I have written a Firefox extension that catches when a particular URL is entered and does some stuff. My main app launches Firefox with this URL. The URL contains sensitive information so I don't want it being stored in the history.
I'm concerned about the case where the extension is not installed. If its not installed and Firefox gets launched with the sensitive URL, it will get stored in history and there's nothing I can do about it. So my idea is to use a bookmarklet.
I will launch Firefox with "javascript:window.location.href='pleaseinstallthisplugin.html'; sensitiveinfo='blahblah'".
If the extension is not installed they will get redirected to a page that tells them to install it and the sensitive info won't get stored in the history. If the extension IS installed it will grab the information in the sensitiveinfo variable and do its thing.
My question is, can the bookmarklet call a method in the extension to pass the sensitive info (and if so, how) or can the extension catch when javascript is being called in the bookmarklet?
How can a bookmarklet and Firefox extension communicate?
p.s. The alternative means of getting around this situation would be for my main app to launch Firefox and communicate with the extension using sockets but I am loath to do that because I've run into too many issues over the years with users with crazy firewalls blocking socket communication. I'd like to do everything without sockets if possible.
As far as I know, bookmarklets can never access chrome files (extensions).
Bookmarklets are executed in the scope of the current document, which is almost always a content document. However, if you are passing it in via the command line, it seems to work:
/Applications/Namoroka.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin javascript:alert\(Components\)
Accessing Components would throw if it was not allowed, but the alert displays the proper object.
You could use unsafeWindow to inject a global. You can add a mere property so that your bookmarklet only needs to detect whether the global is defined or not, but you should know that, as far as I know, there is no way to prohibit sites in a non-bookmarklet context from also sniffing for this same global (since it may be a privacy concern to some that sites can detect whether they are using the extension). I have confirmed in my own add-on which injects a global in a manner similar to that below that it does work in a bookmarklet as well as regular site context.
If you register an nsIObserver, e.g., where content-document-global-created is the topic, and then unwrap the subject, you can inject your global (see this if you need to inject something more sophisticated like an object with methods).
Here is some (untested) code which should do the trick:
var observerService = Cc['#mozilla.org/observer-service;1'].getService(Ci.nsIObserverService);
observerService.addObserver({observe: function (subject, topic, data) {
var unsafeWindow = XPCNativeWrapper.unwrap(subject);
unsafeWindow.myGlobal = true;
}}, 'content-document-global-created', false);
See this and this if you want an apparently easier way in an SDK add-on (not sure whether SDK postMessage communication would work as an alternative but with the apparently same concern that this would be exposed to non-bookmarklet contexts (i.e., regular websites) as well).
Related
I'm trying to write a Firefox extension which hooks into WebAudio and adds a 'master-gain' to all AudioContexts.
I am trying to do this by overriding the AudioContext constructor in the window namespace. This way I can return a GainNode (which is internally connected to the destination) when the user tries to access destination. It's a hack, but I think it might be useful.
I'm currently struggling at exporting my newAudioContext constructor from the addon script(privileged scope) into the page script (less-privileged).
I tried...
unsafeWindow.AudioContext = cloneInto(newAudioContext,unsafeWindow);
But I still get the original AudioContext in the page script.
I also tried
exportFunction(newAudioContext, unsafeWindow, {defineAs: "AudioContext"});
but that exports it as a function and not as a constructor.
I understand that structured cloning has limitations, but are there any other ways I can override the window.AudioContext from an AddOn?
If you need to run more complex code (e.g. object construction) in the unprivileged context you can simply import a script into the target window (after waiving xrays) through the mozIJSSubScriptLoader.
Any function that needs to call into privileged code can be patched into its prototype from the chrome side after the script has been loaded.
You can do this before DOM parsing - and thus before any content script execution - by listening to the DOMWindowCreated event.
You will have to do this from a frame script, since the addon-sdk's page-mod sandboxes don't have enough privileges to access the script loader.
Keeping interaction with the unsafe window to a minimum, i.e. either running code wholly in the privileged environment with xrays or completely in the untrusted environment with the minimal amount of glue methods between those two seems like good security hygiene anyway.
Of course you should be aware that content code will be able to pick apart and modify any classes you create in content. It is untrusted after all.
Does anyone know if there is a way to load any external executable javascript from a firefox add-on extension? I looked into scriptloader.loadSubScript, but it appears that it can only load from a local resource.
Any help would be appreciated.
You can always xhr for a file, save the contents to disk, then use scriptloader.loadSubScript with an add-on
this would violate the AMO policies though, so you wouldn't be able to upload the add-on to http://addons.mozilla.org
As #erikvold already pointed out, doing so would be a security hazard AND it also violates AMO rules (because it is a security hazard).
Consider your server gets compromised, or there is a way to MITM the connection retrieving the remote script (TLS bugs anyone :p), or you sell your domain and the new owner decides to ship a script to collect credit card information straight from a user's hard disk...
However, it is possible to run a remote script in an unprivileged environment, much like it would run in a website.
Create a Sandbox. The Sandbox should be unprivileged, e.g. pass an URL in your domain into the constructor.
Retrieve your script, e.g. with XHR.
Evaluate your script in the Sandbox and pull out any data it might have generated for you.
This is essentially what tools like Greasemonkey (executing user scripts) do.
Creating and working with Sandboxes in a secure fashion is hard, and the Sandbox being unprivileged prohibits a lot of use cases, but maybe it will work for your stuff.
Try using Components.utils.import .
Example :
const {Cc,Ci,Cu} = require("chrome");
Cu.import("url/path of the file");
Note :
js file which uses DOM objects like window, navigator, etc. will return error saying "window/navigator is undefined". This is simply because the main.js code does not have access to DOM.
Refer this thread for more information.
I want to create a new protocol so that I can view the data retrieved through the protocol in the browser.
For example, I want to be able to go to myprotocol://www.filepath.com/img.jpg and view the image.
Where myprotocol is defined by myself.
I have read about registering application handling here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa767914%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
with this it is possible to run a desktop exe that receives the url I am trying to access. How would I return the retrieved jpg to the browser for viewing, so that it behaves like a normal protocol, such as http?
Thanks
That registration will allow you to bind an application to the uri, so if launched through windows explorer (including "Run") and from command line, then the app is launched and the uri passed to it as an argument (much like if you double-click a file, the default app for it is launched and the path to the file passed).
For example, your "default" browser will have http:// associated with it in this way.
It is still up to the application itself to have its own handling of the URI when it is passed as an argument. If you want to make a browser handle your new protocol, you will have to write an extension/plugin/add-on/whatever-that-browser's-makers-call-it to add further functionality to the browser. This is a separate job for Firefox, IE, Chrome, Konqueror, Chromium (well, at least it might be sharable with Chrome), etc. with separate APIs to deal with.
I'm building an add-on for FireFox that simulates a website, but running from a local library. (If you want to know more, look here)
I'm looking for a way to get a hold of the user-agent string that FireFox would send if it were doing plain http. I'm doing the nsIProtocolHandler myself and serve my own implementation of nsIHttpChannel, so if I have a peek at the source, it looks like I'll have to do all the work myself.
Unless there's a contract/object-id on nsHttpHandler I could use to create an instance just for a brief moment to get the UserAgent? (Though I notice I'll need to call Init() because it does InitUserAgentComponents() and hope it'll get to there... And I guess the http protocol handler does the channels and handlers so there won't be a contract to nsHttpHandler directly.)
If I have a little peek over the wall I notice this globally available call ObtainUserAgentString which does just this in that parallel dimension...
Apparently Firefox changed how this was done in version 4. Have you tried:
alert(window.navigator.userAgent);
You can get it via XPCOM like this:
var httpHandler = Cc["#mozilla.org/network/protocol;1?name=http"].
getService(Ci.nsIHttpProtocolHandler);
var userAgent = httpHandler.userAgent;
If for some reason you actaully do need to use NPAPI like you suggest in your tags, you can use NPN_UserAgent to get it; however, I would be shocked if you actually needed to do that just for an extension. Most likely Anthony's answer is more what you're looking for.
The problem: toggle javascript support without restarting firefox (nor resorting to different driver) during cucumber test run.
If Firefox's prefutils were exposed to javascript in a web page, that would make it possible. But it is not the case.
So, is there a plugin that does it? Or is there another way to solve the problem? Or is there a good tutorial (that highlights the exposing bit) on how to make such a plugin?
Edit
On a second thought, how would javascript be of any help once it is disabled? Probably the whole idea is a bit screwed.
I assume that your tests run with normal web content privileges. In that case, they aren't going to be able to affect browser settings such as whether JavaScript is enabled (I assume that's what you mean by "toggle JavaScript support").
I'd implement a simple XPCOM component with a method to turn JS support on and off (by setting the appropriate pref). You can expose it as a JavaScript global property so that your tests can access it. See Expose an XPCOM component to javascript in a web page for more details. Package your component in an extension and make sure it is installed in the Firefox instance where your tests are running.
If you want to access the preferences API directly from your content script, you can add the following prefs to Firefox, either in about:config or by adding the following lines to prefs.js in your profile directory:
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.p1.granted", "UniversalXPConnect UniversalBrowserRead UniversalBrowserWrite UniversalPreferencesRead UniversalPreferencesWrite UniversalFileRead");
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.p1.id", "http://www.example.com");
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.p1.subjectName", "");`
user_pref("signed.applets.codebase_principal_support", true);
Replace www.example.com with the domain that you want to grant the privileges to. Also add this line to your JS code before you call the preferences API:
netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege('UniversalXPConnect');
A local file (something loaded from file:///) is allowed to request additional privileges. Normally you would get a prompt asking whether you want to allow access - you can "auto-accept" the prompt by adding the following lines to prefs.js in the Firefox profile:
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.p0.granted", "UniversalXPConnect");
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.p0.id", "file://");
user_pref("capability.principal.codebase.p0.subjectName", "");
You page can then do:
netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege("UniversalXPConnect");
var branch = Components.classes["#mozilla.org/preferences-service;1"]
.getService(Components.interfaces.nsIPrefBranch);
branch.setBoolPref("javascript.enabled", false);
This will definitely work if your page is a local file. Judging by the error message however, you are currently running code from about:blank. It might be that changing capability.principal.codebase.p0.id into about:blank or into moz-safe-about:blank will allow that page to get extended privileges as well but I am not sure.
However, none of this will really help if JavaScript is already disabled and you need to enable it. This can only be solved by writing an extension and adding it to the test profile. JavaScript in Firefox extensions works regardless of this setting.
That means you need Javascript to toggle enabling or disabling Javascript.
function setJavascriptPref(bool) {
prefs = Components.classes["#mozilla.org/preferences-service;1"]
.getService(Components.interfaces.nsIPrefBranch);
prefs.setBoolPref("javascript.enabled", bool);
}