Is hacking the DOM really hacking?
By Strictly-Software
The nature of the modern web browser is that it's a client side tool.Web pages that are stored on web-servers when viewed in Chrome or FireFox are downloaded file by file (CSS, JavaScript, HTML, Images etc), and stored temporarily on your computer whilst your browser application puts them together so you can view the webpage.
This is where your "browser cache" comes from. It is good to have commonly downloaded files such as the jQuery script or common images from frequently visited pages in your cache but when this folder gets too big it can become slow to traverse and load from. This is why a regular clean out is recommended by a lot of computer performance tools.
So because of this putting any kind of security on the client side is pointless as anyone with a small working knowledge of Internet technology can bypass it. I don't want to link to a certain site in particular but it appeared as a google advert on my site the other day claiming to protect your whole website from theft, including your HTML source code.
However if you have a spare 30 minutes on your hands, have Firebug installed (or any modern browser that allows you to visit and edit the DOM) and did a search for "code to protect HTML" you would be able to bypass the majority of the sites wonderful security claims with ease.
Examples of such attempts to use client side code to protect code or content include:
1. Trying to protect the HTML source code from being viewed or stolen.
This will include the original right mouse click event blocker.
This was used in the old days in the vain hope that people didn't realise that they could just go to Tools > View Source instead of using the context menu which is opened with a right click on your mouse.
The other option was just to save the whole web page from the File menu.
However you can now just view the whole generated source with most developer tools e.g Firebug - or hitting F12 in Chrome.
Some sites will also generate their whole HTML source code with Javascript code in the first place.
Not only is this really really bad for SEO but it is easily bypassed.
A lot of these tools pack, encode and obfuscate it on the way. The code is then run through a function to evaluate it and write it to the DOM.
It's such a shame that this can all be viewed without much effort once the page loads in the DOM. Just open your browsers Developer Toolbar and view the Generated Source and hey presto the outputted HTML is there.
Plus there are many tools that let you run your scripts on any page e.g someone at work the other day didn't like the way news sites like the BBC always showed large monetary numbers as £10BN and added a regular expression into one of these tools to automatically change all occurrences to £10,000,000,000 as he thought the number looked bigger and more correct. Stupid example I know but it shows that with tools like Fiddler etc that you can control the browser output.
2. Using special classes to prevent users from selecting content.
This is commonly used on music lyric sites to prevent people copying and pasting the lyrics straight off the page by selecting the content and using the copy button.
Shame that if you can modify the DOM on the fly you can just find the class in question with the inspect tool, blank it out and negate it's affect.
This is commonly used on music lyric sites to prevent people copying and pasting the lyrics straight off the page by selecting the content and using the copy button.
Shame that if you can modify the DOM on the fly you can just find the class in question with the inspect tool, blank it out and negate it's affect.
3. Multimedia sites that show content from TV shows that will remain unnamed but only allow users from the USA to view them.
Using a proxy server sometimes works but for those flash loaded videos that don't play through a proxy you can use YSlow to find the base URI that the movie is loaded from and just load that up directly.
To be honest I think these companies have got wise to the fact that people will try this as they now insert location specific adverts into the movies which they never used to do. However it's still better than moving to the states!
Using a proxy server sometimes works but for those flash loaded videos that don't play through a proxy you can use YSlow to find the base URI that the movie is loaded from and just load that up directly.
To be honest I think these companies have got wise to the fact that people will try this as they now insert location specific adverts into the movies which they never used to do. However it's still better than moving to the states!
4. Sites that pack and obfuscate their Javascript in the hope of preventing users from stealing their code.
Obviously minification is good practise for reducing file size but if you want to unpack some JavaScript then you have a couple of options and there maybe some valid reasons other than just wanting to see the code being run e.g preventing XSS attacks.
Option 1 is to use my script unpacker form which lets you paste the packed code into a textarea, hit a button and then view the unpacked version in another textarea for you to copy out and use. It will also decode any encoded characters as well as well as formatting the code and handling code that has been packed multiple times.
If you don't want to use my wonderful form and I have no idea why you wouldn't then Firefox comes to the rescue again. Copy the packed code, open the Javascript error console and paste the code into the input box at the top with the following added to the start of it:
Obviously minification is good practise for reducing file size but if you want to unpack some JavaScript then you have a couple of options and there maybe some valid reasons other than just wanting to see the code being run e.g preventing XSS attacks.
Option 1 is to use my script unpacker form which lets you paste the packed code into a textarea, hit a button and then view the unpacked version in another textarea for you to copy out and use. It will also decode any encoded characters as well as well as formatting the code and handling code that has been packed multiple times.
If you don't want to use my wonderful form and I have no idea why you wouldn't then Firefox comes to the rescue again. Copy the packed code, open the Javascript error console and paste the code into the input box at the top with the following added to the start of it:
//add to the beginning eval=alert;
eval=alert;eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=String;if(!''.replace(/^/,String)){while(c--)r[c]=k[c]||c;k=[function(e){return r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('3(0,1){4(0===1){2("5 6")}7{2("8 9")}',10,10,'myvar1|myvar2|alert|function|if|well|done|else|not|bad'.split('|'),0,{}))
// unpacked returns
function(myvar1,myvar2){if(myvar1===myvar2){alert("well done")}else{alert("not bad")}
Then hit evaluate and the unpacked code will open in an alert box which you can then copy from.
What the code is doing is changing the meaning of the function eval to alert so that when the packed code runs within its eval statement instead of executing the evaluated code it will show it in the alert message box.
What the code is doing is changing the meaning of the function eval to alert so that when the packed code runs within its eval statement instead of executing the evaluated code it will show it in the alert message box.
There are many more techniques which I won't go in to but the question then is why do people do it?
Well the main reason is that people spend a lot of time creating websites and they don't want some clever script kiddy or professional site ripper to come along steal their content and use it without permission.
People will also include whole sites nowadays within frames on their own sites or just rip the whole thing CSS, images, scripts and everything else with a click of a button. There are too many available tools to count and a lot of phishing sites will copy a banks layout but then change the functionality so that it records your account login details.
I have personally seen 2 sites now that I have either worked on or know the person who did the work appear up on the net under a different URL with the same design, images, JS code, all the same apart from the wording was in Chinese .
The problem is that every modern browser now has a developer tool set like Firebug, Chrome or Internet Explorers developer toolbar. For older browsers there are Operas dragonfly and even Firebug-lite which replicates Firebug functionality for those of you wanting to use it on older browsers like IE 6.
Therefore with all these built in tools to override client side security techniques it seems pretty pointless trying to put any sort of security into your site on the client side.
Even if you didn't want to be malicious and steal or inject anything you can still modify the DOM, run your own Javascript, change the CSS and remove x y and z.
Therefore with all these built in tools to override client side security techniques it seems pretty pointless trying to put any sort of security into your site on the client side.
Even if you didn't want to be malicious and steal or inject anything you can still modify the DOM, run your own Javascript, change the CSS and remove x y and z.
All security measures related to user input should be handled on the server to prevent SQL injection and XSS hacks but that's not to say that duplicating validation checks on the client isn't a good idea.
For one thing it saves time if you can inform a user that they have inputted something incorrectly before the page is submitted.
No one likes to fill in a long form submit it and wait whilst the slow network connection and bogged down server takes too long to respond only to show another page that says one of the following:
For one thing it saves time if you can inform a user that they have inputted something incorrectly before the page is submitted.
No one likes to fill in a long form submit it and wait whilst the slow network connection and bogged down server takes too long to respond only to show another page that says one of the following:
- That user name is already in use please choose another one.
- Your email confirmation does not match.
- Your password is too short.
- You did not complete blah or blah.
Things like this should be done client side if possible, using Ajax for checks that need database look ups such as user name availability tests. Using JavaScript to test whether the user has JavaScript enabled is a good technique for deciding whether to rely purely on server side validation or to load in functions that allow for client side validation if possible.
However client side code that is purely there to prevent content from being accessed without consent seems pointless in the age of any modern browser.
Obviously there is a large percentage of web users out there that wouldn't know the first thing to do when it comes to bypassing client side security code and the blocking of the right click context menu would seem like black magic to them.
Unfortunately for the people who are still wanting to protect their client side code the people that do want to steal the content will have the skills to bypass all your client side cleverness.
It may impress your boss and seem worth the $50 for about 10 minutes until someone shows you how you can add your own Javascript to a page to override any functions already there for blocking events and checking for iframe positioning.
Obviously there is a large percentage of web users out there that wouldn't know the first thing to do when it comes to bypassing client side security code and the blocking of the right click context menu would seem like black magic to them.
Unfortunately for the people who are still wanting to protect their client side code the people that do want to steal the content will have the skills to bypass all your client side cleverness.
It may impress your boss and seem worth the $50 for about 10 minutes until someone shows you how you can add your own Javascript to a page to override any functions already there for blocking events and checking for iframe positioning.
My only question would be is it really hacking to modify the DOM to access or bypass certain features meant to keep the content on that page?
I don't know what other people think about this but I would say no its not.
The HTML, images, JavaScript and CSS are ALL on my computer at the point of me viewing them on whatever browser I am using. Therefore unless I am trying to change or inject anything into the web or database server to affect future site visitors or trying to bypass challenge responses then I am not really hacking the site just modifying the DOM.
I don't know what other people think about this but I would say no its not.
The HTML, images, JavaScript and CSS are ALL on my computer at the point of me viewing them on whatever browser I am using. Therefore unless I am trying to change or inject anything into the web or database server to affect future site visitors or trying to bypass challenge responses then I am not really hacking the site just modifying the DOM.
I'd be interested to know what others think about that question?
By Strictly-Software
© 2015 Strictly-Software
By Strictly-Software
© 2015 Strictly-Software
Posts
