Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That is some fine detective work there, Lieutenant! :) What tipped you off in the first place to the malware in User-Agent Switcher?



The odd post requests I noticed to uaswitcher.org in wireshark while I was trying to create a packet capture. I saw that it contained my browsing history urls in double encoded base64 format. Interestingly it appears the extension was infected ~4 years back, taken down, and somehow later re-added, only to be reinfested with malware within the last few months. Suffice to say, I am now paranoid and have audited all my extensions, tossed out everything with obfuscated js, and run all my extensions in developer mode so I can be sure they never update without my consent.


I don't use browser extensions at all because they are often made by unknown developers and I cannot trust them.


I always thought it was strange that Google bothered adding so many XSS prevention measures to Chrome when they also happily give UXSS abilities to extension developers, complete with the veneer of trust provided by the Chrome web store.


> veneer of trust provided by the Chrome web store

Seriously? Who trusts the Chrome store or the Android store for that matter? If you've ever once submitted an app and seen how loose the security is, I can't see how you'd have any faith in their system.


You're viscously agreeing here. "Veneer" means a very thin layer of pretty material on top of cheaper material -- in this context the comment was saying that the trust afforded to Google is skin-deep and is probably unjustified.


Ahh you're quite right. Apologies, not enough coffee yet.


and if an extension is not downright malignand, they are often slow.


> urls in double encoded base64 format

I've seen that somewhere else; is it just for obfuscation? Or is there some other reason for it?


From what I've seen online a lot of these adware extensions do something similar. To me it doesn't make sense as an obfuscation method since anyone capable of capturing traces of network activity (or using chrome dev tools to do the equivalent) can probably recognize a base64 encoding and can just run the decoder a second time.

Maybe it might fool some automated analyzers though.


I've definitely seen naive analyzers just do something like:

-Input string

-If string is Base64 encoded

--Run base64decode(string)

-Output new string

With no recursion for an iterated check of any sort of encoding.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: