CVE-2013-2900

CVE: CVE-2013-2900
CWE:
- 22
bugs:
- 181617
repo: Chromium/Chromium
vccs:
- note: Did not handle sanatizing dot-dot-dot file paths properly
  commit: 9989c9bb16d23b11ff55daf8545b76c2eeba3440
fixes:
- note: Enabled the tests corresponding to the dot-dot-dot sequence file path bug
    (181617)
  commit: 9bf0e1d0f087e4f632d5719a33787440ff506ef2
- note: "Reverting to a previous commit that the base_unittests were passing for file_path.cc,
    \nimplementation was broken with new version of file_path.cc.\n"
  commit: '08c627d0b9f2854baf1e2b37229b7101b2b21a53'
bounty:
  date: '2013-08-20 13:00:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 1337.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2013/08/stable-channel-update.html
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: 
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?
    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.
    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.
    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: "It is important to not trust the input recieved for specifiying a file
      path,\nto prevent vunerabilities like path traversal. By sanitizing the file
      input \nfrom characters that could provide unwanted functionality.\n"
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: "By preventing the user from entering a parent directory, a extra layer
      of \nsecurity is added to the system preventing unwanted operations from occurring.\n"
    applies: true
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews:
- 227093003
- 15095015
- 14705011
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: The main take away for this CVE is that more investigations need to be done
    when changing security. In this case an additional secuirty check was put in place
    in a handfull of different files solved the vulnerability. I would argue that
    there is a lack of organization of path traversal mitigations which may have caused
    this issue to be overlooked. I believe that this vulnerability was caused by a
    lack of proper design. In this case, many different files had logic for handling
    file paths securely and some cases were missed. By having sanitation logic split
    up in many different files it makes it harder to track what is being sanitized
    properly and what isn't.
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?
    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?
    Use those questions to inspire your answer. Don't feel obligated to answer
    every one. Write a thoughtful entry here that those ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
announced: '2013-03-11'
subsystem:
  name: file_path.cc
  answer: base/files
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?
    Look at the path of the source code files code that were fixed to get
    directory names. Look at comments in the code. Look at the bug reports how
    the bug report was tagged. Examples: "clipboard", "gpu", "ssl", "speech", "renderer"
discovered:
  date: '2013-03-11'
  answer: |
    It seems to have been reported by a gmail user krystian...@gmail.com, whom
    then opened the bug report.
  google: false
  contest: 
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?
    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.
    The "automated" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    The "google" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you may
    leave the entries blank except for "answer". Write down where you looked in "answer".
  automated: false
description: |
  Windows version does not properly handle components of the path name containing
  just a . (dot) and white space characters. Remote hackers can utilize this to do
  a directory traversal by a crafted directory name.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    The unit tests were modified to display a EncodingError instead of a NotFoundError to improve clarity
    and be more explicit with the reason for the error.
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?
    For the "code" answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix and determine if and was there were unit tests involved
    for this module.
    For the "fix" answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
major_events:
  answer: "There was an extra security check put in place for files referencing\ntheir
    parent directory, but the team did not forsee that it would \naffect another operation.\n"
  events:
  - date: '2013-01-08'
    name: base/platform_file.cc
  - date: '2013-01-08'
    name: base/platform_file_win.cc
  - date: '2013-01-08'
    name: base/platform_file_posix.cc
  - date: '2013-01-08'
    name: base/platform_file.h
  - date: '2013-01-08'
    name: base/file_util.cc
  question: |
    Please record any major events you found in the history of this
    vulnerability. Was the code rewritten at some point? Was a nearby subsystem
    changed? Did the team change?
    The event doesn't need to be directly related to this vulnerability, rather,
    we want to capture what the development team was dealing with at the time.
curation_level: 1
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE entry
  that describes your vulnerability. (Tip: this may not be a good one to start
  with - spend time understanding this vulnerability before making your choice!)
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  answer: 
  commits:
  - note: "There was an extra security check put in place in this commit, the extra
      check \nprevented files from being opened that referenced the parent. This actually
      \nfixed this reported bug but was overlooked. \n"
    commit: 9fea5a9b229b6a114629c8787f614b2e9f1048fc
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?
    Write a brief (under 100 words) description of why you think this commit was
    interesting in light of the lessons learned from this vulnerability. Any
    emerging themes?

    If there are no interesting commits, demonstrate that you completed this section by explaining what happened between the VCCs and the fix.
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it. Set the
  entry below to "true" as soon as you start. This will enable additional
  integrity checks on this file to make sure you fill everything out properly.
  If you are a student, we cannot accept your work as finished unless curated is
  set to true.
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.
  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date. A good
  source for this is Chrome's Stable Release Channel
  (https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/).
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the commit hash in "commit" below (see my example in
  CVE-2011-3092.yml). Fixes and VCCs follow the same format.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.
  Rewrite this description in your own words. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.
  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove Chromium-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to Chromium would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.