From: Kelly Dean <kelly@prtime.org>
To: 19479@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#19479: (on-topic) Re: bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 02:56:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F8kXGdneKQWh6B82cOwdrCdBAdO1h3o9WXOqLmHuB8T@local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OYNAdwJtSjDBqdP8v3CmmCvPSb3L6y6lTYtZpQrTySr@local>
Back on topic...
I found a good way to add timestamps to prevent metadata replay (the other vulnerability), and to further harden the package manager's security, but of course I'll wait until we hear from the clerk before trying to implement it.
The reason I said there's a compatibility problem for timestamps is that archive-contents is a list consisting just of a version number followed by a bunch of package records; the list's format isn't extensible (though the package record format is extensible). There's no way to insert a timestamp without changing the list's format (and thus, the version number), but if you do that, then old clients can't understand archive-contents anymore.
Even worse, old clients become stuck because they store the new-format (incompatible) file before checking the version number, then barf on it and refuse to accept even an old-format (compatible) file to replace it until you manually delete the stored one.
I see four possible solutions:
0. Have a flag day, on which all the elpas switch to the new format, and on or before which everybody must upgrade to Emacs 25 or his package manager will stop working.
1. Have the server check the User-Agent header, and send the old-format file if it's ⌜URL/Emacs⌝, and the new-format if it's ⌜URL/Emacs-25⌝ or later.
2. Use a different URL for the new-format file.
3. Keep the old format, and put the timestamp in a different file.
#0 obviously isn't an option.
I advise against #1, for reasons which everybody here already knows.
#2 would work, but is inelegant, since you would still have to retain the old-format file for the sake of old clients, and it's inefficient, since new clients would have to periodically re-download the entire file (fairly big, in Melpa's case) even if nothing but the timestamp changed (and clients have to demand fresh timestamps in order to prevent metadata replay attacks).
#3 looks like the best solution. The timestamp file includes the timestamp and the hash of archive-contents. Sign the timestamp file for the sake of new clients.
Old clients would ignore the timestamp file. If archive-contents is unchanged, then new clients would only have to periodically re-download the timestamp file and signature--the minimal amount of data necessary. They'd see that the current hash of archive-contents matches the version they already have stored. IOW, to whoever made archive-contents inextensible: thank you! You've forced the right solution to timestamping. ;-)
Combined with my previous patch, this leaves the timestamp-file's signature as the only one that's necessary to secure the entire archive (packages and metadata, including timestamp) and prevent both package and metadata replay attacks. IMHO, this simplicity makes it practical to insist that all elpas provide this signature, so Emacs 25 could enforce it by default.
Optionally continue signing archive-contents for the sake of 24.4 clients, but since 25 won't need that signature, nothing before 24.4 is capable of checking it, 24.4 doesn't enforce it by default, Melpa doesn't even provide it IIUC (GNU Elpa does), and 24.4 is vulnerable to package and metadata replay anyway, you might as well not. The kind of people who have changed package-check-signature to t will upgrade to 25 anyway.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-11 2:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-30 10:42 Emacs package manager vulnerable to replay attacks Kelly Dean
2014-12-30 11:45 ` Ivan Shmakov
2015-01-01 12:38 ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Kelly Dean
2015-01-04 20:00 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-05 1:11 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-05 2:16 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-08 3:31 ` bug#19479: [PATCH] " Kelly Dean
2015-01-08 3:44 ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-08 5:29 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-08 14:39 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-08 21:06 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 2:37 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-09 6:59 ` bug#19479: Copyright issue (was: Re: bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable) Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 15:17 ` bug#19479: Copyright issue Stefan Monnier
2015-01-09 15:29 ` David Kastrup
2015-01-09 15:29 ` David Kastrup
2015-01-09 21:00 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 21:49 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 23:47 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-10 1:18 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-11 1:39 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-11 3:20 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-11 6:33 ` Werner LEMBERG
2015-01-12 15:38 ` Richard Stallman
2015-01-10 19:29 ` Richard Stallman
2015-01-09 19:57 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 20:24 ` bug#19479: " Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 20:24 ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 20:32 ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 20:32 ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 19:57 ` Kelly Dean
2015-02-24 8:47 ` bug#19479: Emacs package manager vulnerable to replay attacks Kelly Dean
2015-02-24 8:47 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-11 2:56 ` Kelly Dean [this message]
2015-01-20 21:18 ` bug#19479: Disclaimer is now on file at FSF Kelly Dean
2015-02-24 18:11 ` Glenn Morris
2015-02-24 23:02 ` Kelly Dean
2015-02-24 23:02 ` Kelly Dean
2015-02-25 21:09 ` Glenn Morris
2015-02-25 21:09 ` Glenn Morris
2017-09-02 12:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-02-25 4:41 ` Vibhav Pant
2015-02-25 5:32 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2015-02-24 18:11 ` Glenn Morris
2017-09-03 1:10 ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Glenn Morris
2019-10-04 9:49 ` Stefan Kangas
2020-05-06 0:55 ` Noam Postavsky
2020-09-06 23:59 ` Stefan Kangas
2020-09-07 14:14 ` Noam Postavsky
2020-09-07 18:11 ` Stefan Kangas
2020-11-21 23:51 ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable to replay attacks Stefan Kangas
2020-11-26 0:43 ` Stefan Monnier
2020-11-26 2:06 ` Stefan Kangas
2020-11-26 2:30 ` Stefan Monnier
2020-11-26 3:02 ` Stefan Kangas
2020-11-26 3:11 ` Stefan Monnier
2020-11-26 3:56 ` Jean Louis
2020-09-07 17:19 ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Stefan Kangas
2020-09-07 23:54 ` Noam Postavsky
2020-09-08 8:10 ` Stefan Kangas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-01-08 3:33 bug#19536: [PATCH] package-upload-buffer-internal fails for tar files Kelly Dean
2015-01-08 5:50 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-08 7:10 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-08 11:40 ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Kelly Dean
2015-02-18 1:03 ` bug#19536: package-upload-buffer-internal fails for tar files Kelly Dean
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=F8kXGdneKQWh6B82cOwdrCdBAdO1h3o9WXOqLmHuB8T@local \
--to=kelly@prtime.org \
--cc=19479@debbugs.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.