bugtraq - Re: Format String Vulnerabilities in Perl Programs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1f29b8940512032347j19a272dftbdd9b79b0d639d57@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:47:56 -0800
From: Chris Umphress <umphress@...il.com>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...re.org>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Format String Vulnerabilities in Perl Programs

On 12/2/05, Steven M. Christey <coley@...re.org> wrote:
>
> *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
> Format String Vulnerabilities in Perl Programs
> *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

Almost all of the statements refer to a number of programming
languages if thought is not put into the program. Security requires
thought. A program that is not thought out will not be secure, and the
language it is written in cannot protect against this. Anyhow, I get
ahead of myself.

>    The possibility of CRLF injection was theorized, but a casual
>    investigation was not successful.

\r\n ?? \x0d\x0a ??

> **********************************************************************
> 4. Some Discussion on Format Strings and the Taint Checker
> **********************************************************************
>
> In 5.004:
>
>    The taint checker apparently does not flag filenames as tainted
>    (e.g. as obtained from the readdir() function).  Presumably, other
>    types of "indirect input" may not be tainted.  However, it does
>    identify more direct sources of input such as stdin and environment
>    variables.

It shouldn't have to. As Linus Torvalds says -- You should think
through your code rather than expecting a tool to find the problem for
you [1].

> Notes on Detecting Vulnerabilities in Source Code
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Detection of suspicious code is slightly more difficult than it is for
> C code.  Constant strings can contain Perl entities such as variables
> or references, which are inserted into the string before it is passed
> to printf/sprintf.
>
>   $fmt = <USER_INPUT>;
>   printf("THIS IS A POTENTIALLY VULNERABLE $fmt FORMAT STRING\n");

That is probably the closest thing to a feasible mistake for someone
who is thinking about the code they are writing (IMO). If you aren't
performing a string insertion of some kind, "print" is far better.
While I do understand the argument to some degree, "print" is the most
common way to display text (from my own experience, "print" usage is
much more common in scripting languages than printf).

[1] Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Mar 19 2000,
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0003.2/0939.html

--
Chris Umphress <http://daga.dyndns.org/>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/