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. [Updated 24 Apr 2006] The erratum text has been updated to include the details of additional issues that were fixed by these erratum packages but which were not public at the time of release. No changes have been made to the packages. Mozilla Thunderbird is a standalone mail and newsgroup client. Several bugs were found in the way Thunderbird processes malformed JavaScript. A malicious HTML mail message could modify the content of a different open HTML mail message, possibly stealing sensitive information or conducting a cross-site scripting attack. Please note that JavaScript support is disabled by default in Thunderbird. (CVE-2006-1731, CVE-2006-1732, CVE-2006-1741) Several bugs were found in the way Thunderbird processes certain JavaScript actions. A malicious HTML mail message could execute arbitrary JavaScript instructions with the permissions of 'chrome', allowing the page to steal sensitive information or install browser malware. Please note that JavaScript support is disabled by default in Thunderbird. (CVE-2006-0292, CVE-2006-0296, CVE-2006-1727, CVE-2006-1728, CVE-2006-1733, CVE-2006-1734, CVE-2006-1735, CVE-2006-1742) Several bugs were found in the way Thunderbird processes malformed HTML mail messages. A carefully crafted malicious HTML mail message could cause the execution of arbitrary code as the user running Thunderbird. (CVE-2006-0748, CVE-2006-0749, CVE-2006-1724, CVE-2006-1730, CVE-2006-1737, CVE-2006-1738, CVE-2006-1739, CVE-2006-1790) A bug was found in the way Thunderbird processes certain inline content in HTML mail messages. It may be possible for a remote attacker to send a carefully crafted mail message to the victim, which will fetch remote content, even if Thunderbird is configured not to fetch remote content. (CVE-2006-1045) A bug was found in the way Thunderbird executes in-line mail forwarding. If a user can be tricked into forwarding a maliciously crafted mail message as in-line content, it is possible for the message to execute JavaScript with the permissions of 'chrome'. (CVE-2006-0884) Users of Thunderbird are advised to upgrade to these updated packages containing Thunderbird version 1.0.8, which is not vulnerable to these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-27
    plugin id 21288
    published 2006-04-26
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21288
    title RHEL 4 : thunderbird (RHSA-2006:0330)
  • NASL family Ubuntu Local Security Checks
    NASL id UBUNTU_USN-276-1.NASL
    description Igor Bukanov discovered that the JavaScript engine did not properly declare some temporary variables. Under some rare circumstances, a malicious mail with embedded JavaScript could exploit this to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user. (CVE-2006-0292, CVE-2006-1742) The function XULDocument.persist() did not sufficiently validate the names of attributes. An attacker could exploit this to inject arbitrary XML code into the file 'localstore.rdf', which is read and evaluated at startup. This could include JavaScript commands that would be run with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-0296) Due to a flaw in the HTML tag parser a specific sequence of HTML tags caused memory corruption. A malicious HTML email could exploit this to crash the browser or even execute arbitrary code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-0748) An invalid ordering of table-related tags caused Thunderbird to use a negative array index. A malicious HTML email could exploit this to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user. (CVE-2006-0749) Georgi Guninski discovered that forwarding mail in-line while using the default HTML 'rich mail' editor executed JavaScript embedded in the email message. Forwarding mail in-line is not the default setting but it is easily accessed through the 'Forward As' menu item. (CVE-2006-0884) As a privacy measure to prevent senders (primarily spammers) from tracking when email is read Thunderbird does not load remote content referenced from an HTML mail message until a user tells it to do so. This normally includes the content of frames and CSS files. It was discovered that it was possible to bypass this restriction by indirectly including remote content through an intermediate inline CSS script or frame. (CVE-2006-1045) Georgi Guninski discovered that embedded XBL scripts could escalate their (normally reduced) privileges to get full privileges of the user if the email is viewed with 'Print Preview'. (CVE-2006-1727) The crypto.generateCRMFRequest() function had a flaw which could be exploited to run arbitrary code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-1728) An integer overflow was detected in the handling of the CSS property 'letter-spacing'. A malicious HTML email could exploit this to run arbitrary code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-1730) The methods valueOf.call() and .valueOf.apply() returned an object whose privileges were not properly confined to those of the caller, which made them vulnerable to cross-site scripting attacks. A malicious email with embedded JavaScript code could exploit this to modify the contents or steal confidential data (such as passwords) from other opened web pages. (CVE-2006-1731) The window.controllers array variable (CVE-2006-1732) and event handlers (CVE-2006-1741) were vulnerable to a similar attack. The privileged built-in XBL bindings were not fully protected from web content and could be accessed by calling valueOf.call() and valueOf.apply() on a method of that binding. A malicious email could exploit this to run arbitrary JavaScript code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-1733) It was possible to use the Object.watch() method to access an internal function object (the 'clone parent'). A malicious email containing JavaScript code could exploit this to execute arbitrary code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-1734) By calling the XBL.method.eval() method in a special way it was possible to create JavaScript functions that would get compiled with the wrong privileges. A malicious email could exploit this to execute arbitrary JavaScript code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-1735) Several crashes have been fixed which could be triggered by specially crafted HTML content and involve memory corruption. These could potentially be exploited to execute arbitrary code with the user's privileges. (CVE-2006-1737, CVE-2006-1738, CVE-2006-1739, CVE-2006-1790) The 'enigmail' plugin has been updated to work with the new Thunderbird and Mozilla versions. Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Ubuntu security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-08-15
    plugin id 21321
    published 2006-05-03
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21321
    title Ubuntu 5.04 / 5.10 : mozilla-thunderbird vulnerabilities (USN-276-1)
  • NASL family Solaris Local Security Checks
    NASL id SOLARIS10_X86_119116.NASL
    description Mozilla 1.7_x86 patch. Date this patch was last updated by Sun : Aug/05/09 This plugin has been deprecated and either replaced with individual 119116 patch-revision plugins, or deemed non-security related.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-30
    plugin id 22987
    published 2006-11-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=22987
    title Solaris 10 (x86) : 119116-35 (deprecated)
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-1046.NASL
    description Several security related problems have been discovered in Mozilla. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project identifies the following vulnerabilities : - CVE-2005-2353 The 'run-mozilla.sh' script allows local users to create or overwrite arbitrary files when debugging is enabled via a symlink attack on temporary files. - CVE-2005-4134 Web pages with extremely long titles cause subsequent launches of the browser to appear to 'hang' for up to a few minutes, or even crash if the computer has insufficient memory. [MFSA-2006-03] - CVE-2006-0292 The JavaScript interpreter does not properly dereference objects, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-01] - CVE-2006-0293 The function allocation code allows attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-01] - CVE-2006-0296 XULDocument.persist() did not validate the attribute name, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary XML and JavaScript code into localstore.rdf that would be read and acted upon during startup. [MFSA-2006-05] - CVE-2006-0748 An anonymous researcher for TippingPoint and the Zero Day Initiative reported that an invalid and nonsensical ordering of table-related tags can be exploited to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-27] - CVE-2006-0749 A particular sequence of HTML tags can cause memory corruption that can be exploited to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-18] - CVE-2006-0884 Georgi Guninski reports that forwarding mail in-line while using the default HTML 'rich mail' editor will execute JavaScript embedded in the e-mail message with full privileges of the client. [MFSA-2006-21] - CVE-2006-1045 The HTML rendering engine does not properly block external images from inline HTML attachments when 'Block loading of remote images in mail messages' is enabled, which could allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information. [MFSA-2006-26] - CVE-2006-1529 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1530 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1531 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1723 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1724 A vulnerability potentially allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-20] - CVE-2006-1725 Due to an interaction between XUL content windows and the history mechanism, some windows may to become translucent, which might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-29] - CVE-2006-1726 'shutdown' discovered that the security check of the function js_ValueToFunctionObject() can be circumvented and exploited to allow the installation of malware. [MFSA-2006-28] - CVE-2006-1727 Georgi Guninski reported two variants of using scripts in an XBL control to gain chrome privileges when the page is viewed under 'Print Preview'. [MFSA-2006-25] - CVE-2006-1728 'shutdown' discovered that the crypto.generateCRMFRequest method can be used to run arbitrary code with the privilege of the user running the browser, which could enable an attacker to install malware. [MFSA-2006-24] - CVE-2006-1729 Claus Jorgensen reported that a text input box can be pre-filled with a filename and then turned into a file-upload control, allowing a malicious website to steal any local file whose name they can guess. [MFSA-2006-23] - CVE-2006-1730 An anonymous researcher for TippingPoint and the Zero Day Initiative discovered an integer overflow triggered by the CSS letter-spacing property, which could be exploited to execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-22] - CVE-2006-1731 'moz_bug_r_a4' discovered that some internal functions return prototypes instead of objects, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting attacks. [MFSA-2006-19] - CVE-2006-1732 'shutdown' discovered that it is possible to bypass same-origin protections, allowing a malicious site to inject script into content from another site, which could allow the malicious page to steal information such as cookies or passwords from the other site, or perform transactions on the user's behalf if the user were already logged in. [MFSA-2006-17] - CVE-2006-1733 'moz_bug_r_a4' discovered that the compilation scope of privileged built-in XBL bindings is not fully protected from web content and can still be executed which could be used to execute arbitrary JavaScript, which could allow an attacker to install malware such as viruses and password sniffers. [MFSA-2006-16] - CVE-2006-1734 'shutdown' discovered that it is possible to access an internal function object which could then be used to run arbitrary JavaScript code with full permissions of the user running the browser, which could be used to install spyware or viruses. [MFSA-2006-15] - CVE-2006-1735 It is possible to create JavaScript functions that would get compiled with the wrong privileges, allowing an attacker to run code of their choice with full permissions of the user running the browser, which could be used to install spyware or viruses. [MFSA-2006-14] - CVE-2006-1736 It is possible to trick users into downloading and saving an executable file via an image that is overlaid by a transparent image link that points to the executable. [MFSA-2006-13] - CVE-2006-1737 An integer overflow allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary bytecode via JavaScript with a large regular expression. [MFSA-2006-11] - CVE-2006-1738 An unspecified vulnerability allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service. [MFSA-2006-11] - CVE-2006-1739 Certain Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) can cause an out-of-bounds array write and buffer overflow that could lead to a denial of service and the possible execution of arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-11] - CVE-2006-1740 It is possible for remote attackers to spoof secure site indicators such as the locked icon by opening the trusted site in a popup window, then changing the location to a malicious site. [MFSA-2006-12] - CVE-2006-1741 'shutdown' discovered that it is possible to inject arbitrary JavaScript code into a page on another site using a modal alert to suspend an event handler while a new page is being loaded. This could be used to steal confidential information. [MFSA-2006-09] - CVE-2006-1742 Igor Bukanov discovered that the JavaScript engine does not properly handle temporary variables, which might allow remote attackers to trigger operations on freed memory and cause memory corruption. [MFSA-2006-10] - CVE-2006-1790 A regression fix that could lead to memory corruption allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. [MFSA-2006-11]
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-20
    plugin id 22588
    published 2006-10-14
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=22588
    title Debian DSA-1046-1 : mozilla - several vulnerabilities
  • NASL family CentOS Local Security Checks
    NASL id CENTOS_RHSA-2006-0330.NASL
    description Updated thunderbird packages that fix various bugs are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4. This update has been rated as having critical security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. [Updated 24 Apr 2006] The erratum text has been updated to include the details of additional issues that were fixed by these erratum packages but which were not public at the time of release. No changes have been made to the packages. Mozilla Thunderbird is a standalone mail and newsgroup client. Several bugs were found in the way Thunderbird processes malformed JavaScript. A malicious HTML mail message could modify the content of a different open HTML mail message, possibly stealing sensitive information or conducting a cross-site scripting attack. Please note that JavaScript support is disabled by default in Thunderbird. (CVE-2006-1731, CVE-2006-1732, CVE-2006-1741) Several bugs were found in the way Thunderbird processes certain JavaScript actions. A malicious HTML mail message could execute arbitrary JavaScript instructions with the permissions of 'chrome', allowing the page to steal sensitive information or install browser malware. Please note that JavaScript support is disabled by default in Thunderbird. (CVE-2006-0292, CVE-2006-0296, CVE-2006-1727, CVE-2006-1728, CVE-2006-1733, CVE-2006-1734, CVE-2006-1735, CVE-2006-1742) Several bugs were found in the way Thunderbird processes malformed HTML mail messages. A carefully crafted malicious HTML mail message could cause the execution of arbitrary code as the user running Thunderbird. (CVE-2006-0748, CVE-2006-0749, CVE-2006-1724, CVE-2006-1730, CVE-2006-1737, CVE-2006-1738, CVE-2006-1739, CVE-2006-1790) A bug was found in the way Thunderbird processes certain inline content in HTML mail messages. It may be possible for a remote attacker to send a carefully crafted mail message to the victim, which will fetch remote content, even if Thunderbird is configured not to fetch remote content. (CVE-2006-1045) A bug was found in the way Thunderbird executes in-line mail forwarding. If a user can be tricked into forwarding a maliciously crafted mail message as in-line content, it is possible for the message to execute JavaScript with the permissions of 'chrome'. (CVE-2006-0884) Users of Thunderbird are advised to upgrade to these updated packages containing Thunderbird version 1.0.8, which is not vulnerable to these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 21994
    published 2006-07-05
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21994
    title CentOS 4 : thunderbird (CESA-2006:0330)
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-200604-18.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-200604-18 (Mozilla Suite: Multiple vulnerabilities) Several vulnerabilities were found in Mozilla Suite. Version 1.7.13 was released to fix them. Impact : A remote attacker could craft malicious web pages or emails that would leverage these issues to inject and execute arbitrary script code with elevated privileges, steal local files, cookies or other information from web pages or emails, and spoof content. Some of these vulnerabilities might even be exploited to execute arbitrary code with the rights of the user running the client. Workaround : There are no known workarounds for all the issues at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-08-10
    plugin id 21315
    published 2006-05-03
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21315
    title GLSA-200604-18 : Mozilla Suite: Multiple vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Solaris Local Security Checks
    NASL id SOLARIS9_X86_120672.NASL
    description Mozilla 1.7_x86 for Solaris 8 and 9. Date this patch was last updated by Sun : Sep/02/08
    last seen 2018-09-01
    modified 2016-12-09
    plugin id 23773
    published 2006-12-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=23773
    title Solaris 9 (x86) : 120672-08
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2006-0329.NASL
    description Updated mozilla packages that fix several security bugs are now available. This update has been rated as having critical security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. [Updated 24 Apr 2006] The erratum text has been updated to include the details of additional issues that were fixed by these erratum packages but which were not public at the time of release. No changes have been made to the packages. Mozilla is an open source Web browser, advanced email and newsgroup client, IRC chat client, and HTML editor. Several bugs were found in the way Mozilla processes malformed JavaScript. A malicious web page could modify the content of a different open web page, possibly stealing sensitive information or conducting a cross-site scripting attack. (CVE-2006-1731, CVE-2006-1732, CVE-2006-1741) Several bugs were found in the way Mozilla processes certain JavaScript actions. A malicious web page could execute arbitrary JavaScript instructions with the permissions of 'chrome', allowing the page to steal sensitive information or install browser malware. (CVE-2006-1727, CVE-2006-1728, CVE-2006-1733, CVE-2006-1734, CVE-2006-1735, CVE-2006-1742) Several bugs were found in the way Mozilla processes malformed web pages. A carefully crafted malicious web page could cause the execution of arbitrary code as the user running Mozilla. (CVE-2006-0748, CVE-2006-0749, CVE-2006-1730, CVE-2006-1737, CVE-2006-1738, CVE-2006-1739, CVE-2006-1790) A bug was found in the way Mozilla displays the secure site icon. If a browser is configured to display the non-default secure site modal warning dialog, it may be possible to trick a user into believing they are viewing a secure site. (CVE-2006-1740) A bug was found in the way Mozilla allows JavaScript mutation events on 'input' form elements. A malicious web page could be created in such a way that when a user submits a form, an arbitrary file could be uploaded to the attacker. (CVE-2006-1729) A bug was found in the way Mozilla executes in-line mail forwarding. If a user can be tricked into forwarding a maliciously crafted mail message as in-line content, it is possible for the message to execute JavaScript with the permissions of 'chrome'. (CVE-2006-0884) Users of Mozilla are advised to upgrade to these updated packages containing Mozilla version 1.7.13 which corrects these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-20
    plugin id 21257
    published 2006-04-21
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21257
    title RHEL 2.1 / 3 / 4 : mozilla (RHSA-2006:0329)
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-200605-09.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-200605-09 (Mozilla Thunderbird: Multiple vulnerabilities) Several vulnerabilities were found and fixed in Mozilla Thunderbird. Impact : A remote attacker could craft malicious emails that would leverage these issues to inject and execute arbitrary script code with elevated privileges, steal local files or other information from emails, and spoof content. Some of these vulnerabilities might even be exploited to execute arbitrary code with the rights of the user running Thunderbird. Workaround : There are no known workarounds for all the issues at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-08-10
    plugin id 21351
    published 2006-05-13
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21351
    title GLSA-200605-09 : Mozilla Thunderbird: Multiple vulnerabilities
  • NASL family CentOS Local Security Checks
    NASL id CENTOS_RHSA-2006-0329.NASL
    description Updated mozilla packages that fix several security bugs are now available. This update has been rated as having critical security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. [Updated 24 Apr 2006] The erratum text has been updated to include the details of additional issues that were fixed by these erratum packages but which were not public at the time of release. No changes have been made to the packages. Mozilla is an open source Web browser, advanced email and newsgroup client, IRC chat client, and HTML editor. Several bugs were found in the way Mozilla processes malformed JavaScript. A malicious web page could modify the content of a different open web page, possibly stealing sensitive information or conducting a cross-site scripting attack. (CVE-2006-1731, CVE-2006-1732, CVE-2006-1741) Several bugs were found in the way Mozilla processes certain JavaScript actions. A malicious web page could execute arbitrary JavaScript instructions with the permissions of 'chrome', allowing the page to steal sensitive information or install browser malware. (CVE-2006-1727, CVE-2006-1728, CVE-2006-1733, CVE-2006-1734, CVE-2006-1735, CVE-2006-1742) Several bugs were found in the way Mozilla processes malformed web pages. A carefully crafted malicious web page could cause the execution of arbitrary code as the user running Mozilla. (CVE-2006-0748, CVE-2006-0749, CVE-2006-1730, CVE-2006-1737, CVE-2006-1738, CVE-2006-1739, CVE-2006-1790) A bug was found in the way Mozilla displays the secure site icon. If a browser is configured to display the non-default secure site modal warning dialog, it may be possible to trick a user into believing they are viewing a secure site. (CVE-2006-1740) A bug was found in the way Mozilla allows JavaScript mutation events on 'input' form elements. A malicious web page could be created in such a way that when a user submits a form, an arbitrary file could be uploaded to the attacker. (CVE-2006-1729) A bug was found in the way Mozilla executes in-line mail forwarding. If a user can be tricked into forwarding a maliciously crafted mail message as in-line content, it is possible for the message to execute JavaScript with the permissions of 'chrome'. (CVE-2006-0884) Users of Mozilla are advised to upgrade to these updated packages containing Mozilla version 1.7.13 which corrects these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 21898
    published 2006-07-03
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21898
    title CentOS 3 / 4 : mozilla (CESA-2006:0329)
  • NASL family Solaris Local Security Checks
    NASL id SOLARIS8_120671.NASL
    description Mozilla 1.7 for Solaris 8 and 9. Date this patch was last updated by Sun : Aug/29/08
    last seen 2018-09-01
    modified 2016-12-09
    plugin id 24395
    published 2007-02-18
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=24395
    title Solaris 8 (sparc) : 120671-08
oval via4
  • accepted 2013-04-29T04:08:41.223-04:00
    class vulnerability
    contributors
    • name Aharon Chernin
      organization SCAP.com, LLC
    • name Dragos Prisaca
      organization G2, Inc.
    definition_extensions
    • comment The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
      oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11782
    • comment CentOS Linux 3.x
      oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:16651
    • comment The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
      oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11831
    • comment CentOS Linux 4.x
      oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:16636
    • comment Oracle Linux 4.x
      oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:15990
    description The WYSIWYG rendering engine ("rich mail" editor) in Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 and earlier allows user-assisted attackers to bypass javascript security settings and obtain sensitive information or cause a crash via an e-mail containing a javascript URI in the SRC attribute of an IFRAME tag, which is executed when the user edits the e-mail.
    family unix
    id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:10782
    status accepted
    submitted 2010-07-09T03:56:16-04:00
    title The WYSIWYG rendering engine ("rich mail" editor) in Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 and earlier allows user-assisted attackers to bypass javascript security settings and obtain sensitive information or cause a crash via an e-mail containing a javascript URI in the SRC attribute of an IFRAME tag, which is executed when the user edits the e-mail.
    version 23
  • accepted 2011-02-21T04:00:48.164-05:00
    class vulnerability
    contributors
    • name Robert L. Hollis
      organization ThreatGuard, Inc.
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    • name Jonathan Baker
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    description The WYSIWYG rendering engine ("rich mail" editor) in Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 and earlier allows user-assisted attackers to bypass javascript security settings and obtain sensitive information or cause a crash via an e-mail containing a javascript URI in the SRC attribute of an IFRAME tag, which is executed when the user edits the e-mail.
    family windows
    id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:2024
    status accepted
    submitted 2006-05-07T09:05:00.000-04:00
    title Mozilla JavaScript Execution in Mail When Forwarding In-line
    version 6
redhat via4
advisories
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2006:0329
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2006:0330
refmap via4
bid 16770
bugtraq 20060222 Mozilla Thunderbird : Remote Code Execution & Denial of Service
confirm
debian
  • DSA-1046
  • DSA-1051
fedora FLSA:189137-1
gentoo
  • GLSA-200604-18
  • GLSA-200605-09
hp
  • HPSBUX02122
  • HPSBUX02156
  • SSRT061158
  • SSRT061236
mandriva
  • MDKSA-2006:052
  • MDKSA-2006:076
  • MDKSA-2006:078
osvdb 23653
sco SCOSA-2006.26
sectrack 1015665
secunia
  • 19721
  • 19811
  • 19821
  • 19823
  • 19863
  • 19902
  • 19941
  • 19950
  • 20051
  • 21033
  • 21622
  • 22065
sgi 20060404-01-U
sunalert
  • 102550
  • 228526
suse
  • SUSE-SA:2006:021
  • SUSE-SA:2006:022
ubuntu USN-276-1
vupen ADV-2006-3749
xf mozilla-inline-fwd-code-execution(25983)
Last major update 25-05-2011 - 00:00
Published 24-02-2006 - 17:02
Last modified 18-10-2018 - 12:29
Back to Top