2007
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-73614-1_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extensible Web Browser Security

Abstract: In this paper we examine the security issues in functionality extension mechanisms supported by web browsers. Extensions (or "plug-ins") in modern web browsers enjoy unlimited power without restraint and thus are attractive vectors for malware. To solidify the claim, we take on the role of malware writers looking to assume control of a user's browser space. We have taken advantage of the lack of security mechanisms for browser extensions and have implemented a piece of malware for the popular Firefox web brows… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The advantage of implementing SessionShield as a stand-alone personal proxy instead of a browserplugin relies on the fact that cookies residing in the browser can still be attacked, e.g. by a malicious add-on [18]. When sensitive data are held outside of the browser, in the data structures of the proxy, a malicious add-on will not be able to access them.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantage of implementing SessionShield as a stand-alone personal proxy instead of a browserplugin relies on the fact that cookies residing in the browser can still be attacked, e.g. by a malicious add-on [18]. When sensitive data are held outside of the browser, in the data structures of the proxy, a malicious add-on will not be able to access them.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They propose changes to Chrome to make malware easier to identify. The work by Ter Louw et al [21] highlighted some of the potential security risks posed by Firefox extensions. They proposed runtime monitoring of XPCOM calls for detecting suspicious activities in extensions.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…5. Ter Louw et al [23,24] present a code integrity checking mechanism for extension installation and a policy enforcement framework built into XPConnect and SpiderMonkey. In comparison, our approach is lighter, and we do not modify the core components or architecture of Firefox.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%