[codedokode]

Don't extensions have their own DOM (like they have in Chrome)? Why would anyone run Angular on a browser page? It would probably conflict with existing application.

It looks like Firefox extension architecture has design problems.

And I don't like the presentation. One could think that Angular is vulnerable which is not true. The vulnerability appears when it is used in a wrong way in a browser extension.

[AgentME]

This is an issue with extensions that run code on webpage DOM. It's very popular for extensions to modify webpages. Chrome supports extensions like this too. I might even guess that more than half of extensions do this.

>Why would anyone run Angular on a browser page? It would probably conflict with existing application.

Adding additional widgets or tools directly within an existing webpage is a common thing for extensions to do. And if you're adding a lot of UI, you might want to use an existing UI library like you would on a normal webpage instead of doing all the DOM by hand. Not all UI libraries work out well for this apparently.

[bzbarsky]

> Don't extensions have their own DOM

They can. They can also manipulate the page DOM.

> Why would anyone run Angular on a browser page?

Because you want to manipulate its DOM and Angular is what you're familiar with?

> It would probably conflict with existing application

Note that it would operate on the same _DOM_ but not in the same scripting environment. That is, if you have a DOM element "foo" that comes from the web page, then doing:

  foo.somePropNameIMadeUp = 5;

will set a property that is not visible to the web page, while doing:

  foo.setAttribute("id", "myId");

or:

  foo.id = "myId";

will modify the DOM in a way the web page can see.

[mi_g]

Thanks Boris, this makes more sense.

So the risk is that an add-on would inject angular 1.x into an external web site, this web site being malicious, it modifies its own DOM, so that angular would eval expressions from this DOM within the scripting environment running at a higher privilege.

What if the malicious web site does something like <script src="resource://dumb-addon/angular.min.js"></script> ? On Firefox, i verified this loads angular into the web site, but what about the privilege level ? Will it be the original one from the page or higher ?

As a side note, doing the Chrome equivalent <script src="chrome-extension://dumb-addon/angular.min.js"></script>, the loading fails with an exception saying "chrome-extension://" is not an allowed source.

In my extension, i modified the angular.min.js file to insert this as the first line:

(typeof window!=="undefined" && window.location && window.location.href && window.location.href.startsWith("resource://my-extension/")) || (function() { throw "Library loading not allowed" })();

Basically, it throws an exception if the library is not loaded from a local "resource://" page (hopefully considered as safe since it is part of the add-on code). I verified this prevented loading angular using the <script src="resource://..."> trick or if angular was inadvertently injected using a Firefox frame-script (nsIFrameScriptLoader.loadFrameScript) and add-on sdk/page-mod or sdk/content/worker modules.

Can we consider it is safe to use angular 1.x only from local add-on panels to run the user interface ?

[bzbarsky]

> What if the malicious web site does something like <script src

That will run with the website's privileges. Just like site A loading a script from site B will run it with site A's privileges.

> the loading fails with an exception saying "chrome-extension://" is not an allowed source.

Chrome extensions (and webextensions) have a way to flag particular files as "web-exposed". Ones that are not can't be loaded via the web.

Firefox has something similar for chrome:// URIs in non-webextensions, but resource:// allows loads from the web in certain contexts, which include <script> elements.

> Can we consider it is safe to use angular 1.x only from local add-on panels to run the user interface ?

I don't know the details of what the security issues reported on angular 1.x are, so I can't claim that it's safe or not safe. But at first blush, as long as angular is only interacting with the addon's own DOM, and the addon DOM never injects any text from a page DOM into itself, it _seems_ like it should be safe.

[thesmallestcat]

The presentation is fantastic. It proves beyond a doubt that Angular is vulnerable in the context that it claims to offer a security feature that is manifestly insecure. And I mean, they're evaling JS code in the template engine, this shouldn't be a surprise. To be clear, Angular from its inception claimed to offer "safe" templating. So this is a big deal.

[mordocai]

Browser extensions in all browsers typically do things to the web page DOM for various reasons. I don't know how the technical details work since I've never written one, but chrome addons can certainly change things about the web page DOM.