With the important 2.0 milestone I decided to give my Easy Passwords project a more meaningful name. So now it is called PfP: Pain-free Passwords and even has its own website. And that’s the only thing most people will notice, because the most important changes in this release are well-hidden: the crypto powering the extension got an important upgrade. First of all, the PBKDF2 algorithm for generating passwords was dumped in favor of scrypt which is more resistant to brute-force attacks. Also, all metadata written by PfP as well as backups are encrypted now, so that they won’t even leak information about the websites used. Both changes required much consideration and took a while to implement, but now I am way more confident about the crypto than I was back when Easy Passwords 1.0 was released. Finally, there is now an online version compiled from the same source code as the extensions and having mostly the same functionality (yes, usability isn’t really great yet, the user interface wasn’t meant for this use case).

Once upon a time, Google dared to experiment with HTTPS encryption for their search instead of allowing all search data to go unencrypted through the wire. For this experiment, they created a new subdomain: encrypted.google.com was the address where your could get some extra privacy. What some people apparently didn’t notice: the experiment was successful, and Google rolled out HTTPS encryption to all of their domains. I don’t know why encrypted.google.com is still around, but there doesn’t seem to be anything special about it any more. Which doesn’t stop some people from imagining that there is.

This server was overdue for a migration to new hardware, and I used this opportunity to make its setup reproducible by basing it on Docker containers. This allowed me to test things locally, setting everything up on the real server was only a matter of one hour then. Some issues I didn’t recognize locally however, most importantly Docker’s weird IPv6 support. Everything worked just fine when the server was accessed via IPv4, accessing it via an IPv6 address caused connections to hang however. I hit this issue with Docker 1.13.1 originally, updating to Docker 17.12 didn’t change anything. Figuring this out took me quite a while, so I want to sum up my findings here.

After twelve years of working on Adblock Plus, the time seems right for me to take a break. The project’s dependence on me has been on the decline for quite a while already. Six years ago we founded eyeo, a company that would put the former hobby project on a more solid foundation. Two years ago Felix Dahlke took over the CTO role from me. And a little more than a month ago we launched the new Adblock Plus 3.0 for Firefox based on the Web Extensions framework. As damaging as this move inevitably was for our extension’s quality and reputation, it had a positive side effect: our original Adblock Plus for Firefox codebase is now legacy code, not to be worked on. Consequently, my Firefox expertise is barely required any more; this was one of the last areas where replacing me would have been problematic.

Recently, I reported a security issue in the new Firefox Screenshots feature (fixed in Firefox 56). This issue is remarkable for a number of reasons. First of all, the vulnerable code was running within the Web Extensions sandbox, meaning that it didn’t have full privileges like regular Firefox code. This code was also well-designed, with security aspects taken into consideration. In fact, what I found were multiple minor flaws, each of them pretty harmless. And yet, in combination these flaws were sufficient for Mozilla to assign security impact “high” to my bug report (only barely, but still). Finally, I think that these flaws only existed due to shortcomings of the Web Extensions platform, something that should be a concern given that most extensions based on it are not well-designed.

I’ve been increasingly using Bugcrowd lately, a platform that manages security bug bounty programs for its clients and allows security researchers to contribute to a number of such programs easily. Previously, I’ve mostly reported security issues in Mozilla and Google products. Both companies manage their bug bounty programs themselves and are very invested in security, so Bugcrowd came as a considerable culture shock.

First of all, it appears that many companies consider bug bounty programs an alternative to building solid in-house security expertise. They will patch whatever bugs are reported, but they don’t seem to draw any conclusions about the deficiencies in their security architecture. Eventually, even the most insecure application will have enough patches applied that finding new issues takes too much effort for the monetary rewards offered. At that point, almost no new reports will be coming in and for the management it’s “mission accomplished” I guess. Sadly, with security being an afterthought the product remains inherently insecure, even the smallest change could potentially open new security holes.

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote a blog post explaining how permission prompts are a particularly problematic area for a functioning extension ecosystem. While at this point it was already clear that Firefox would show some kind of permission prompt, I hoped that Mozilla would put more thought into it than Chrome did. Unfortunately, this didn’t quite happen. In fact, as I now experienced, the permission prompt in Firefox turned out significantly worse than the one in Chrome.

I’ve finally released Easy Passwords as a Web Extension (not yet through AMO review at the time of writing), so that it can continue working after Firefox 57. To be precise, this is an intermediate step, a hybrid extension meant to migrate data out of the Add-on SDK into the Web Extension part. But all the functionality is in the Web Extension part already, and the data migration part is tiny. Why did it take me so long? After all, Easy Passwords was created when Mozilla’s Web Extensions plan was already announced. So I was designing the extension with Web Extensions in mind, which is why it could be converted without any functionality changes now. Also, Easy Passwords has been available for Chrome for a while already.

Emscripten allows compiling C++ code to JavaScript. It is an interesting approach allowing porting large applications (games) and libraries (crypto) to the web relatively easily. It also promises better performance and memory usage for some scenarios (something we are currently looking into for Adblock Plus core). These beneficial effects largely stem from the fact that the “memory” Emscripten-compiled applications work with is a large uniform typed array. The side-effect is that buffer overflows, use-after-free bugs and similar memory corruption mistakes are introduced to JavaScript that was previously safe from them. But are these really security-relevant?

This announcement by the Princeton University is making its rounds in the media right now. What the media seems to be most interested in is their promise of ad blocking that websites cannot possibly detect, because the website can only access a fake copy of the page structures where all ads appear to be visible. The browser on the other hand would work with the real page structures where ads are hidden. This isn’t something the Princeton researchers implemented yet, but they could have, right?