views:

98

answers:

3

One of the more powerful features of modern day browsers is the ability for software developers to write browser extensions to enhance, modify and tweak the pages visited by the user. As more of our lives migrate onto the browser, aren't we potentially exposing ourselves to a massive privacy and security holes created by the installation of a browser extension that is malicious in nature?

I realize the source code of these extensions is extractable and readable if the author has not made attempts to obfuscate the behavior. But the effectiveness of this type of review is compromised by the browser encouraging users to keep their extensions up to date. While version 1.0 of an extension may be innocuous, a users browser may suggest an upgrade to version 1.1 which could contain malicious code which could be used to scrape information from the screen of the compromised browser.

As both a user and developer of browser extensions, is the developer's reputation the only thing in place to provide assurances to their users that their browsing activity will be secure? Are there any mechanisms in place to help protect users from a compromised browser extension?

Are there any best-practices to develop extensions in a manner that provides users with the assurance that the code they install and update is benign in nature?

+2  A: 

Internet Explorer Browser Helper Objects are extremely unsafe. They basically allow the browser to run native code, which could be anything. I'm not sure if they're still as pervasive now as they were in years past, but they're one of the reasons why Internet Explorer is so much less secure than Firefox and other browsers.

Mozilla style plug-ins using XUL and Microsoft's Silverlight plug-ins are sandboxed to try and prevent malicious behavior. Ultimately it rests on the developer's reputation for any kind of software to be deemed trustworthy by its users, however. Even in cases where the developer is not trying to write malware, bugs in the program may expose security exploits.

Parappa
There is difference between Mozilla plug-in (eg. Flash, Java) and Mozilla extension (eg. Firebug, AdBlock).Extensions are not sandboxed.
el.pescado
+2  A: 

Browser extensions can do almost anything user can do. They can send your bank passwords, read files on local disk, execute commands etc. Security of a browser depends not only on browser itself, but also on all installed extensions.

el.pescado
This is always what keeps me from installing many types of extensions. There are some really great ones out there, but when I install extensions in Chrome (for example) and it says, "This extension can access all private data on every web page you visit" I stop and decide not to. Stinks because I'm also giving up a lot of functionality.
JasCav
A: 

Which is why you have multiple machines, and if you can't afford a new one, use a virtual machine to run most of the stuff and monitor it's behavior. Its what i do atleast before I do anything.

RnVja3Mgd2l0aCBtZSBmYW0hIGhpdCBtZSB1cCBhdCB0aGVib3NzODkwN0B5YWhv by5jb20gaWYgeW91IGhhdmUgYW55IHF1ZXN0aW9ucw==

Peter Neversoft