This post originally appeared on Mozilla’s Attack and Defense blog.
This is a writeup of a neat vulnerability I found in Chromium and Firefox that could allow a malicious page to read some parts of an image located on an origin it is not supposed to be able to access. Although technically interesting, it is quite limited in scope—I am not aware of any major websites it could’ve been used against. As of November 17th, 2020, the vulnerability has been fixed in the most recent versions of both browsers.
The time that it takes
CanvasRenderingContext2D.drawImage to draw a pixel depends on whether it is fully transparent, opaque, or semi-transparent. By timing a bunch of calls to
drawImage, we can reliably infer the transparency of each pixel in a cross-origin image, which is enough to, for example, read text on a transparent background, like this:
Background: Same-Origin Policy and Canvas
https://mybank.com/get_balance/ that the application at
https://mybank.com/accounts/ should be able to read, but this blog certainly shouldn’t.
This is formalized by the Same-Origin Policy, which allows resources that are located on a different origin from the current page to be embedded in it, but does not allow them to be read.
Canvas is an HTML feature that makes implementing this distinction tricky. A
CanvasRenderingContext2D.drawImage, any image that can be embedded onto a page can also be drawn onto a canvas, and this includes cross-origin images as well. In order to prevent an attacker from drawing a cross-origin image onto a canvas then reading the canvas to learn what the image looks like, a canvas that has ever had a cross-origin image drawn to it is marked as tainted and can no longer be read from.
Some pixels are drawn faster than others
Pixels in an image can have varying levels of transparency, and a well-optimized image drawing library might use different code to draw an image depending on what kind of pixels it contains. There are three cases that arise naturally:
- If a pixel is fully transparent, drawing it onto a canvas is very easy: you don’t need to do anything at all.
- If a pixel is fully opaque, it’s pretty easy too: overwrite the destination pixel with it.
- If the pixel is semi-transparent, you actually need to do some math to figure out the resulting color after blending it onto whatever’s already drawn on the canvas.
Conveniently for us,
drawImage lets us both crop and resize the image that will be drawn, so we can make a call like
drawImage(img, x, y, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1024, 1024) to take just the one pixel located at coordinates
(x, y) in
img, scale it up to 1024×1024, and draw that onto our canvas.
If there’s any difference in performance between the three cases above, doing this will take a different amount of time depending on whether the given pixel is transparent, opaque, or semi-transparent, so by measuring the time the operation takes we can figure out which one it is. Repeat this for every pixel in
img and you’ll have a “silhouette” of the image, which might be enough to figure out what the image contains, especially if it’s an image of text or a drawing on a transparent background.
Indeed, both Firefox and Chromium use Google’s Skia Graphics Library, which used to handle the three cases separately in the function
blit_row_s32a_opaque. A quick benchmark I wrote confirmed that the performance of
drawImage varied depending on the alpha-value of the pixels being drawn:2
Caveat: GPU acceleration
All of the above only applies when images operations are performed using the CPU. When they are performed using GPU acceleration, no observable differences in performance seem to exist.
Firefox does not support GPU acceleration in all configurations yet: the majority of Windows users are accelerated in the common case, but other platforms are likely affected. Chromium will use GPU acceleration on most hardware, so it is only affected when GPU rendering is disabled, either because the user is using a known-bad GPU or driver, or because GPU acceleration has been explicitly disabled.3
To exploit this, let’s write a function that takes one pixel of an image and measures how long it takes to draw it, blown up to 1024×1024 pixels, a hundred times:
Looking at the performance chart above, we know that, in an image where all pixels are either fully transparent or fully opaque,
timePixel will return a much higher value for the opaque ones. Now we can measure all of the pixels one-by-one and render the timings on a heatmap, obtaining the Hollywood hacker movie-worthy reconstruction we saw in the video at the beginning of the post.
The full source code for the exploit is available on my Github.
Disclosure and vendor response
I reported this bug to Mozilla on May 29th, 2020 through the Mozilla Security Bug Bounty program and to Google through the Chrome Vulnerability Reward the next day. With the help of a Google engineer and some profiling tools, we identified that the same piece of Skia code was responsible for this behavior in both browsers.
Google updated Skia to remove branching on alpha value in
blit_row_s32a_opaque completely on August 29th, 2020 and merged that change into Chromium on the same day. Mozilla merged the change on October 6th, 2020.
Google has issued CVE-2020-16012 to notify users about this bug.
Both vendors offered very generous bounties for my reports. It’s been a pleasure working with Mozilla and Google to get this fixed, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mike Klein from Google and Lee Salzman from Mozilla for their work on diagnosing and fixing the bug. I would also like to thank Tom Ritter and Lee Salzman from Mozilla for their helpful feedback on drafts of this blog post.
There are some very limited known exceptions to this: for example, you can learn whether an image exists at a given URL (by checking whether you get a
errorevent), what its approximate file size is (by timing how long it takes to load), and what its dimensions are (by observing how it affects the layout of the page). But there’s certainly an expectation that the contents of the image—what’s actually drawn on it—must not be accessible. ↩︎
Although the behavior in Chromium is nearly identical, if you’re not careful about how you set up the benchmark, you might get a surprising result there: while the performance for fully and semi-transparent pixels is the same as in Firefox, fully solid pixels are drawn much faster. This is caused by an additional optimization that is only hit in Chromium, where Skia detects that an opaque 1024×1024 image is being drawn onto a canvas that’s exactly the same size, so instead of doing it pixel-by-pixel it just moves the whole buffer over, which turns out to be even faster than doing nothing 10242 times. It appears that this optimization is only triggered when the entire source image is opaque, not just the pixel we crop out of it. If you use a source image that has pixels with different alpha-values, Chromium performs exactly the same as Firefox. ↩︎
Though my Intel GPU is not on the blocklist, during my experiments I found that hammering it with thousands of draw commands will crash the driver and force Chromium to revert to CPU rendering, so this might be one way of exploiting the vulnerability on some hardware/OS combinations. ↩︎