DoubleClickjacking is a clickjacking technique that tricks users into performing unintended actions by overlaying an invisible iframe containing an ad over a legitimate clickable element. When the user clicks what they believe to be the legitimate element, they actually click the hidden ad, generating revenue for the attacker or redirecting the user to a malicious site. This exploit leverages the fact that some ad networks register clicks even if the ad itself isn't visible. DoubleClickjacking is particularly concerning because it bypasses traditional clickjacking defenses that rely on detecting visible overlays. By remaining invisible, the malicious iframe effectively hides from security measures, making this attack difficult to detect and prevent.
Brian Krebs's post details how a single misplaced click cost one cryptocurrency investor over $600,000. The victim, identified as "Nick," was attempting to connect his Ledger hardware wallet to what he thought was the official PancakeSwap decentralized exchange. Instead, he clicked a malicious Google ad that led to a phishing site mimicking PancakeSwap. After entering his seed phrase, hackers drained his wallet of various cryptocurrencies. The incident highlights the dangers of blindly trusting search results, especially when dealing with valuable assets. It emphasizes the importance of verifying website URLs and exercising extreme caution before entering sensitive information like seed phrases, as one wrong click can have devastating financial consequences.
Hacker News commenters largely agreed with the article's premise about the devastating impact of phishing attacks, especially targeting high-net-worth individuals. Some pointed out the increasing sophistication of these attacks, making them harder to detect even for tech-savvy users. Several users discussed the importance of robust security practices, including using hardware security keys, strong passwords, and skepticism towards unexpected communications. The effectiveness of educating users about phishing tactics was debated, with some suggesting that technical solutions like mandatory 2FA are more reliable than relying on user vigilance. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes or experiences with similar scams, highlighting the real-world consequences and emotional distress these attacks can cause. The overall sentiment was one of caution and a recognition that even the most careful individuals can fall victim to well-crafted phishing attempts.
Summary of Comments ( 90 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42693748
Hacker News users discussed the plausibility and impact of the "DoubleClickjacking" technique described in the linked article. Several commenters expressed skepticism, arguing that the described attack is simply a variation of existing clickjacking techniques, not a fundamentally new vulnerability. They pointed out that modern browsers and frameworks already have mitigations in place to prevent such attacks, like the
X-Frame-Optionsheader. The discussion also touched upon the responsibility of ad networks in preventing malicious ads and the effectiveness of user education in mitigating these types of threats. Some users questioned the practicality of the attack, citing the difficulty in precisely aligning elements for the exploit to work. Overall, the consensus seemed to be that while the described scenario is technically possible, it's not a novel attack vector and is already addressed by existing security measures.The Hacker News post titled "DoubleClickjacking: A New type of web hacking technique" linking to an article on paulosyibelo.com has generated several comments discussing the validity and novelty of the described attack.
Several commenters point out that this is not a new technique, and is in fact a variant of clickjacking which has been known for a long time. They argue that the article's framing of "DoubleClickjacking" is misleading, as it's simply clickjacking with a double-click trigger, rather than a single click. Some commenters provide links to older resources and discussions about clickjacking, demonstrating the established nature of this type of attack.
One commenter questions the practical exploitability of this particular double-click variant. They argue that legitimate uses of double-click on the web are relatively rare, and therefore the opportunities for malicious exploitation are limited. They suggest that tricking a user into double-clicking something unintentionally is significantly more difficult than a single click.
Another commenter discusses the mitigations against clickjacking, such as the
X-Frame-Optionsheader, and emphasizes the importance of developers using these protections. They highlight that the vulnerability lies in the vulnerable website's lack of proper defenses, rather than a novel attack vector.The discussion also touches upon the user's role in preventing such attacks. One comment suggests being cautious about interacting with embedded content, especially from untrusted sources, regardless of the specific clickjacking technique employed.
Overall, the comments express skepticism about the "newness" of DoubleClickjacking, clarifying that it's a variation of a well-known attack. They highlight the importance of existing security measures and developer awareness in mitigating these kinds of threats. The practicality of exploiting a double-click scenario is also debated, with some suggesting its limited applicability compared to traditional clickjacking.