User:Tritter/Working/Client Security Severity Ratings: Difference between revisions
(add csectype-jit) |
(The most severe or persistent types of DoS attacks, such as ones that require re-installing Firefox or can write unbounded storage to disk) |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
* Detection of arbitrary local files | * Detection of arbitrary local files | ||
* Launching of arbitrary local application without arguments | * Launching of arbitrary local application without arguments | ||
* | * The most severe or persistent types of DoS attacks, such as ones that require re-installing Firefox or can write unbounded storage to disk | ||
|} | |} | ||
;'''sec-low''': Low severity represents vulnerabilities that clearly have security implications, but typically are unexploitable, very limited in scope, or require excessive time or processing to exploit. | ;'''sec-low''': Low severity represents vulnerabilities that clearly have security implications, but typically are unexploitable, very limited in scope, or require excessive time or processing to exploit. |
Revision as of 14:56, 20 February 2020
The page pertains specifically to Client Applications: the Firefox web browser and mobile applications. For severity ratings for Mozilla Servers and Web Properties, see this corresponding page. For details about the bug bounty for the Firefox browser, and specific other applications, see [this page]. For details about the bug bounty for Mozilla Servers and Web Properties, see [this page].
Severity Ratings
Severity ratings are used to indicate how severe we beleive a bug is, and help provide guidance for its urgency and priority. Generally, we ask that they only be assigned by those with experience evaluating vulnerabilities in coordination with the security team. Presently we meet weekly to triage unclassified bugs.
Severity Ratings & Examples | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following items are keywords for the severity of an issue.
If there are mitigating circumstances that severely constrain the vulnerability, then the issue could be reduced by one level of severity. Examples of mitigating circumstances include difficulty in reproducing due to very specific timing or load order requirements, a complex or unusual set of actions the user would have to take beyond normal browsing behaviors, or an unusual software configuration not provided by our Preferences page. As a rough guide, to be considered for reduction in severity, the vulnerability should be exploitable less than 10% of the time. If in the future, default software configurations change or techniques are developed to improve the reliability of the exploit it should be elevated back to the original rating. |
Additional Status Codes, Whiteboard Tracking Tags & Flags
If a potential security issue has not yet been assigned a severity rating, or a rating is not appropriate, the keywords may instead contain one of the following security status codes.
Alternate Keywords
Often none of the above severity ratings apply to a bug, because it is not a vulnerability but nonetheless is security sensitive and needs to be kept private. These keywords apply to those.
While we request that only the security team assign sec-high and similar ratings, we encourage you tag things sec-want and sec-audit if you feel it applies.
Alternate Keywords & Examples | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A historical keyword is sec-incident, which is no longer used.
csectype- Keywords
csectype- keywords are assigned to bugs to indicate the type of a vulnerability. Ideally these would be assigned to every vulnerability, but frequently they are not. While we request that only the security team assign sec-high and similar ratings, if you feel you can identify the type of a security bug we encourage you to classify it yourself.
Code | Description |
---|---|
csectype-bounds | client security issues due to incorrect boundary conditions (read or write) |
csectype-disclosure | Disclosure of sensitive user data, personal information, etc in a client product. |
csectype-dos | Used to tag client Denial of Service bugs. For web server denial of service bugs please use wsec-dos as these tend to be more severe. |
csectype-intoverflow | client security issues due to integer overflow |
csectype-jit | client security issues due to jit miscompilation or similar |
csectype-oom | A client crash or hang that occurs in Out Of Memory conditions |
csectype-other | client security issues that don't fit into other categories |
csectype-priv-escalation | client privilege escalation security issues |
csectype-sop | violations of the client Same Origin Policy (Universal-XSS bugs, for example). |
csectype-uaf | client security issues due to a use-after-free |
csectype-ui-redress | client security issues due to UI Redress attacks, either site-on-site ("clickjacking" and friends) or manipulation of the browser UI to fool users into taking the wrong action. |
csectype-undefined | Bugs--or potential bugs--due to undefined compiler behavior. |
csectype-uninitialized | client security issues due to use of uninitialized memory |
csectype-wildptr | client security issues due to pointer misuse not otherwise covered (see csectype-uaf, csectype-uninitialized, csectype-intoverflow, csectype-bounds) |
Whiteboard Tags
Code | Description |
---|---|
[bad-ram?] | This indicates crashes identified that have no apparant cause and fit the profile of potential bit-flips caused by bad memory. |
[pixel-stealing] | This indicates vulnerabilities related to side-channel attacks on cross-origin resources. |
[fingerprinting] | This indicates user privacy concerns relating to fingerprinting, or web breakage detected from fingerprinting defenses. |
Flags
Flag | Description | Settings | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sec-bounty | Shows the status of a bug with regards to a bounty payout per our bounty guidlines |
| ||||||||
sec-bounty-hof | Shows the status of a bug with regards to a bounty hall of fame entry |
|