Thursday, June 18, 2015

Same Origin Method Execution (SOME)

This blog post is a brief presentation of "Same Origin Method Execution" (SOME). SOME is a web application attack which abuses callback endpoints (mainly Flash applets and JSONP endpoints to which OAuth dialogs often redirect to -- redirect_uri) by forcing a victim into executing arbitrary scripting methods of any page on the endpoint’s domain. The impact of a SOME attack is similar to the impact of Cross-Site Scripting, though there are some important and distinguishing exploitation restrictions. In spite of limitations, it is vital and valid to say that the attack is not limited to a specific web functionality/page nor confined in terms of UI or HTTP response headers. In fact, using a payload of only alphanumeric characters and a dot will allow attackers to hijack dangerous web functionality and even exfiltrate sensitive user data such as private photos and/or videos. 
Popular domains like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft (,, and so on) along with the very popular platforms - Wordpress and VideoJS (which turned numerous domains vulnerable to SOME) were affected by SOME. Many were recently fixed (responsible disclosure details are mentioned below).

Paper, Demo and Slides from BlackHat

If you wish to invest your time in exploring the fascinating technical details in-depth, you are encourage to read my white-paper (mirror), or look at the updated Black-Hat presentation. The slides include a demonstration video of a SOME exploit - you can see how I used SOME to hijack Google cloud’s private photo and video albums. 

By the way, you can also find more details about the breach I am talking about in my previous blog post: Stealing private photo albums from Google

Attack Scenario:

To understand the SOME attack we first need to cover some general aspects, so bear with me:
  • Web browsers allow execution of a variety of methods without considering the given arguments, for example: form1.submit(“ignored”,”ignored”); will evaluate exactly as the following natural version: form1.submit(); will. Therefore, an external control over the prefix/padding before the parenthesis (as often given by many callback implementations) would be enough for hijacking dangerous web functionality regardless of the arguments.
  • In an environment with multiple windows and their respective  documents, redirecting any of the documents will re-enforce Same Origin Policy to restrict cross-site window documents’ DOM access. However, web browsers would not delete memory references to other window objects post-redirection. For instance, whenever a document opens a popup window, the browser will add a memory reference pointing to this document and save it as the window.opener property of the new window. Regardless of any redirections this reference would continue to work unless it is explicitly deleted or destroyed.
  • Most callbacks endpoints are designed to only allow a limited set of characters as a callback parameter value. This is commonly done by the following regex [a-zA-Z0-9_\.], or in other words, a char-set consisting of alphanumeric, a dot and an underscore. Let me add that crafting a SOME exploit requires only alphanumeric and a dot charset. 
  • Interaction between different browsing contexts is often applied via callback execution. For instance, Flash applets and/or other callback endpoints (e.g. OAuth dialogs) commonly execute a callback function to notify events to a different browsing context. As a result, in cases where this callback can be controlled via a HTTP parameter, an attacker would be able to control and replace the execution browsing context (e.g. by redirecting the opener window document). Analogically, the function/method that the interpreter executes could also be controlled by the attacker.

Same Origin Method Execution abuses the nature of user agents by forging a setup of windows/frames, in turn redirecting their documents. Using references created by this setup within a callback parameter will allow replacing the execution context with a targeted document and hijacking an existing web functionality within it.

Manipulating a Surface for Method Execution

Initial steps:
  1. Firstly, the attacker has to detect a vulnerable instance - either a plugin or a vulnerable callback endpoint document. A vulnerable instance is the one that leads the browser’s interpreter towards active execution of a function name supplied by a (callback) parameter value.
    Note: Instances that respond with passive mime types like application/json are not vulnerable when accessed directly. 
  2. In the second preparatory step the attacker has to choose a target webpage hosted on the same domain ( Aiming at hijacking a web functionality (e.g. object method, javascript function) of this target webpage, the attacker shall assemble a reference using DOM navigation or a direct reference pointing to it, for example: document.body.privateAlbum.firstChild.nextElementSibling.submit
Setting up the Exploit:
  1. For setting up SOME and creating the appropriate window references, one has to create an exploitation surface/environment by opening a new browsing context (WIN1).

  2. Once the environment is ready, the initiating page (MAIN) shall redirect its document to any desired target page on the endpoint’s domain (
  3. Following the redirection, the new browsing context (WIN1) shall wait for the targeted document’s DOM loading completion.
  4. Once ready, for hijacking a method execution, the new browsing context (WIN1) would redirect its document to the vulnerable instance set with an arbitrary callback parameter, for example:

Demo of designating the execution context for executing an alert:

@Main Page:
function startSOME() {"step1.html");
document.body.addEventListener("click",startSOME); //Popup Blocker trick


function waitForDOM() {

Mitigation and Fix
  1. Static Callbacks - Exploiting Same Origin Method Execution relies on abusing a callback parameter. Many web applications can actually maintain their same existing functionality without having to dynamically set callbacks. Thus, when applicable, websites should use fixed callback values as opposed to externalizing the callback control.
  2. White-list approach – In cases where the web application is designed for supporting more than a single callback per endpoint, or, alternatively, where maintaining a high flexibility is highly important (common in Flash plugins), it is better to set a white-list and match the given callback parameter value against it. This would enforce and verify that only legitimate callback functions can execute.UPDATE: I am working on a JavaScript defense library aiming to serve as a generic and easy to deploy solution.
  3. Cross-Domain Messaging – Use postMessage for notifying events and interacting to and from cross-domains as an alternative to javascript callback execution (if applicable).

Responsible Disclosure:

Oct 30, 2014: Google fixed a vulnerable instance – Google Plus.
Nov 06, 2014: Microsoft fixed a vulnerable instance – Yammer.
April 21, 2015: Wordpress fixed a vulnerable instance – Plupload.

(Kudos to @zoczus for finding yammer and plupload instances)

The issue of callback exploitation is known to a certain level in the infosec community, although until recently the attack did not catch enough attention. For that reason website owners, including the leading players, still rely on developers’ habits and experience. More importantly, no ‘best practice’ or standard was published as of now. Thus I chose to shed some light on Same Origin Method Execution and callback endpoints during the BlackHat conference. Several aspects of Same Origin Method Execution have been discovered by top researchers namely Google's Aleksandr Dobkin and LinkedIn's Roman Shafigullin. They both certainly deserve credit here.

It is noteworthy that Google Bug Bounty deemed this attack’s impact similar to that of cross-site scripting. 

Microsoft Bug Bounty deemed this attack’s impact similar to that of cross-site scripting.

Wordpress classified this attack like "XSS" in their critical security release (Apr. 2015 - WordPress 3.9-4.1.1 - Same-Origin Method Execution).

The Same Origin Method Execution attack can lead to ugly and critically severe consequences for its targeted victims. Keep in mind that the attack’s risk is considered as high as the risk of Cross-site scripting, rated the "third most risky attack" in OWASP top 10 project - that is A3 Cross-site scripting (XSS). To conclude, it is really important to abandon the misconception that a narrow set of characters somehow guarantees safety and security, of your web applications. Further, we should strive to raise the developers’ awareness of SOME.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Stealing Private Photo Albums from Google - Same Origin Method Execution

It has been a long time since I updated this blog since I focused on company blogs and Black Hat presentations for the last couple of years. It is time to kick in with details about the vulnerable Google instance I was demonstrating during my Black Hat EU presentation – Same Origin Method Execution. Using that instance and a payload of only alphanumeric characters and a dot I was able to hijack web functionality and thereby delete or steal private photo albums from Google Plus. A white paper is currently in review stages and will be released next week in my next post! 

Same Origin Policy and OAuth overview:

From time to time and for numerous reasons web applications interact with external third-party services. Some of these reasons may be importing information (e.g. import contact list), notifying events, getting delegated access to resources such providing a "Login with" systems and etc. 

Since an external service often (if not always) means a different security context, interacting with it will require overcoming Same Origin Policy (SOP). One of the most common interfaces for such third-party interaction these days is using OAuthentication dialogs. OAuth dialogs are hosted on third-party resource providers and are designed to ask the resource owner (the user) to allow/deny access from the website to the user's (resource owner) private resources. Once an answer is given the dialog will redirect (call) the user back to a callback page hosted on the website which asked for access, this page is called the “callback endpoint”. The purpose of the callback endpoint is to receive a token from the third-party and notify the requesting website. Although, since no best practice was created for building callback endpoints, the technique web developers use to save the token and notify the initiating page (call it back) is based entirely on developers’ habit and experience. Therefore many times callback endpoints end up prone to “Same Origin Method Execution”.

The vulnerable instance:

How many times have you noticed a "Login with", import contacts or friend lists from third-party service? 

As in many other websites Google Plus provides an option to import external contacts information from third-party resource providers such as Yahoo and Microsoft, Prior to the responsible disclosure the authorization process occurred as follows:

  1. Google Plus opened a pop-up for the OAuth dialog asking secure delegated access to the user’s external contact-list on Yahoo/Microsoft, to avoid losing the currently open document content.  
  2. After the user allows/denies the access, the dialog window document is redirected to a Google Plus callback endpoint consisting a callback URL parameter.
  3. The endpoint page uses the value provided by the parameter to notify the opener and deliver the access token (JSONP style).
Callback endpoint URL:[...snip...]
Accessing the callback endpoint URL directly responded with the following markup:

<html><body><script type="text/javascript">
window.opener.callback_function_name({"status":0,"token":"ItHumYWI[...snip..]","oauthstate":"1234","tokenid":"ToKeN1234","tokenexp":"0","gid":"401223423..","siteid":6,"displayname":"Ben Hayak","profileurl":""});

Is that Cross-site scripting?

Of course the first thing to try here was Cross-site Scripting, although fortunately ;) in similarity to most callback endpoint implementations only a specific set of characters were allowed as a callback value specifically alphanumeric a dot and underscore [A-Za-z0-9_\.]. We can however use tricks like document.write, eval, etc, though as aforementioned in the markup above no user controlled input got inside the parenthesis so XSS is out of the question.

“NULL means no!?”

When accessing the callback endpoint directly the window.opener property is null, so it appears that the instance is not vulnerable. However there is a technique to control the opener window. The first idea that came to mind was to create a bug chain, by finding another page in google plus that will force opening a window with an arbitrary URL and combine that with the callback endpoint. Although finding such a page is a little too rare and will weaken the attack.

Window Objects in memory:

So let’s try different approach, I wanted to entirely control a window and set its document to whatever page in Google Plus and then tell the Google Plus callback endpoint “This is your opener window deal with it”. That’s exactly what you can acheive in “Same Origin Method Execution” all you need is a page that opens another window and a set of redirection and you can designated any window as the opener and start hijacking methods! The key element that makes this a successful approach is the nature of user agents. When a window document is being redirected its window object remains at the original allocated memory space, therefore any other window/s that holds a reference to it as “opener” can still use the reference to access the opener window even after the document changed/redirected.

If window A opens window B, the user agent will create a reference to window A as window.opener property of window B, when window A’s document would change (redirect) the reference won’t be cleared/deleted and window B can still use the opener property to reference it.

So the answer is pretty clear, all there’s left is to make a malicious html that will open another window via “‘/step1.html’)” , then redirect the first window to a designated document on Google Plus, and redirected the pop-up window to the callback endpoint. This way you can set any page as the opener of the callback endpoint.

Stealing Private Photo Albums with SOME:

I covered how to control an opener and abuse a vulnerable callback endpoint to execute any DOM/Javascript function at the context of the opener window. All there’s left is to choose a page containing an interesting web functionality and use only alphanumeric and a dot to assemble a payload that will hijack this web functionality (Similar to the impact of CSRF but we don’t mind CSRFTokens or other protective mechanisms).

The target document I used:

Google Plus can automatically backup private cell photos to Google servers in case G+ is installed as a mobile application on your phone. Fortunately Google created a service called “Google Picker” which allows users to share their photos, videos and documents stored in Google servers with third-party websites.

Now that I've designated a target document (Google Picker) I setup the attack page as follows:
  1. Set a page that opens two pop-up windows to control their opener.
  2. Redirect the page to Google Plus instance of Picker.
  3. Wait for the DOM to complete loading.
  4. Redirect the first pop-up to the vulnerable callback endpoint with a callback parameter set to:
  5. Redirect the second pop-up to the vulnerable callback endpoint with a callback parameter set to: pickerApp.V.Fa.PA which made the service send all the selected photos to my own domain.
  6. Send the malicious setup to a chosen victim (In my case Google Bug bounty responsible disclosure :)
The exploit resulted in hijacking the following JavaScript functions:
  2. window.opener.pickerApp.V.Fa.PA({JSONDATA});

This flow could make any user send every single photo from his/her private album to my server.

BlackHat EU Video:

Additional use cases: 
I exploited the same instance to delete Google Plus timeline posts. 

Note: The issue is now fixed as it has been reported to Google bug bounty program.

Hope you enjoyed reading!