-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Go: Add and Modify Sanitizers For TaintedPath #11703
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions
5
go/ql/lib/change-notes/2024-03-11-addional-gopath-sanitizers.md
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
|
||
* --- | ||
category: minorAnalysis | ||
--- | ||
* Added strings.ReplaceAll, http.ParseMultipartForm sanitizers and remove path sanitizer. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we have decided that
filepath.Base
is not an adequate sanitizer, I don't think we should include this, as it usesfilepath.Base
(docs link).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@owen-mc Yup I'm aware, however I would still like to advocate for this sanitizer because it is a filename, not just part of a path. If the .. is treated as a filename, it references a folder which is a failure in Golang. If any path is prepended, then the path also references the previous folder, which again fails for APIs that expect a file. It also makes no sense to add any path after the .. since its a file, not a directory. I have seen this particular FP many times and its never been exploitable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh wait, I am confused. Did you mean to sanitize reads of the field
Filename
in the structFileHeader
(docs)? Or did you mean calls to the methodFileName()
(docs), which is defined on*Part
, i.e. parts of the multipart message. Your code does the first one, but I don't see why that should be sanitized, so I'm guessing maybe you meant to do the second one, because the docs say it has been run throughfilepath.Base()
. I consulted with a colleague and he agreed it was reasonable for the second one to be a sanitizer, so if that's what you meant then please change the code to refer to the right thing and update the test.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@owen-mc I added the Filename in FileHeader because it previously led me to a FP when testing it. The only way FileHeader to be instantiated is through readForm, which sanitizes Filename using FileName which uses Base. I understand if you don't wanna add it since the documentation doesn't guarantee anything, but I thought i would include it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, that makes sense. I think we can merge this then.