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
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
|
CVE: CVE-2015-1296
CWE:
- 20
- 254
bugs:
- 421332
repo:
vccs:
- note: This is the initial commit in the Google Chrome git repo.
commit: c14d891d44f0afff64e56ed7c9702df1d807b1ee
fixes:
- note: They blacklisted the unicode padlock characters.
commit: 7c2cbc445a81424c7df48ebe61ec4d0dcadd5dff
- note: Changed it so RTL URLs wont be completely flipped around
commit: 1c7d9ce02925cf766fc508d4ee83424369e71548
bounty:
date: '2015-09-01 15:15:00.000000000 -04:00'
amount: 1000.0
references:
- http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2015/09/stable-channel-update.html
lessons:
yagni:
note:
applies: false
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: false
complex_inputs:
note: |
There are complex unicode inputs with special charcters in RTL mode
that could spoof the SSL padlock.
applies: true
distrust_input:
note: |
There are certain unicode characters that can appear to spoof the SSL
padlock icon that they didn't remove from the input.
applies: true
least_privilege:
note:
applies: false
native_wrappers:
note:
applies: false
defense_in_depth:
note:
applies: false
secure_by_default:
note:
applies: false
environment_variables:
note:
applies: false
security_by_obscurity:
note:
applies: false
frameworks_are_optional:
note:
applies: false
reviews:
- 1180393003
- 1189553002
upvotes: 39
mistakes:
answer: "This issue happened at the Requirements phase. They should have considered\nall
of the complex unicode inputs that people could use to attempt to spoof\nURLs.
In order for this type of vulnerability to be caught they would have \nneeded
to have someone who is very familiar with unicode to be on the team.\nThis person
would have to know about the padlock character and know that \nthere are RTL characters
that can be used to move characters to appear at\nthe beginning of the string.
Throughout all of development no one must have\nthought of an attack like this.
It's a really complex input so it's \nunderstandable that they never considered
it originally though. They couldn't\nremove all unicode characters though because
people who speak languages whose\nalphabet doesn't fit in ASCII need to be able
to search for things with the\nomnibox.\n"
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: Lock-alike
announced: '2015-09-03 18:59:06.813000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
name: OmniBox
answer: |
It affected the omnibox but the issue was in the core of the system, in
netloc/core/
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: '2014-10-08'
answer: "It was reported by zcorpan and he received a reward of $1000 for finding\nthe
bug. He also was put in the chrome release notes for finding it. It does\nsay
though that if he disclosed the bug information before it was fixed then\nhe wouldn't
get the money anymore. It doesn't say how zorcpan found the bug.\nAll of this
information was obtained from the bug report on chromium.org. \nAlso, there isn't
really a commit that introduced the vulnerability. It has \nbeen around since
the beginning of the project, as long as they had the \nOmniBox and the SSL padlock
icon this was an issue.\n"
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: You could place special unicode characters in the URL so that a padlock
character would be displayed at the beginning of the URL which could fool the user
into thinking that they had a secure connection over HTTPS. Attackers could post
links anywhere on the web that include these special characters so when people click
on them and see the padlock icon they'd think that they're safe. The padlock icon
verifies that the server is in fact who they claim to be. If you go on Facebook.com
and see the padlock then it verifies that there isn't a third party impersonating
Facebook. They could hide them with a hyperlink so that the characters don't appear
in the link visible to the user, but when they click on it the web browser would
copy it to the omnibox and display the padlock character. The omnibox is the address
bar in chrome, they just call in the omnibox internally.
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: |
There weren't really any major events around this. They had a few issues
with unicode and with the omnibox but neither of them got major rehauls
around the time of this vulnerability.
events:
- date:
name:
- 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: 0
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: |
Here they added more unicode characters to be escaped in URLs, like
U+202A LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING and a few others. Also, the unicode spec
was updated so they added exceptions for the new bidrectional
characters.
commit: 2cd905494ba700a8e2097d614ed39ad36d1519f2
- 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