this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
68 points (95.9% liked)

Privacy

3823 readers
69 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why is SVG necessary for this? JS can be executed from HTML by itself; does putting it into SVG disable certain browser security features? I am a bit confused about this.

[–] CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Generally, browsers try to make it very difficult for the contents of one website to read or interact with the contents of another website. There is a class of attacks called cross site request forgery (CSRF) where website A tries to trick the browser into sending a web request to website B and performing some action which requires authentication. In this case, the action would be to like a Facebook post.

Imagine something really basic like your bank has an endpoint GET shite-bank.com/account/transfer?funds=100&to=myEvilAccount. Website B could try and redirect you to that URL. If you're logged in to shite-bank, then when that request completes you will transfer 100 funds to me. Generally, most websites use various techniques and tokens to prevent other websites from triggering requests like this.

I clicked through the source article, and it sounds like this is specifically a windows thing: original article says that when a windows machine loads the malicious SVG, the malicious JS is parsed in a Microsoft Edge browser process, regardless of the browser a user visited the porn site with (apparently all Windows SVGs load through Edge). I would guess that there is some aspect of this context switch which enables the CSRF attack to work, but it is not explained in the original article.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I clicked through the source article, and it sounds like this is specifically a windows thing: original article says that when a windows machine loads the malicious SVG, the malicious JS is parsed in a Microsoft Edge browser process, regardless of the browser a user visited the porn site with (apparently all Windows SVGs load through Edge).

what the actual fuck? does that mean that even if I only use firefox, edge is involved in loading SVGs? how??

[–] CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Opening the SVG file opens an empty Edge tab titled Process Monitor. This happens because SVG files on Windows are opened by Edge, even if the user has another browser set as their default.

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/08/adult-sites-trick-users-into-liking-facebook-posts-using-a-clickjack-trojan

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

that does not explain how does it happen when the svg appears on a page in firefox. firefox won't try to open all embedded assets with the default file handler in the OS, it will directly use its built in tools to handle it.

[–] purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think it's saying that the default association for SVG is edge, as setting a default browser does not change that. If you use another image viewer for SVG it might behave differently.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

but how does edge get opened? firefox, and pretty sure chrome too, aren't searching the OS file associations for each asset they received from the site. they won't decode the png images with Windows Photos or whatever, they will use their internal tools to process it.

file associations would only affect if you open an svg file in the filesystem with a file manager. but I don't see how edge gets into the picture when the user is just using another browser, because it's rare that a user saves an SVG

I found this technically surprising, but like the most microsoft thing ever.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unlike more common formats such as .jpg or .png, .svg uses XML-based text to specify how the image should appear, allowing files to be resized without losing quality due to pixelation. But therein lies the rub: The text in these files can incorporate HTML and JavaScript, and that, in turn, opens the risk of them being abused for a range of attacks, including cross-site scripting, HTML injection, and denial of service.

Willing to bet that some browsers just do what the SVG says.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes, you are just quoting the article which I already read, but this fails to answer the question why the same JS does something different depending on whether it is part of an SVG or not. Should it not be possible to put the same JS directly into the HTML?

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The SVG is probably parsed by a different library or different module at least and might have exploitable bugs. Still, the js would likely be fed to the same engine. It might not be impossible that something gets mangled or the context is different.

But mostly this smells like a fantasy article. No mention of which exact browser, what the mechanism is and, in particular, no sample code. And as a bonus the bs blanket term of "adult sites" which makes this look more like fear propaganda.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 6 points 1 month ago

I don't know* jack about shit but I got fud vibe from this headline lol

Gooners get punished for watching content!

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

svg are treated the same as webpages by modern browsers. Either integrated into the dom directly, or as a sort of sub page. Not much potential for exploits you couldn't do in html.

This should mostly be about injection, so someone else uploading a picture to a page and taking it over for other users. Just loading that image might make your account follow some profile there, or even do some action like press a share button.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That might make sense, but the article doesn't really indicate that that is what it means.

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

risk of them being abused for a range of attacks, including cross-site scripting, HTML injection, and denial of service.