The Firefox installer allows Firefox to be installed to a custom user writable location, leaving it unprotected from manipulation by unpriv…
The Firefox installer allows Firefox to be installed to a custom user writable location, leaving it unprotected from manipulation by unprivileged users or malware. If the Mozilla Maintenance Service is manipulated to update this unprotected location and the updated maintenance service in the unprotected location has been altered, the altered maintenance service can run with elevated privileges during the update process due to a lack of integrity checks. This allows for privilege escalation if the executable has been replaced locally. <br>*Note: This attack requires local system access and only affects Windows. Other operating systems are not affected.*. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 69, Firefox ESR < 60.9, and Firefox ESR < 68.1.
The product assigns the wrong ownership, or does not properly verify the ownership, of an object or resource.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/282.html →Open in CWE collection →The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/354.html →Open in CWE collection →An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/17.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files. When the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/35.html →Open in CAPEC collection →Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary spoofs a checksum message for the purpose of making a payload appear to have a valid corresponding checksum. Checksums are used to verify message integrity. They consist of some value based on the value of the message they are protecting. Hash codes are a common checksum mechanism. Both the sender and recipient are able to compute the checksum based on the contents of the message. If the message contents change between the sender and recipient, the sender and recipient will compute different checksum values. Since the sender's checksum value is transmitted with the message, the recipient would know that a modification occurred. In checksum spoofing an adversary modifies the message body and then modifies the corresponding checksum so that the recipient's checksum calculation will match the checksum (created by the adversary) in the message. This would prevent the recipient from realizing that a change occurred.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/145.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext. A target system that leaks this type of information becomes the padding oracle and an adversary is able to make use of that oracle to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key by issuing on average 128*b calls to the padding oracle (where b is the number of bytes in the ciphertext block). In addition to performing decryption, an adversary is also able to produce valid ciphertexts (i.e., perform encryption) by using the padding oracle, all without knowing the encryption key.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/463.html →Open in CAPEC collection →| Product | Vendor | Status |
|---|---|---|
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox | Tracked | |
| firefox-esr | Tracked | |
| mozjs38 | Tracked | |
| mozjs52 | Tracked | |
| mozjs52 | Tracked | |
| mozjs52 | Tracked | |
| mozjs52 | Tracked |