un-nest curl
This commit is contained in:
355
curl-8.15.0/docs/VULN-DISCLOSURE-POLICY.md
Normal file
355
curl-8.15.0/docs/VULN-DISCLOSURE-POLICY.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Copyright (C) Daniel Stenberg, <daniel@haxx.se>, et al.
|
||||
|
||||
SPDX-License-Identifier: curl
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
# curl vulnerability disclosure policy
|
||||
|
||||
This document describes how security vulnerabilities are handled in the curl
|
||||
project.
|
||||
|
||||
## Publishing Information
|
||||
|
||||
All known and public curl or libcurl related vulnerabilities are listed on
|
||||
[the curl website security page](https://curl.se/docs/security.html).
|
||||
|
||||
Security vulnerabilities **should not** be entered in the project's public bug
|
||||
tracker.
|
||||
|
||||
## Vulnerability Handling
|
||||
|
||||
The typical process for handling a new security vulnerability is as follows.
|
||||
|
||||
No information should be made public about a vulnerability until it is
|
||||
formally announced at the end of this process. That means, for example, that a
|
||||
bug tracker entry must NOT be created to track the issue since that makes the
|
||||
issue public and it should not be discussed on any of the project's public
|
||||
mailing lists. Messages associated with any commits should not make any
|
||||
reference to the security nature of the commit if done prior to the public
|
||||
announcement.
|
||||
|
||||
- The person discovering the issue, the reporter, reports the vulnerability on
|
||||
[HackerOne](https://hackerone.com/curl). Issues filed there reach a handful
|
||||
of selected and trusted people.
|
||||
|
||||
- Messages that do not relate to the reporting or managing of an undisclosed
|
||||
security vulnerability in curl or libcurl are ignored and no further action
|
||||
is required.
|
||||
|
||||
- A person in the security team responds to the original report to acknowledge
|
||||
that a human has seen the report.
|
||||
|
||||
- The security team investigates the report and either rejects it or accepts
|
||||
it. See below for examples of problems that are not considered
|
||||
vulnerabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
- If the report is rejected, the team writes to the reporter to explain why.
|
||||
|
||||
- If the report is accepted, the team writes to the reporter to let them
|
||||
know it is accepted and that they are working on a fix.
|
||||
|
||||
- The security team discusses the problem, works out a fix, considers the
|
||||
impact of the problem and suggests a release schedule. This discussion
|
||||
should involve the reporter as much as possible.
|
||||
|
||||
- The release of the information should be "as soon as possible" and is most
|
||||
often synchronized with an upcoming release that contains the fix. If the
|
||||
reporter, or anyone else involved, thinks the next planned release is too
|
||||
far away, then a separate earlier release should be considered.
|
||||
|
||||
- Write a security advisory draft about the problem that explains what the
|
||||
problem is, its impact, which versions it affects, solutions or workarounds,
|
||||
when the release is out and make sure to credit all contributors properly.
|
||||
Figure out the CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) number for the flaw. See
|
||||
[SECURITY-ADVISORY](https://curl.se/dev/advisory.html) for help on creating
|
||||
the advisory.
|
||||
|
||||
- Request a CVE Id for the issue. curl is a CNA (CVE Numbering Authority) and
|
||||
can request its own numbers.
|
||||
|
||||
- Update the "security advisory" with the CVE number.
|
||||
|
||||
- The security team commits the fix in a private branch. The commit message
|
||||
should ideally contain the CVE number. If the severity level of the issue is
|
||||
set to Low or Medium, the fix is allowed to get merged into the master
|
||||
repository via a normal PR - but without mentioning it being a security
|
||||
vulnerability.
|
||||
|
||||
- The monetary reward part of the bug-bounty is managed by the Internet Bug
|
||||
Bounty team and the reporter is asked to request the reward from them after
|
||||
the issue has been completely handled and published by curl.
|
||||
|
||||
- No more than seven days before release, inform
|
||||
[distros@openwall](https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros)
|
||||
to prepare them about the upcoming public security vulnerability
|
||||
announcement - attach the advisory draft for information with CVE and
|
||||
current patch. 'distros' does not accept an embargo longer than 7 days and
|
||||
they do not care for Windows-specific flaws.
|
||||
|
||||
- No more than 48 hours before the release, the private branch is merged into
|
||||
the master branch and pushed. Once pushed, the information is accessible to
|
||||
the public and the actual release should follow suit immediately afterwards.
|
||||
The time between the push and the release is used for final tests and
|
||||
reviews.
|
||||
|
||||
- The project team creates a release that includes the fix.
|
||||
|
||||
- The project team announces the release and the vulnerability to the world in
|
||||
the same manner we always announce releases. It gets sent to the
|
||||
curl-announce, curl-library and curl-users mailing lists.
|
||||
|
||||
- The security webpage on the website should get the new vulnerability
|
||||
mentioned.
|
||||
|
||||
## security (at curl dot se)
|
||||
|
||||
This is a private mailing list for discussions on and about curl security
|
||||
issues.
|
||||
|
||||
Who is on this list? There are a couple of criteria you must meet, and then we
|
||||
might ask you to join the list or you can ask to join it. It really is not a
|
||||
formal process. We basically only require that you have a long-term presence
|
||||
in the curl project and you have shown an understanding for the project and
|
||||
its way of working. You must have been around for a good while and you should
|
||||
have no plans of vanishing in the near future.
|
||||
|
||||
We do not make the list of participants public mostly because it tends to vary
|
||||
somewhat over time and a list somewhere only risks getting outdated.
|
||||
|
||||
## Publishing Security Advisories
|
||||
|
||||
1. Write up the security advisory, using markdown syntax. Use the same
|
||||
subtitles as last time to maintain consistency.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Name the advisory file after the allocated CVE id.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Add a line on the top of the array in `curl-www/docs/vuln.pm`.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Put the new advisory markdown file in the `curl-www/docs/` directory. Add it
|
||||
to the git repository.
|
||||
|
||||
5. Run `make` in your local web checkout and verify that things look fine.
|
||||
|
||||
6. On security advisory release day, push the changes on the curl-www
|
||||
repository's remote master branch.
|
||||
|
||||
## Disclose the report
|
||||
|
||||
Request the issue to be disclosed. If there are sensitive details present in
|
||||
the report and discussion, those should be redacted from the disclosure. The
|
||||
default policy is to disclose as much as possible as soon as the vulnerability
|
||||
has been published.
|
||||
|
||||
*All* reports submitted to the project, valid or not, should be disclosed and
|
||||
made public.
|
||||
|
||||
## Bug Bounty
|
||||
|
||||
See [BUG-BOUNTY](https://curl.se/docs/bugbounty.html) for details on the
|
||||
bug bounty program.
|
||||
|
||||
# Severity levels
|
||||
|
||||
The curl project's security team rates security problems using four severity
|
||||
levels depending how serious we consider the problem to be. We use **Low**,
|
||||
**Medium**, **High** and **Critical**. We refrain from using numerical scoring
|
||||
of vulnerabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
We do not support CVSS as a method to grade security vulnerabilities, so we do
|
||||
not set them for CVE records published by the curl project. We believe CVSS is
|
||||
a broken system that often does not properly evaluate to suitable severity
|
||||
levels that reflect all dimensions and factors involved. Other organizations
|
||||
however set and provide CVSS scores for curl vulnerabilities. You need to
|
||||
decide for yourself if you believe they know enough about the subjects
|
||||
involved to make reasonable assessments. Deciding between four different
|
||||
severity levels is hard enough for us.
|
||||
|
||||
When deciding severity level on a particular issue, we take all the factors
|
||||
into account: attack vector, attack complexity, required privileges, necessary
|
||||
build configuration, protocols involved, platform specifics and also what
|
||||
effects a possible exploit or trigger of the issue can lead to, including
|
||||
confidentiality, integrity or availability problems.
|
||||
|
||||
## Low
|
||||
|
||||
This is a security problem that is truly hard or unlikely to exploit or
|
||||
trigger. Due to timing, platform requirements or the fact that options or
|
||||
protocols involved are rare etc. [Past
|
||||
example](https://curl.se/docs/CVE-2022-43552.html)
|
||||
|
||||
## Medium
|
||||
|
||||
This is a security problem that is less hard than **Low** to exploit or
|
||||
trigger. Less strict timing, wider platform availability or involving more
|
||||
widely used options or protocols. A problem that usually needs something else
|
||||
to also happen to become serious. [Past
|
||||
example](https://curl.se/docs/CVE-2022-32206.html)
|
||||
|
||||
## High
|
||||
|
||||
This issue is in itself a serious problem with real world impact. Flaws that
|
||||
can easily compromise the confidentiality, integrity or availability of
|
||||
resources. Exploiting or triggering this problem is not hard. [Past
|
||||
example](https://curl.se/docs/CVE-2019-3822.html)
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical
|
||||
|
||||
Easily exploitable by a remote unauthenticated attacker and lead to system
|
||||
compromise (arbitrary code execution) without requiring user interaction, with
|
||||
a common configuration on a popular platform. This issue has few restrictions
|
||||
and requirements and can be exploited easily using most curl configurations.
|
||||
[Past example](https://curl.se/docs/CVE-2000-0973.html)
|
||||
|
||||
# Not security issues
|
||||
|
||||
This is an incomplete list of issues that are not considered vulnerabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
## Small memory leaks
|
||||
|
||||
We do not consider a small memory leak a security problem; even if the amount
|
||||
of allocated memory grows by a small amount every now and then. Long-living
|
||||
applications and services already need to have countermeasures and deal with
|
||||
growing memory usage, be it leaks or just increased use. A small memory or
|
||||
resource leak is then expected to *not* cause a security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course there can be a discussion if a leak is small or not. A large leak
|
||||
can be considered a security problem due to the DOS risk. If leaked memory
|
||||
contains sensitive data it might also qualify as a security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
## Never-ending transfers
|
||||
|
||||
We do not consider flaws that cause a transfer to never end to be a security
|
||||
problem. There are already several benign and likely reasons for transfers to
|
||||
stall and never end, so applications that cannot deal with never-ending
|
||||
transfers already need to have counter-measures established.
|
||||
|
||||
If the problem avoids the regular counter-measures when it causes a never-
|
||||
ending transfer, it might be a security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
## Not practically possible
|
||||
|
||||
If the flaw or vulnerability cannot practically get executed on existing
|
||||
hardware it is not a security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
## API misuse
|
||||
|
||||
If a reported issue only triggers by an application using the API in a way
|
||||
that is not documented to work or even documented to not work, it is probably
|
||||
not going to be considered a security problem. We only guarantee secure and
|
||||
proper functionality when the APIs are used as expected and documented.
|
||||
|
||||
There can be a discussion about what the documentation actually means and how
|
||||
to interpret the text, which might end up with us still agreeing that it is a
|
||||
security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
## Local attackers already present
|
||||
|
||||
When an issue can only be attacked or misused by an attacker present on the
|
||||
local system or network, the bar is raised. If a local user wrongfully has
|
||||
elevated rights on your system enough to attack curl, they can probably
|
||||
already do much worse harm and the problem is not really in curl.
|
||||
|
||||
## Debug & Experiments
|
||||
|
||||
Vulnerabilities in features which are off by default (in the build) and
|
||||
documented as experimental, or exist only in debug mode, are not eligible for a
|
||||
reward and we do not consider them security problems.
|
||||
|
||||
The same applies to scripts and software which are not installed by default
|
||||
through the make install rule.
|
||||
|
||||
## URL inconsistencies
|
||||
|
||||
URL parser inconsistencies between browsers and curl are expected and are not
|
||||
considered security vulnerabilities. The WHATWG URL Specification and RFC
|
||||
3986+ (the plus meaning that it is an extended version) [are not completely
|
||||
interoperable](https://github.com/bagder/docs/blob/master/URL-interop.md).
|
||||
|
||||
Obvious parser bugs can still be vulnerabilities of course.
|
||||
|
||||
## Visible command line arguments
|
||||
|
||||
The curl command blanks the contents of a number of command line arguments to
|
||||
prevent them from appearing in process listings. It does not blank all
|
||||
arguments, even though some that are not blanked might contain sensitive
|
||||
data. We consider this functionality a best-effort and omissions are not
|
||||
security vulnerabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
- not all systems allow the arguments to be blanked in the first place
|
||||
- since curl blanks the argument itself they are readable for a short moment
|
||||
no matter what
|
||||
- virtually every argument can contain sensitive data, depending on use
|
||||
- blanking all arguments would make it impractical for users to differentiate
|
||||
curl command lines in process listings
|
||||
|
||||
## Busy-loops
|
||||
|
||||
Busy-loops that consume 100% CPU time but eventually end (perhaps due to a set
|
||||
timeout value or otherwise) are not considered security problems. Applications
|
||||
are supposed to already handle situations when the transfer loop legitimately
|
||||
consumes 100% CPU time, so while a prolonged such busy-loop is a nasty bug, we
|
||||
do not consider it a security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
## Saving files
|
||||
|
||||
curl cannot protect against attacks where an attacker has write access to the
|
||||
same directory where curl is directed to save files.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tricking a user to run a command line
|
||||
|
||||
A creative, misleading or funny looking command line is not a security
|
||||
problem. The curl command line tool takes options and URLs on the command line
|
||||
and if an attacker can trick the user to run a specifically crafted curl
|
||||
command line, all bets are off. Such an attacker can just as well have the
|
||||
user run a much worse command that can do something fatal (like
|
||||
`sudo rm -rf /`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Terminal output and escape sequences
|
||||
|
||||
Content that is transferred from a server and gets displayed in a terminal by
|
||||
curl may contain escape sequences or use other tricks to fool the user. This
|
||||
is curl working as designed and is not a curl security problem. Escape
|
||||
sequences, moving cursor, changing color etc, is also frequently used for
|
||||
good. To reduce the risk of getting fooled, save files and browse them after
|
||||
download using a display method that minimizes risks.
|
||||
|
||||
## NULL dereferences and crashes
|
||||
|
||||
If a malicious server can trigger a NULL dereference in curl or otherwise
|
||||
cause curl to crash (and nothing worse), chances are big that we do not
|
||||
consider that a security problem.
|
||||
|
||||
Malicious servers can already cause considerable harm and denial of service
|
||||
like scenarios without having to trigger such code paths. For example by
|
||||
stalling, being terribly slow or by delivering enormous amounts of data.
|
||||
Additionally, applications are expected to handle "normal" crashes without
|
||||
that being the end of the world.
|
||||
|
||||
There need to be more and special circumstances to treat such problems as
|
||||
security issues.
|
||||
|
||||
## Legacy dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
Problems that can be triggered only by the use of a *legacy dependency* are
|
||||
not considered security problems.
|
||||
|
||||
A *legacy dependency* is here defined as:
|
||||
|
||||
- the legacy version was released over ten years ago AND
|
||||
|
||||
- the legacy version is no longer in use by any existing still supported
|
||||
operating system or distribution AND
|
||||
|
||||
- there are modern versions of equivalent or better functionality offered and
|
||||
in common use
|
||||
|
||||
## weak algorithms required for functionality
|
||||
|
||||
curl supports several algorithms that are considered weak, like DES and MD5.
|
||||
These algorithms are still not curl security vulnerabilities or security
|
||||
problems as they are only used when the users explicitly ask for their use by
|
||||
using the protocols or options that require the use of those algorithms.
|
||||
|
||||
When servers upgrade to use secure alternatives, curl users should use those
|
||||
options/protocols.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user