<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Oxymoronical &#187; security</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/tag/security/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com</link>
	<description>Spouting nonsense from the depths of my spare time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:58:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Add-on Security Restrictions Landed</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/09/Add-on-Security-Restrictions-Landed</link>
		<comments>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/09/Add-on-Security-Restrictions-Landed#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mossop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[addons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/09/Add-on-Security-Restrictions-Landed</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have just checked in Bug 378216, and wanted to give a quick heads up on it. What this means is that we are now enforcing a security restriction on all add-ons. To be specific, if an add-on does not provide a secure method of auto-updating then by default Firefox will refuse to install the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have just checked in <a title="Disable insecure extension updates by default" href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378216">Bug 378216</a>, and wanted to give a quick heads up on it.</p>
<p>What this means is that we are now enforcing a security restriction on all add-ons. To be specific, if an add-on does not provide a secure method of auto-updating then by default Firefox will refuse to install the add-on. If you have add-ons already installed that are insecure in this way then they will be automatically disabled.</p>
<p>The good news is that addons.mozilla.org already uses SSL for it&#8217;s updates, so any add-ons you have installed from there will be unaffected by this change. Equally any add-on authors who use SSL on their site, their add-ons will be unaffected. Personally I found 2 of my add-ons were disabled by it, that&#8217;s 2 out of nearly 20, so hopefully you won&#8217;t see a major impact.</p>
<p>For add-on authors there is an alternate way to provide secure updates without investing in an SSL key involving digital signatures, unfortunately we&#8217;ve had to hold off on providing the software to make that possible until the backend changes were complete and reviewed. I hope to have something usable available not too long after M8 is released. Keep an eye on this blog for an update on that.</p>
<p>If you want to see more of the specifics the best place to look is probably at the <a href="http://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mossop:Fx-Docs:AddonUpdateSecurity">wiki page</a>. This is all based around the discussions I started on various forums and newsgroups. Hopefully it&#8217;s not too much of a surprise to the add-on authors out there, if it is then I apologise, I tried to get the word out as best I could.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/09/Add-on-Security-Restrictions-Landed/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Practice what you Preach</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/08/Practice-what-you-Preach</link>
		<comments>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/08/Practice-what-you-Preach#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:47:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mossop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[extensions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[addons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hosting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/08/Practice-what-you-Preach</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the main parts of my work for Mozilla at the moment is about securing add-on updates. The spec is now pretty near complete and the implementation is also pretty much complete so hopefully we can start pushing out the necessary tools to add-on authors real soon then land the work shortly after. Of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the main parts of my work for Mozilla at the moment is about <a href="http://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mossop:Fx-Docs:AddonUpdateSecurity">securing add-on updates</a>. The spec is now pretty near complete and the implementation is also pretty much complete so hopefully we can start pushing out the necessary tools to add-on authors real soon then land the work shortly after.</p>
<p>Of course it wouldn&#8217;t be right for me to push this out without first making my own extensions comply with the new requirements. So today I am rolling out updates to all of them, mostly just changing the update url to an SSL one, though a couple of the extensions (<a href="/web/firefox/nightly">Nightly Tester Tools</a> and <a href="/web/firefox/FindBarRX">/Find Bar/</a>) have some additional updates.</p>
<p>Using SSL really will be the easiest way of hosting secure updates for your extensions and I urge you to use it. Assuming you have a sensible hosting package, adding SSL is really not as expensive as many expect. Godaddy offer SSL certificates for $18 per year (minimum of 2 years) and if you are like me and hosting open source extensions then you can get the <a href="https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/ssl/ssl_opensource.asp?ci=5988">first year for free</a> (though that seems to take a few weeks longer than if you pay). It&#8217;s also pretty simple to set up assuming you have a decent webhost, Dreamhost just has one form to fill in.</p>
<p>It turns out that the hardest part of getting SSL was fixing the bugs in my CMS since it&#8217;s current version had never been used in an SSL environment before <img src='http://www.oxymoronical.com/wp/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/08/Practice-what-you-Preach/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securing Add-on Updates</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/07/Securing-Add-on-Updates</link>
		<comments>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/07/Securing-Add-on-Updates#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mossop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[addons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extension manager]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/07/Securing-Add-on-Updates</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since the disclosure of potential vulnerabilities in the way Firefox (and other Mozilla applications) automatically update your add-ons we have been discussing how to tighten up the system in a way that is hopefully unnoticeable to users and not much extra work for add-on authors. After a process of listening to authors on the newsgroups, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the disclosure of potential vulnerabilities in the way Firefox (and other Mozilla applications) automatically update your add-ons we have been discussing how to tighten up the system in a way that is hopefully unnoticeable to users and not much extra work for add-on authors.</p>
<p>After a process of listening to authors on the newsgroups, forums and by email we now have a <a href="http://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mossop:Fx-Docs:AddonUpdateSecurity">rough proposal</a> of what changes we are looking to make. There&#8217;s still a few minor details to be ironed out of course. This is mainly of interest to add-on authors since there is an impact depending on how you host your updates. I&#8217;ve started threads on the <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.extensions/browse_frm/thread/a29f213e165d8267/93a7917b0c1e63c3">newsgroup</a> and <a href="http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2927908">forums</a> so if you want to discuss the proposal there then that&#8217;d be good. I&#8217;d prefer it if you didn&#8217;t edit the main page of the wiki but feel free to stick small comments onto the discussion page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/07/Securing-Add-on-Updates/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why would you want a decent password? It&#8217;s only money!</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/06/Why-would-you-want-a-decent-password-Its-only-money</link>
		<comments>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/06/Why-would-you-want-a-decent-password-Its-only-money#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mossop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idiots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/06/Why-would-you-want-a-decent-password-Its-only-money</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I guess it goes without saying that I&#8217;m fairly technically literate and as such I&#8217;m pretty well versed in both what makes a strong password and actually using them. I actually have a pair of passwords, one that I use for what I consider my more important logins (company accounts, servers and the like), and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess it goes without saying that I&#8217;m fairly technically literate and as such I&#8217;m pretty well versed in both what makes a strong password and actually using them. I actually have a pair of passwords, one that I use for what I consider my more important logins (company accounts, servers and the like), and another that is for lesser services that if I lost or it got hacked then it wouldn&#8217;t be a major compromise of anything.</p>
<p>Given this it&#8217;s always particularly disappointing when I find something that I really want to use a strong password for but can&#8217;t, because the service in question can&#8217;t handle how strong my password is.</p>
<p>Take my new bank account with <a href="http://www.lloydstsb.com/">Lloyds TSB</a>. The password for the internet banking is 6-15 characters, must contains letters and numbers, but cannot contain any spaces or anything non-alphanumeric. Bang goes about 4 characters from my strong password.</p>
<p>Lloyds aren&#8217;t alone either. I also have a savings account with <a href="http://www.citibank.co.uk/">Citibank</a>. To log in to their online banking I am not allowed to type in my password by hand, instead I must use an onscreen keyboard with my mouse. Now I&#8217;m not quite sure what this is meant to serve, all it does is enter the characters into a regular html input box, you know, easily readable from an add-on or other form of spyware. And even worse the keyboard gives me just 51 possible characters to choose. At least Lloyds let me use both upper and lower case!</p>
<p>Maybe all these places having quite different restrictions on what characters I can use in my password is a cunning ploy to make me use a different password everywhere, but I find it a little disturbing that I&#8217;m able to use a stronger password with my online pizza delivery place than with my bank accounts holding thousands of pounds of savings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2007/06/Why-would-you-want-a-decent-password-Its-only-money/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

