Just like so many other antivirus applications, BullGuard antivirus promises to protect you online. This protection consists of the three classic components: protection against malicious websites, marking of malicious search results and BullGuard Secure Browser for your special web surfing needs. As so often, this functionality comes with issues of its own, some being unusually obvious.
My tour through vulnerabilities in antivirus applications continues with Bitdefender. One thing shouldn’t go unmentioned: security-wise Bitdefender Antivirus is one of the best antivirus products I’ve seen so far, at least in the areas that I looked at. The browser extensions minimize attack surface, the crypto is sane and the Safepay web browser is only suggested for online banking where its use really makes sense. Also very unusual: despite jQuery being used occasionally, the developers are aware of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities and I only found one non-exploitable issue. And did I mention that reporting a vulnerability to them was a straightforward process, with immediate feedback and without any terms to be signed up front? So clearly security isn’t an afterthought which is sadly different for way too many competing products.
But they aren’t perfect of course, or I wouldn’t be writing this post. I found a combination of seemingly small weaknesses, each of them already familiar from other antivirus products. When used together, the effect was devastating: any website could execute arbitrary code on user’s system, with the privileges of the current user (CVE-2020-8102). Without any user interaction whatsoever. From any browser, regardless of what browser extensions were installed.
If you care about privacy, Signal messenger is currently the gold standard of how messenger services should be build. It provides strong end-to-end encryption, without requiring any effort on the user’s side. It gives users an easy way to validate connection integrity via another channel. Its source code is available for anybody to inspect, and it’s generally well-regarded by experts.
The strong commitment to privacy comes with some usability downsides. One particularly important one was the lack of a cloud backup – if you ever lost your phone, all your messages would be gone. The reason is obviously that it’s hard to secure this sensitive data on an untrusted server. That isn’t an issue that other apps care about, these will simply upload the data to their server unencrypted and require you to trust them. Signal is expected to do better, and they finally announced a secure way to implement this feature.
Their approach is based on something they call “secure value recovery” and relies on a PIN that is required to access data. As the PIN is only known to you, nobody else (including administrators of Signal infrastructure) should be able to access your data. This sounds great, in theory. But does that approach also work in practice?
It might not be immediately obvious but my blog is a collection of static pages, generated by Hugo static site generator and updated automatically whenever I push to the GitHub repository. Back when I started using it, I had to decide on a search solution. I ruled out a third-party service (because privacy) and a server-supported one (because security). Instead, I went with lunr.js which works entirely on the client side.
Now if you want to do the same, you better don’t waste your time on the solution currently proposed by the Hugo documentation. It relies on updating the search index manually using an external tool whenever you update the content. And that tool will often deduce page addresses incorrectly, only some Hugo configurations are supported.
Eventually I realized that Hugo is perfectly capable of generating a search index by itself. I recently contributed the necessary code to the MemE theme, so by using this theme you get search capability “for free.” But in case you don’t want to switch to a new theme right now, I’ll walk you through the necessary changes.
A few days ago I published a very technical article confirming that Xiaomi browsers collect a massive amount of private data. This fact was initially publicized in a Forbes article based on the research by Gabriel Cîrlig and Andrew Tierney. After initially dismissing the report as incorrect, Xiaomi has since updated their Mint and Mi Pro browsers to include an option to disable this tracking in incognito mode.
Is the problem solved now? Not really. There is now exactly one non-obvious setting combination where you can have your privacy with these browsers: “Incognito Mode” setting on, “Enhanced Incognito Mode” setting off. With these not being the default and the users not informed about the consequences, very few people will change to this configuration. So the browsers will continue spying on the majority of their user base.
In this article I want to provide a high-level overview of the data being exfiltrated here. TL;DR: Lots and lots of it.
In case you missed it, there was a Forbes article on Mi Browser Pro and Mint Browser which are preinstalled on Xiaomi phones. The article accuses Xiaomi of exfiltrating a history of all visited websites. Xiaomi on the other hand accuses Forbes of misrepresenting the facts. They claim that the data collection is following best practices, the data itself being aggregated and anonymized, without any connection to user’s identity.
TL;DR: It is really that bad, and even worse actually.
If you’ve been following my blog for a while, you might find this argumentation familiar. It’s almost identical to Avast’s communication after they were found spying on the users and browser vendors pulled their extensions from add-on stores. In the end I was given proof that their data anonymization attempts were only moderately successful if you allow me this understatement.
Given that neither the Forbes article nor the security researchers involved seem to provide any technical details, I wanted to take a look for myself. I decompiled Mint Browser 3.4.0 and looked for clues. This isn’t the latest version, just in case Xiaomi already modified to code in reaction to the Forbes article. Update (2020-05-08): If you don’t need the technical explanation, the newer article gives an overview of the issue.
Disclaimer: I think that this is the first time I analyzed a larger Android application, so please be patient with me. I might have misinterpreted one thing or another, even though the big picture seems to be clear. Also, my conclusions are based exclusively on code analysis, I’ve never seen this browser in action.
If you are reading this, you probably know already that you are supposed to use two-factor authentication for your most important accounts. This way you make sure that nobody can take over your account merely by guessing or stealing your password, which makes an account takeover far less likely. And what could be more important than your email account that everything else ties into? So you probably know, when Yahoo! greets you like this on login – it’s only for your own safety:
Yahoo! makes sure that “Remind me later” link is small and doesn’t look like an action, so it would seem that adding a phone number is the only way out here. And why would anybody oppose adding it anyway? But here is the thing: complying reduces the security of your account considerably. This is due to the way Verizon Media (the company which acquired Yahoo! and AOL a while ago) implements account recovery. And: yes, everything I say about Yahoo! also applies to AOL accounts.
For some time I thought that jQuery was a thing of the past, only being used in old projects for legacy reasons. I mean, there are now so much better frameworks, why would anyone stick with jQuery and its numerous shortcomings? Then some colleagues told me that they weren’t aware of jQuery’s security downsides. And I recently discovered two big vulnerabilities in antivirus software 1 2 which existed partly due to excessive use of jQuery. So here is your official public service announcement: jQuery is bad for the security of your project.
By that I don’t mean that jQuery is inherently insecure. You can build a secure project on top of jQuery, if you are sufficiently aware of the potential issues and take care. However, the framework doesn’t make it easy. It’s not secure by default, it rather invites programming practices which are insecure. You have to constantly keep that in mind and correct for it. And if don’t pay attention just once you will end up with a security vulnerability.
A while back I wrote about a bunch of vulnerabilities in McAfee WebAdvisor, a component of McAfee antivirus products which is also available as a stand-alone application. Part of the fix was adding a bunch of pages to the extension which were previously hosted on siteadvisor.com, generally a good move. However, when I looked closely I noticed a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in one of these pages (CVE-2019-3670).
Now an XSS vulnerability in a browser extension is usually very hard to exploit thanks to security mechanisms like Content Security Policy and sandboxing. These mechanisms were intact for McAfee WebAdvisor and I didn’t manage to circumvent them. Yet I still ended up with a proof of concept that demonstrated how attackers could gain local administrator privileges through this vulnerability, something that came as a huge surprise to me as well.
There has been a surprising development after my previous article on the topic, Avast having announced that they will terminate Jumpshot and stop selling users’ data. That’s not the end of the story however, with the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection starting an investigation into Avast’s practices. I’m very curious to see whether this investigation will confirm Avast’s claims that they were always fully compliant with the GDPR requirements. For my part, I now got a glimpse of what the Jumpshot data actually looks like. And I learned that I massively overestimated Avast’s success when anonymizing this data.
In reality, the data sold by Jumpshot contained plenty of user identifiers, names, email addresses, even home addresses. That’s partly due to Avast being incapable or unwilling to remove user-specific data as they planned to. Many issues are generic however and almost impossible to avoid. This once again underlines the central takeaway: anonymizing browser history data is very hard. That’s especially the case if you plan to sell it to advertisers. You can make data completely anonymous, but you will have to dumb it down so much in the process that advertisers won’t have any use for it any more.
Why did I decide to document Avast’s failure in so much detail? My goal is to spread appreciation for the task of data anonymization: it’s very hard to ensure that no conclusions about users’ identity are possible. So maybe whoever is toying with the idea of collecting anonymized data will better think twice whether they really want do go there. And maybe next time we see a vendor collecting data we’ll ask the right questions about how they ensure it’s a “completely anonymous” process.