Below my post about Chrome's sandbox I engaged in a discussion with AlienRancher regarding the function hooking (or 'interception' as Google calls it) really being a security mechanism. I must confess that I really thought it was, and I even liked the idea. But in fact it came out that function hooking is for compatibility purposes only. If a plugin has trouble running in a restricted environment due to problems with limited access to some keys/files, the hooking mechanism can transfer the calls to the browser, and they will be done with browser privileges (of course if a certain rule allows it).
It means that my hook taking off PoC was still OK, but not really needed for anything ;>
Sorry for misinterpreting the whole hooking mechanism then ;>
Links / Blogs
- → dragonsector.pl
- → vexillium.org
- Security/Hacking:
- Reverse Eng./Low-Level:
- Programming/Code:
Posts
- Seventh Inferno vulnerability (some NETGEAR smart switches),
- Draconian Fear vulnerability (some NETGEAR smart switches),
- Demon's Cries vulnerability (some NETGEAR smart switches),
- Making numbers out of thin air, Python bytecode edition,
- ClickMeeting minor privacy weakness (fixed),
- popen+cat explained,
- Gears of Chaos vulnerability chain (NETGEAR WAC104 access point),
- WAC104 vulnerabilities - please go patch (details on Monday),
- FAQ: Difference between vulnerability, exploit and CVE,
- Feral Terror vulnerability (some NETGEAR smart switches) [UPDATED 3],
- → see all posts on main page
Add a comment: