XSS Vulnerabilities in Google.com found!

[deadly7]

First off, I DID read this.

//=====================>> Security Advisory <<=====================//

---------------------------------------------------------------------
XSS vulnerabilities in Google.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--[ Author: Yair Amit , Watchfire Corporation http://www.watchfire.com
--[ Discovery Date: 15/11/2005
--[ Initial Vendor Response: 15/11/2005
--[ Issue solved: 01/12/2005
--[ Website: www.google.com
--[ Severity: High

--[ Summary

Two XSS vulnerabilities were identified in the Google.com website,
which allow an attacker to impersonate legitimate members of Google's
services or to mount a phishing attack.
Although Google uses common XSS countermeasures, a successful attack
is possible, when using UTF-7 encoded payloads.

--[ Background

Google's URL redirection script
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The script (http://www.google.com/url?q=...) is normally used for
redirecting the browser from Google's website to other sites.

For example, the following request will redirect the browser
to http://www.watchfire.com :
       - http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.watchfire.com

When the parameter (q) is passed to the script with illegal format
(The format seems to be: http://domain), a "403 Forbidden" page
returns to the user, informing that the query was illegal.
The parameter's value appears in the html returned to the user.

If http://www.google.com/url?q=USER_INPUT is requested, the text in
the "403 Forbidden" response would be:
       - "Your client does not have permission to get URL
       /url?q=USER_INPUT from this server."

The server response lacks charset encoding enforcement, such as:
* Response headers: "Content-Type: text/html; charset=[encoding]".
* Response body: "<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" (...)
charset=[encoding]/>".

Google's 404 NOT FOUND mechanism
---------------------------------------------------------------------

When requesting a page which doesn't exist under www.google.com, a
404 NOT FOUND response is returned to the user, with the original
path requested.

If http://www.google.com/NOTFOUND is requested, the following text
appears in the response:
"Not Found
The requested URL /NOTFOUND was not found on this server."

The server response lacks charset encoding enforcement, such as:
* Response headers: "Content-Type: text/html; charset=[encoding]".
* Response body: "<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" (...)
charset=[encoding]/>".

--[ XSS vulnerabilities

While the aforementioned mechanisms (URL redirection script,
404 NOT FOUND) escape common characters used for XSS, such as <>
(triangular parenthesis) and apostrophes, it fails to handle
hazardous UTF-7 encoded payloads.

Therefore, when sending an XSS attack payload, encoded in UTF-7, the
payload will return in the response without being altered.

For the attack to succeed (script execution), the victim's browser
should treat the XSS payload as UTF-7.

--[ IE charset encoding Auto-Selection

If 'Encoding' is set to 'Auto-Select', and Internet-Explorer finds a
UTF-7 string in the first 4096 characters of the response's body,
it will set the charset encoding to UTF-7 automatically, unless a
certain charset encoding is already enforced.

This automatic encoding selection feature makes it possible to mount
UTF-7 XSS attacks on Google.com.

--[ Solution

Google solved the aforementioned issues at 01/12/2005, by using
character encoding enforcement.

--[ Acknowledgement

The author would like to commend the Google Security Team for their
cooperation and communication regarding this vulnerability.

[iago]

Yet another thing that websites have to do to protect IE users, eh?  How annoying.

[Newby]

Google solved the aforementioned issues at 01/12/2005, by using
character encoding enforcement.

[iago]

Google solved the aforementioned issues at 01/12/2005, by using
character encoding enforcement.

That means it can happen to other sites.  And if I'm not mistaken, it only affects Internet Explorer.  So yeah, it's like I said..