1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
|
CVE: CVE-2014-1723
CWE:
- 20
bugs:
- 337746
repo:
vccs:
- note: 'These commits added code to the escape characters list, but didn''t add LtR
or invisible characters
'
commit: 8c0af3834e11d643562c13788c06c695f2666f51
- note: 'These commits added code to the escape characters list, but didn''t add LtR
or invisible characters
'
commit: 61197dffa1137d7e4fe003281ad3e38108e90411
fixes:
- note: 'This commit added the logic to check for more characters to escape, such
as LtR
'
commit: 2cd905494ba700a8e2097d614ed39ad36d1519f2
bounty:
date: '2014-04-08 13:35:00.000000000 -04:00'
amount: 1500.0
references:
- http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2014/04/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: I would put this as a complex input, since this character is only used in
obscure languages
applies: true
distrust_input:
note: |
Since the vulnerability stems from a core trust of user input, this common lesson applies.
It shows that we should NEVER trust user input, and instead should try to only allow things
that we know will be safe for our application. For example, using a whitelist instead of a blacklist.
applies: true
least_privilege:
note:
applies:
native_wrappers:
note:
applies:
defense_in_depth:
note:
applies:
secure_by_default:
note:
applies:
environment_variables:
note:
applies:
security_by_obscurity:
note:
applies:
frameworks_are_optional:
note:
applies:
reviews:
- 192973004
- 181483008
upvotes: 29
mistakes:
answer: |
Personally, I think that requirement mistakes were made that led to this vulnerability. The original
coders either didn't have knowledge of this character or how it could lead to problems in the future,
but it eventually came up. Luckily, it was reported by a good samaritan, hopefully before any malicious
users had the chance to use it against other users.
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.
nickname: Right to Left to Wrong
announced: '2014-04-09 06:57:51.277000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
name: net
answer: This bug was in the net/base code for chromium, based on the path of the
file affected
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: '2014-01-24'
answer: This vulnerability was discovered by a good samaritan who found it
google: false
contest: false
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: "Malicious actors could insert a right to left (RtL Character) into a
url using their keyboard to create very misleading urls. The RtL reverses\ncharacters
after it in a string in the GUI. This character is completely insivible to the users
of chromium, \nso it was almost impossible to detect. For example, a malicious user
could use this character and create \na url like \"coolcamsj.png\". However, due
to the RtL character in the url, the browser would actually read \nthe string as
\"coolcamgnp.js\" and load that, which has the potential to be malicious javascript.
\n"
unit_tested:
fix: true
code: true
answer: true
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: "It seems that nothing really was happening at the time of this vulnerabilty,
as\na non-google employee reported the bug. However, it is notable that the original
\nassignee to the bug was off of work for a couple of weeks when the bug was reported,\nso
it is possible that this bug was left sitting for longer than possible. It looks\nsomeone
picked it up soon there after though, since it was high severity.\n"
events:
- date: '2014-01-24'
name: pkasting@chromium.org was out
- date:
name:
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: "It seems interesting to me that this bug was not found in the inital pass
of the code.\nIt seems like a big oversight on the developers part, which didn't
see how this character could affect code.\nIt also is worth noting that google
handles bad characters with a blacklist instead of a whitelist. I feel \nlike
the otherway around would be a better approach.\n"
commit: 8c0af3834e11d643562c13788c06c695f2666f51
- note: ''
commit:
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.
|
The Vulnerability History Project