One of the comments to the The modern packager’s security nightmare post posed a very important question:
why is it bad to depend on the app developer to address security issues? In fact, I believe it is important enough to justify a whole post discussing the problem. To clarify, the wider context is bundling dependencies, i.e. relying on the application developer to ensure that all the dependencies included with the application to be free of vulnerabilities.
In my opinion, the root of security in open source software is widely understood auditing. Since the code is public, everyone can read it, analyze it, test it. However, with a typical system install including thousands of packages from hundreds of different upstreams, it is really impossible even for large companies (not to mention individuals) to be able to audit all that code. Instead, we assume that with large enough number of eyes looking at the code, all vulnerabilities will eventually be found and published.
On top of auditing we add trust. Today, CVE authorities are at the root of our vulnerability trust. We trust them to reliably publish reports of vulnerabilities found in various packages. However, once again we can’t expect users to manually make sure that the huge number of the packages they are running are free of vulnerabilities. Instead, the trust is hierarchically moved down to software authors and distributions.
Both software authors and distribution packagers share a common goal — ensuring that their end users are running working, secure software. Why do I believe then that the user’s trust is better placed in distribution packagers than in software authors? I am going to explain this in three points.
Continue reading “Why not rely on app developer to handle security?”
One of the most important tasks of the distribution packager is to ensure that the software shipped to our users is free of security vulnerabilities. While finding and fixing the vulnerable code is usually considered upstream’s responsibility, the packager needs to ensure that all these fixes reach the end users ASAP. With the aid of central package management and dynamic linking, the Linux distributions have pretty much perfected the deployment of security fixes. Ideally, fixing a vulnerable dependency is as simple as patching a single shared library via the distribution’s automated update system.
Of course, this works only if the package in question is actually following good security practices. Over the years, many Linux distributions (at the very least, Debian, Fedora and Gentoo) have been fighting these bad practices with some success. However, today the times have changed. Today, for every 10 packages fixed, a completely new ecosystem emerges with the bad security practices at its central point. Go, Rust and to some extent Python are just a few examples of programming languages that have integrated the bad security practices into the very fabric of their existence, and recreated the same old problems in entirely new ways.
The root issue of bundling dependencies has been discussed many times before. The Gentoo Wiki explains why you should not bundle dependencies, and links to more material about it. I would like to take a bit wider approach, and discuss not only bundling (or vendoring) dependencies but also two closely relevant problems: static linking and pinning dependencies.
Continue reading “The modern packager’s security nightmare”
As you probably know (and aren’t necessarily happy about it), Gentoo is actively working on eliminating Python 2.7 support from packages until end of 2020. Nevertheless, we are going to keep the Python 2.7 interpreter much longer because of some build-time dependencies. While we do that, we consider it important to keep Python 2.7 as secure as possible.
The last Python 2.7 release was in April 2020. Since then, at least Gentoo and Fedora have backported CVE-2019-20907 (infinite loop in tarfile) fix to it, mostly because the patch from Python 3 applied cleanly to Python 2.7. I’ve indicated that Python 2.7 may contain more vulnerabilities, and two days ago I’ve finally gotten to audit it properly as part of bumping PyPy.
The result is matching two more vulnerabilities that were discovered in Python 3.6, and backporting fixes for them: CVE-2020-8492 (ReDoS in basic HTTP auth handling) and bpo-39603 (header injection via HTTP method). I am pleased to announce that Gentoo is probably the first distribution to address these issues, and our Python 2.7.18-r2 should not contain any known vulnerabilities. Of course, this doesn’t mean it’s safe from undiscovered problems.
While at it, I’ve also audited PyPy. Sadly, all current versions of PyPy2.7 were vulnerable to all aforementioned issues, plus partially to CVE-2019-18348 (header injection via hostname, fixed in 2.7.18). PyPy3.6 was even worse, missing 12 fixes from CPython 3.6. All these issues were fixed in Mercurial now, and should be part of 7.3.2 final.
The recent key poisoning attack on SKS keyservers shook the world of OpenPGP. While this isn’t a new problem, it has not been exploited on this scale before. The attackers have proved how easy it is to poison commonly used keys on the keyservers and effectively render GnuPG unusably slow. A renewed discussion on improving keyservers has started as a result. It also forced Gentoo to employ countermeasures. You can read more on them in the ‘Impact of SKS keyserver poisoning on Gentoo’ news item.
Coincidentally, the attack happened shortly after the launch of keys.openpgp.org, that advertises itself as both poisoning-resistant and GDPR-friendly keyserver. Naturally, many users see it as the ultimate solution to the issues with SKS. I’m afraid I have to disagree — in my opinion, this keyserver does not solve any problems, it merely cripples OpenPGP in order to avoid being affected by them, and harms its security in the process.
In this article, I’d like to shortly explain what the problem is, and which of the different solutions proposed so far to it (e.g. on gnupg-users mailing list) make sense, and which make things even worse. Naturally, I will also cover the new Hagrid keyserver as one of the glorified non-solutions.
Continue reading “SKS poisoning, keys.openpgp.org / Hagrid and other non-solutions”
Traditionally, OpenPGP revocation certificates are used as a last resort. You are expected to generate one for your primary key and keep it in a secure location. If you ever lose the secret portion of the key and are unable to revoke it any other way, you import the revocation certificate and submit the updated key to keyservers. However, there is another interesting use for revocation certificates — revoking shared organization keys.
Let’s take Gentoo, for example. We are using a few keys needed to perform automated signatures on servers. For this reason, the key is especially exposed to attacks and we want to be able to revoke it quickly if the need arises. Now, we really do not want to have every single Infra member hold a copy of the secret primary key. However, we can give Infra members revocation certificates instead. This way, they maintain the possibility of revoking the key without unnecessarily increasing its exposure.
The problem with traditional revocation certificates is that they are supported for the purpose of revoking the primary key only. In our security model, the primary key is well protected, compared to subkeys that are totally exposed. Therefore, it is superfluous to revoke the complete key when only a subkey is compromised. To resolve this limitation, gen-revoke tool was created that can create exported revocation signatures for both the primary key and subkeys.
Continue reading “gen-revoke: extending revocation certificates to subkeys”