Category Archives: Security

cURL and libcurl, libssh2, Open Source, Security

Cheers for curl 7.58.0

Here’s to another curl release!

curl 7.58.0 is the 172nd curl release and it contains, among other things, 82 bug fixes thanks to 54 contributors (22 new). All this done with 131 commits in 56 days.

The bug fix rate is slightly lower than in the last few releases, which I tribute mostly to me having been away on vacation for a month during this release cycle. I retain my position as “committer of the Month” and January 2018 is my 29th consecutive month where I’ve done most commits in the curl source code repository. In total, almost 58% of the commits have been done by me (if we limit the count to all commits done since 2014, I’m at 43%). We now count a total of 545 unique commit authors and 1,685 contributors.

So what’s new this time? (full changelog here)

libssh backend

Introducing the pluggable SSH backend, and libssh is now the new alternative SSH backend to libssh2 that has been supported since late 2006. This change alone brought thousands of new lines of code.

Tell configure to use it with –with-libssh and you’re all set!

The libssh backend work was done by Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, Tomas Mraz, Stanislav Zidek, Robert Kolcun and Andreas Schneider.

Security

Yet again we announce security issues that we’ve found and fixed. Two of them to be exact:

  1. We found a problem with how HTTP/2 trailers was handled, which could lead to crashes or even information leakage.
  2. We addressed a problem for users sending custom Authorization: headers to HTTP servers and who are then redirected to another host that shouldn’t receive those Authorization headers.

Progress bar refresh

A minor thing, but we refreshed the progress bar layout for when no total size is known.

Next?

March 21 is the date set for next release. Unless of course we find an urgent reason to fix and release something before then…

cURL and libcurl, Firefox, Network, Security

Inspect curl’s TLS traffic

Since a long time back, the venerable network analyzer tool Wireshark (screenshot above) has provided a way to decrypt and inspect TLS traffic when sent and received by Firefox and Chrome.

You do this by making the browser tell Wireshark the SSL secrets:

  1. set the environment variable named SSLKEYLOGFILE to a file name of your choice before you start the browser
  2. Setting the same file name path in the Master-secret field in Wireshark. Go to Preferences->Protocols->SSL and edit the path as shown in the screenshot below.

Having done this simple operation, you can now inspect your browser’s HTTPS traffic in Wireshark. Just super handy and awesome.

Just remember that if you record TLS traffic and want to save it for analyzing later, you need to also save the file with the secrets so that you can decrypt that traffic capture at a later time as well.

curl

Adding curl to the mix. curl can be built using a dozen different TLS libraries and not just a single one as the browsers do. It complicates matters a bit.

In the NSS library for example, which is the TLS library curl is typically built with on Redhat and Centos, handles the SSLKEYLOGFILE magic all by itself so by extension you have been able to do this trick with curl for a long time – as long as you use curl built with NSS. A pretty good argument to use that build really.

Since curl version 7.57.0 the SSLKEYLOGFILE feature can also be enabled when built with GnuTLS, BoringSSL or OpenSSL. In the latter two libs, the feature is powered by new APIs in those libraries and in GnuTLS the library’s own logic similar to how NSS does it. Since OpenSSL is the by far most popular TLS backend for curl, this feature is now brought to users more widely.

In curl 7.58.0 (due to ship on Janurary 24, 2018), this feature is built by default also for curl with OpenSSL and in 7.57.0 you need to define ENABLE_SSLKEYLOGFILE to enable it for OpenSSL and BoringSSL.

And what’s even cooler? This feature is at the same time also brought to every single application out there that is built against this or later versions of libcurl. In one single blow. now suddenly a whole world opens to make it easier for you to debug, diagnose and analyze your applications’ TLS traffic when powered by libcurl!

Like the description above for browsers, you

  1. set the environment variable SSLKEYLOGFILE to a file name to store the secrets in
  2. tell Wireshark to use that same file to find the TLS secrets (Preferences->Protocols->SSL), as the screenshot showed above
  3. run the libcurl-using application (such as curl) and Wireshark will be able to inspect TLS-based protocols just fine!

trace options

Of course, as a light weight alternative: you may opt to use the –trace or –trace-ascii options with the curl tool and be fully satisfied with that. Using those command line options, curl will log everything sent and received in the protocol layer without the TLS applied. With HTTPS you’ll see all the HTTP traffic for example.

Credits

Most of the curl work to enable this feature was done by Peter Wu and Ray Satiro.

cURL and libcurl, Security

curl 7.57.0 happiness

The never-ending series of curl releases continued today when we released version 7.57.0. The 171th release since the beginning, and the release that follows 37 days after 7.56.1. Remember that 7.56.1 was an extra release that fixed a few most annoying regressions.

We bump the minor number to 57 and clear the patch number in this release due to the changes introduced. None of them very ground breaking, but fun and useful and detailed below.

41 contributors helped fix 69 bugs in these 37 days since the previous release, using 115 separate commits. 23 of those contributors were new, making the total list of contributors now contain 1649 individuals! 25 individuals authored commits since the previous release, making the total number of authors 540 persons.

The curl web site currently sends out 8GB data per hour to over 2 million HTTP requests per day.

Support RFC7616 – HTTP Digest

This allows HTTP Digest authentication to use the must better SHA256 algorithm instead of the old, and deemed unsuitable, MD5. This should be a transparent improvement so curl should just be able to use this without any particular new option has to be set, but the server-side support for this version seems to still be a bit lacking.

(Side-note: I’m credited in RFC 7616 for having contributed my thoughts!)

Sharing the connection cache

In this modern age with multi core processors and applications using multi-threaded designs, we of course want libcurl to enable applications to be able to get the best performance out of libcurl.

libcurl is already thread-safe so you can run parallel transfers multi-threaded perfectly fine if you want to, but it doesn’t allow the application to share handles between threads. Before this specific change, this limitation has forced multi-threaded applications to be satisfied with letting libcurl has a separate “connection cache” in each thread.

The connection cache, sometimes also referred to as the connection pool, is where libcurl keeps live connections that were previously used for a transfer and still haven’t been closed, so that a subsequent request might be able to re-use one of them. Getting a re-used connection for a request is much faster than having to create a new one. Having one connection cache per thread, is ineffective.

Starting now, libcurl’s “share concept” allows an application to specify a single connection cache to be used cross-thread and cross-handles, so that connection re-use will be much improved when libcurl is used multi-threaded. This will significantly benefit the most demanding libcurl applications, but it will also allow more flexible designs as now the connection pool can be designed to survive individual handles in a way that wasn’t previously possible.

Brotli compression

The popular browsers have supported brotli compression method for a while and it has already become widely supported by servers.

Now, curl supports it too and the command line tool’s –compressed option will ask for brotli as well as gzip, if your build supports it. Similarly, libcurl supports it with its CURLOPT_ACCEPT_ENCODING option. The server can then opt to respond using either compression format, depending on what it knows.

According to CertSimple, who ran tests on the top-1000 sites of the Internet, brotli gets contents 14-21% smaller than gzip.

As with other compression algorithms, libcurl uses a 3rd party library for brotli compression and you may find that Linux distributions and others are a bit behind in shipping packages for a brotli decompression library. Please join in and help this happen. At the moment of this writing, the Debian package is only available in experimental.

(Readers may remember my libbrotli project, but that effort isn’t really needed anymore since the brotli project itself builds a library these days.)

Three security issues

In spite of our hard work and best efforts, security issues keep getting reported and we fix them accordingly. This release has three new ones and I’ll describe them below. None of them are alarmingly serious and they will probably not hurt anyone badly.

Two things can be said about the security issues this time:

1. You’ll note that we’ve changed naming convention for the advisory URLs, so that they now have a random component. This is to reduce potential information leaks based on the name when we pass these around before releases.

2. Two of the flaws happen only on 32 bit systems, which reveals a weakness in our testing. Most of our CI tests, torture tests and fuzzing are made on 64 bit architectures. We have no immediate and good fix for this, but this is something we must work harder on.

1. NTLM buffer overflow via integer overflow

(CVE-2017-8816) Limited to 32 bit systems, this is a flaw where curl takes the combined length of the user name and password, doubles it, and allocates a memory area that big. If that doubling ends up larger than 4GB, an integer overflow makes a very small buffer be allocated instead and then curl will overwrite that.

Yes, having user name plus password be longer than two gigabytes is rather excessive and I hope very few applications would allow this.

2. FTP wildcard out of bounds read

(CVE-2017-8817) curl’s wildcard functionality for FTP transfers is not a not very widely used feature, but it was discovered that the default pattern matching function could erroneously read beyond the URL buffer if the match pattern ends with an open bracket ‘[‘ !

This problem was detected by the OSS-Fuzz project! This flaw  has existed in the code since this feature was added, over seven years ago.

3. SSL out of buffer access

(CVE-2017-8818) In July this year we introduced multissl support in libcurl. This allows an application to select which TLS backend libcurl should use, if it was built to support more than one. It was a fairly large overhaul to the TLS code in curl and unfortunately it also brought this bug.

Also, only happening on 32 bit systems, libcurl would allocate a buffer that was 4 bytes too small for the TLS backend’s data which would lead to the TLS library accessing and using data outside of the heap allocated buffer.

Next?

The next release will ship no later than January 24th 2018. I think that one will as well add changes and warrant the minor number to bump. We have fun pending stuff such as: a new SSH backend, modifiable happy eyeballs timeout and more. Get involved and help us do even more good!

cURL and libcurl, Security, Web

HTTPS-only curl mirrors

We’ve had volunteers donating bandwidth to the curl project basically since its inception. They mirror our download archives so that you can download them directly from their server farms instead of hitting the main curl site.

On the main site we check the mirrors daily and offers convenient download links from the download page. It has historically been especially useful for the rare occasions when our site has been down for administrative purpose or others.

Since May 2017 the curl site is fronted by Fastly which then has reduced the bandwidth issue as well as the downtime problem. The mirrors are still there though.

Starting now, we will only link to download mirrors that offer the curl downloads over HTTPS in our continued efforts to help our users to stay secure and avoid malicious manipulation of data. I’ve contacted the mirror admins and asked if they can offer HTTPS instead.

The curl download page still contains links to HTTP-only packages and pages, and we would really like to fix them as well. But at the same time we’ve reasoned that it is better to still help users to find packages than not, so for the packages where there are no HTTPS linkable alternatives we still link to HTTP-only pages. For now.

If you host curl packages anywhere, for anyone, please consider hosting them over HTTPS for all the users’ sake.

cURL and libcurl, Open Source, Security

The life of a curl security bug

The report

Usually, security problems in the curl project come to us out of the blue. Someone has found a bug they suspect may have a security impact and they tell us about it on the curl-security@haxx.se email address. Mails sent to this address reach a private mailing list with the curl security team members as the only subscribers.

An important first step is that we respond to the sender, acknowledging the report. Often we also include a few follow-up questions at once. It is important to us to keep the original reporter in the loop and included in all subsequent discussions about this issue – unless they prefer to opt out.

If we find the issue ourselves, we act pretty much the same way.

In the most obvious and well-reported cases there are no room for doubts or hesitation about what the bugs and the impact of them are, but very often the reports lead to discussions.

The assessment

Is it a bug in the first place, is it perhaps even documented or just plain bad use?

If it is a bug, is this a security problem that can be abused or somehow put users in some sort of risk?

Most issues we get reported as security issues are also in the end treated as such, as we tend to err on the safe side.

The time plan

Unless the issue is critical, we prefer to schedule a fix and announcement of the issue in association with the pending next release, and as we do releases every 8 weeks like clockwork, that’s never very far away.

We communicate the suggested schedule with the reporter to make sure we agree. If a sooner release is preferred, we work out a schedule for an extra release. In the past we’ve did occasional faster security releases also when the issue already had been made public, so we wanted to shorten the time window during which users could be harmed by the problem.

We really really do not want a problem to persist longer than until the next release.

The fix

The curl security team and the reporter work on fixing the issue. Ideally in part by the reporter making sure that they can’t reproduce it anymore and we add a test case or two.

We keep the fix undisclosed for the time being. It is not committed to the public git repository but kept in a private branch. We usually put it on a private URL so that we can link to it when we ask for a CVE, see below.

All security issues should make us ask ourselves – what did we do wrong that made us not discover this sooner? And ideally we should introduce processes, tests and checks to make sure we detect other similar mistakes now and in the future.

Typically we only generate a single patch from the git master master and offer that as the final solution. In the curl project we don’t maintain multiple branches. Distros and vendors who ship older or even multiple curl versions backport the patch to their systems by themselves. Sometimes we get backported patches back to offer users as well, but those are exceptions to the rule.

The advisory

In parallel to working on the fix, we write up a “security advisory” about the problem. It is a detailed description about the problem, what impact it may have if triggered or abused and if we know of any exploits of it.

What conditions need to be met for the bug to trigger. What’s the version range that is affected, what’s the remedies that can be done as a work-around if the patch is not applied etc.

We work out the advisory in cooperation with the reporter so that we get the description and the credits right.

The advisory also always contains a time line that clearly describes when we got to know about the problem etc.

The CVE

Once we have an advisory and a patch, none of which needs to be their final versions, we can proceed and ask for a CVE. A CVE is a unique “ID” that is issued for security problems to make them easy to reference. CVE stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures.

Depending on where in the release cycle we are, we might have to hold off at this point. For all bugs that aren’t proprietary-operating-system specific, we pre-notify and ask for a CVE on the distros@openwall mailing list. This mailing list prohibits an embargo longer than 14 days, so we cannot ask for a CVE from them longer than 2 weeks in advance before our release.

The idea here is that the embargo time gives the distributions time and opportunity to prepare updates of their packages so they can be pretty much in sync with our release and reduce the time window their users are at risk. Of course, not all operating system vendors manage to actually ship a curl update on two weeks notice, and at least one major commercial vendor regularly informs me that this is a too short time frame for them.

For flaws that don’t affect the free operating systems at all, we ask MITRE directly for CVEs.

The last 48 hours

When there is roughly 48 hours left until the coming release and security announcement, we merge the private security fix branch into master and push it. That immediately makes the fix public and those who are alert can then take advantage of this knowledge – potentially for malicious purposes. The security advisory itself is however not made public until release day.

We use these 48 hours to get the fix tested on more systems to verify that it is not doing any major breakage. The weakest part of our security procedure is that the fix has been worked out in secret so it has not had the chance to get widely built and tested, so that is performed now.

The release

We upload the new release. We send out the release announcement email, update the web site and make the advisory for the issue public. We send out the security advisory alert on the proper email lists.

Bug Bounty?

Unfortunately we don’t have any bug bounties on our own in the curl project. We simply have no money for that. We actually don’t have money at all for anything.

Hackerone offers bounties for curl related issues. If you have reported a critical issue you can request one from them after it has been fixed in curl.

 

cURL and libcurl, Network, Security

Say hi to curl 7.56.0

2 Comments

Another curl version has been released into the world. curl 7.56.0 is available for download from the usual place. Here are some news I think are worthy to mention this time…

An FTP security issue

A mistake in the code that parses responses to the PWD command could make curl read beyond the end of a buffer, Max Dymond figured it out, and we’ve released a security advisory about it. Our 69th security vulnerability counted from the beginning and the 8th reported in 2017.

Multiple SSL backends

Since basically forever you’ve been able to build curl with a selected SSL backend to make it get a different feature set or behave slightly different – or use a different license or get a different footprint. curl supports eleven different TLS libraries!

Starting now, libcurl can be built to support more than one SSL backend! You specify all the SSL backends at build-time and then you can tell libcurl at run-time exactly which of the backends it should use.

The selection can only happen once per invocation so there’s no switching back and forth among them, but still. It also of course requires that you actually build curl with more than one TLS library, which you do by telling configure all the libs to use.

The first user of this feature that I’m aware of is git for windows that can select between using the schannel and OpenSSL backends.

curl_global_sslset() is the new libcurl call to do this with.

This feature was brought by Johannes Schindelin.

New MIME API

The currently provided API for creating multipart formposts, curl_formadd, has always been considered a bit quirky and complicated to work with. Its extensive use of varargs is to blame for a significant part of that.

Now, we finally introduce a replacement API to accomplish basically the same features but also with a few additional ones, using a new API that is supposed to be easier to use and easier to wrap for bindings etc.

Introducing the mime API: curl_mime_init, curl_mime_addpart, curl_mime_name and more. See the postit2.c and multi-post.c examples for some easy to grasp examples.

This work was done by Patrick Monnerat.

SSH compression

The SSH protocol allows clients and servers to negotiate to use of compression when communicating, and now curl can too. curl has the new –compressed-ssh option and libcurl has a new setopt called CURLOPT_SSH_COMPRESSION using the familiar style.

Feature worked on by Viktor Szakats.

SSLKEYLOGFILE

Peter Wu and Jay Satiro have worked on this feature that allows curl to store SSL session secrets in a file if this environment variable is set. This is normally the way you tell Chrome and Firefox to do this, and is extremely helpful when you want to wireshark and analyze a TLS stream.

This is still disabled by default due to its early days. Enable it by defining ENABLE_SSLKEYLOGFILE when building libcurl and set environment variable SSLKEYLOGFILE to a pathname that will receive the keys.

Numbers

This, the 169th curl release, contains 89 bug fixes done during the 51 days since the previous release.

47 contributors helped making this release, out of whom 18 are new.

254 commits were done since the previous release, by 26 authors.

The top-5 commit authors this release are:

  1. Daniel Stenberg (116)
  2. Johannes Schindelin (37)
  3. Patrick Monnerat (28)
  4. Jay Satiro (12)
  5. Dan Fandrich (10)

Thanks a lot everyone!

(picture from pixabay)

cURL and libcurl, Open Source, Security

The backdoor threat

11 Comments

— “Have you ever detected anyone trying to add a backdoor to curl?”

— “Have you ever been pressured by an organization or a person to add suspicious code to curl that you wouldn’t otherwise accept?”

— “If a crime syndicate would kidnap your family to force you to comply, what backdoor would you be be able to insert into curl that is the least likely to get detected?” (The less grim version of this question would instead offer huge amounts of money.)

I’ve been asked these questions and variations of them when I’ve stood up in front of audiences around the world and talked about curl and how it is one of the most widely used software components in the world, counting way over three billion instances.

Back door (noun)
— a feature or defect of a computer system that allows surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

So how is it?

No. I’ve never seen a deliberate attempt to add a flaw, a vulnerability or a backdoor into curl. I’ve seen bad patches and I’ve seen patches that brought bugs that years later were reported as security problems, but I did not spot any deliberate attempt to do bad in any of them. But if done with skills, certainly I wouldn’t have noticed them being deliberate?

If I had cooperated in adding a backdoor or been threatened to, then I wouldn’t tell you anyway and I’d thus say no to questions about it.

How to be sure

There is only one way to be sure: review the code you download and intend to use. Or get it from a trusted source that did the review for you.

If you have a version you trust, you really only have to review the changes done since then.

Possibly there’s some degree of safety in numbers, and as thousands of applications and systems use curl and libcurl and at least some of them do reviews and extensive testing, one of those could discover mischievous activities if there are any and report them publicly.

Infected machines or owned users

The servers that host the curl releases could be targeted by attackers and the tarballs for download could be replaced by something that carries evil code. There’s no such thing as a fail-safe machine, especially not if someone really wants to and tries to target us. The safeguard there is the GPG signature with which I sign all official releases. No malicious user can (re-)produce them. They have to be made by me (since I package the curl releases). That comes back to trusting me again. There’s of course no safe-guard against me being forced to signed evil code with a knife to my throat…

If one of the curl project members with git push rights would get her account hacked and her SSH key password brute-forced, a very skilled hacker could possibly sneak in something, short-term. Although my hopes are that as we review and comment each others’ code to a very high degree, that would be really hard. And the hacked person herself would most likely react.

Downloading from somewhere

I think the highest risk scenario is when users download pre-built curl or libcurl binaries from various places on the internet that isn’t the official curl web site. How can you know for sure what you’re getting then, as you couldn’t review the code or changes done. You just put your trust in a remote person or organization to do what’s right for you.

Trusting other organizations can be totally fine, as when you download using Linux distro package management systems etc as then you can expect a certain level of checks and vouching have happened and there will be digital signatures and more involved to minimize the risk of external malicious interference.

Pledging there’s no backdoor

Some people argue that projects could or should pledge for every release that there’s no deliberate backdoor planted so that if the day comes in the future when a three-letter secret organization forces us to insert a backdoor, the lack of such a pledge for the subsequent release would function as an alarm signal to people that something is wrong.

That takes us back to trusting a single person again. A truly evil adversary can of course force such a pledge to be uttered no matter what, even if that then probably is more mafia level evilness and not mere three-letter organization shadiness anymore.

I would be a bit stressed out to have to do that pledge every single release as if I ever forgot or messed it up, it should lead to a lot of people getting up in arms and how would such a mistake be fixed? It’s little too irrevocable for me. And we do quite frequent releases so the risk for mistakes is not insignificant.

Also, if I would pledge that, is that then a promise regarding all my code only, or is that meant to be a pledge for the entire code base as done by all committers? It doesn’t scale very well…

Additionally, I’m a Swede living in Sweden. The American organizations cannot legally force me to backdoor anything, and the Swedish versions of those secret organizations don’t have the legal rights to do so either (caveat: I’m not a lawyer). So, the real threat is not by legal means.

What backdoor would be likely?

It would be very hard to add code, unnoticed, that sends off data to somewhere else. Too much code that would be too obvious.

A backdoor similarly couldn’t really be made to split off data from the transfer pipe and store it locally for other systems to read, as that too is probably too much code that is too different than the current code and would be detected instantly.

No, I’m convinced the most likely backdoor code in curl is a deliberate but hard-to-detect security vulnerability that let’s the attacker exploit the program using libcurl/curl by some sort of specific usage pattern. So when triggered it can trick the program to send off memory contents or perhaps overwrite the local stack or the heap. Quite possibly only one step out of several steps necessary for a successful attack, much like how a single-byte-overwrite can lead to root access.

Any past security problems on purpose?

We’ve had almost 70 security vulnerabilities reported through the project’s almost twenty years of existence. Since most of them were triggered by mistakes in code I wrote myself, I can be certain that none of those problems were introduced on purpose. I can’t completely rule out that someone else’s patch modified curl along the way and then by extension maybe made a vulnerability worse or easier to trigger, could have been made on purpose. None of the security problems that were introduced by others have shown any sign of “deliberateness”. (Or were written cleverly enough to not make me see that!)

Maybe backdoors have been planted that we just haven’t discovered yet?

Discussion

Follow-up discussion/comments on hacker news.

cURL and libcurl, Open Source, Security

keep finding old security problems

I decided to look closer at security problems and the age of the reported issues in the curl project.

One theory I had when I started to collect this data, was that we actually get security problems reported earlier and earlier over time. That bugs would be around in public release for shorter periods of time nowadays than what they did in the past.

My thinking would go like this: Logically, bugs that have been around for a long time have had a long time to get caught. The more eyes we’ve had on the code, the fewer old bugs should be left and going forward we should more often catch more recently added bugs.

The time from a bug’s introduction into the code until the day we get a security report about it, should logically decrease over time.

What if it doesn’t?

First, let’s take a look at the data at hand. In the curl project we have so far reported in total 68 security problems over the project’s life time. The first 4 were not recorded correctly so I’ll discard them from my data here, leaving 64 issues to check out.

The graph below shows the time distribution. The all time leader so far is the issue reported to us on March 10 this year (2017), which was present in the code since the version 6.5 release done on March 13 2000. 6,206 days, just three days away from 17 whole years.

There are no less than twelve additional issues that lingered from more than 5,000 days until reported. Only 20 (31%) of the reported issues had been public for less than 1,000 days. The fastest report was reported on the release day: 0 days.

The median time from release to report is a whopping 2541 days.

When we receive a report about a security problem, we want the issue fixed, responsibly announced to the world and ship a new release where the problem is gone. The median time to go through this procedure is 26.5 days, and the distribution looks like this:

What stands out here is the TLS session resumption bypass, which happened because we struggled with understanding it and how to address it properly. Otherwise the numbers look all reasonable to me as we typically do releases at least once every 8 weeks. We rarely ship a release with a known security issue outstanding.

Why are very old issues still found?

I think partly because the tools are gradually improving that aid people these days to find things much better, things that simply wasn’t found very often before. With new tools we can find problems that have been around for a long time.

Every year, the age of the oldest parts of the code get one year older. So the older the project gets, the older bugs can be found, while in the early days there was a smaller share of the code that was really old (if any at all).

What if we instead count age as a percentage of the project’s life time? Using this formula, a bug found at day 100 that was added at day 50 would be 50% but if it was added at day 80 it would be 20%. Maybe this would show a graph where the bars are shrinking over time?

But no. In fact it shows 17 (27%) of them having been present during 80% or more of the project’s life time! The median issue had been in there during 49% of the project’s life time!

It does however make another issue the worst offender, as one of the issues had been around during 91% of the project’s life time.

This counts on March 20 1998 being the birth day. Of course we got no reports the first few years since we basically had no users then!

Specific or generic?

Is this pattern something that is specific for the curl project or can we find it in other projects too? I don’t know. I have not seen this kind of data being presented by others and I don’t have the same insight on such details of projects with an enough amount of issues to be interesting.

What can we do to make the bars shrink?

Well, if there are old bugs left to find they won’t shrink, because for every such old security issue that’s still left there will be a tall bar. Hopefully though, by doing more tests, using more tools regularly (fuzzers, analyzers etc) and with more eyeballs on the code, we should iron out our security issues over time. Logically that should lead to a project where newly added security problems are detected sooner rather than later. We just don’t seem to be at that point yet…

Caveat

One fact that skews the numbers is that we are much more likely to record issues as security related these days. A decade ago when we got a report about a segfault or something we would often just consider it bad code and fix it, and neither us maintainers nor the reporter would think much about the potential security impact.

These days we’re at the other end of the spectrum where we people are much faster to jumping to a security issue suspicion or conclusion. Today people report bugs as security issues to a much higher degree than they did in the past. This is basically a good thing though, even if it makes it harder to draw conclusions over time.

Data sources

When you want to repeat the above graphs and verify my numbers:

  • vuln.pm – from the curl web site repository holds security issue meta data
  • releaselog – on the curl web site offers release meta data, even as a CSV download on the bottom of the page
  • report2release.pl – the perl script I used to calculate the report until release periods.
cURL and libcurl, Security

curl bug bounty

1 Comment

The curl project is a project driven by volunteers with no financing at all except for a few sponsors who pay for the server hosting and for contributors to work on features and bug fixes on work hours. curl and libcurl are used widely by companies and commercial software so a fair amount of work is done by people during paid work hours.

This said, we don’t have any money in the project. Nada. Zilch. We can’t pay bug bounties or hire people to do specific things for us. We can only ask people or companies to volunteer things or services for us.

This is not a complaint – far from it. It works really well and we have a good stream of contributions, bugs reports and more. We are fortunate enough to make widely used software which gives our project a certain impact in the world.

Bug bounty!

Hacker One coordinates a bug bounty program for flaws that affects “the Internet”, and based on previously paid out bounties, serious flaws in libcurl match that description and can be deemed worthy of bounties. For example, 3000 USD was paid for libcurl: URL request injection (the curl advisory for that flaw) and 1000 USD was paid for libcurl duphandle read out of bounds (the corresponding curl advisory).

I think more flaws in libcurl could’ve met the criteria, but I suspect more people than me haven’t been aware of this possibility for bounties.

I was glad to find out that this bounty program pays out money for libcurl issues and I hope it will motivate people to take an extra look into the inner workings of libcurl and help us improve.

What qualifies?

The bounty program is run and administered completely out of control or insight from the curl project itself and I must underscore that while libcurl issues can qualify, their emphasis is on fixing vulnerabilities in Internet software that have a potentially big impact.

To qualify for this bounty, vulnerabilities must meet the following criteria:

  • Be implementation agnostic: the vulnerability is present in implementations from multiple vendors or a vendor with dominant market share. Do not send vulnerabilities that only impact a single website, product, or project.
  • Be open source: finding manifests itself in at least one popular open source project.

In addition, vulnerabilities should meet most of the following criteria:

  • Be widespread: vulnerability manifests itself across a wide range of products, or impacts a large number of end users.
  • Have critical impact: vulnerability has extreme negative consequences for the general public.
  • Be novel: vulnerability is new or unusual in an interesting way.

If your libcurl security flaw matches this, go ahead and submit your request for a bounty. If you’re at a company using libcurl at scale, consider joining that program as a bounty sponsor!

cURL and libcurl, Development, Open Source, Security

Yes C is unsafe, but…

25 Comments

I posted curl is C a few days ago and it raced on hacker news, reddit and elsewhere and got well over a thousand comments in those forums alone. The blog post has been read more than 130,000 times so far.

Addendum a few days later

Many commenters of my curl is C post struck down on my claim that most of our security flaws aren’t due to curl being written in C. It turned out into some sort of CVE counting game in some of the threads.

I think that’s missing the point I was trying to make. Even if 75% of them happened due to us using C, that fact alone would still not be a strong enough reason for me to reconsider our language of choice (at this point in time). We use C for a whole range of reasons as I tried to lay out there in spite of the security challenges the language brings. We know C has tricky corners and we know we are likely to do more mistakes going forward.

curl is currently one of the most distributed and most widely used software components in the universe, be it open or proprietary and there are easily way over three billion instances of it running in appliances, servers, computers and devices across the globe. Right now. In your phone. In your car. In your TV. In your computer. Etc.

If we then have had 40, 50 or even 60 security problems because of us using C, through-out our 19 years of history, it really isn’t a whole lot given the scale and time we’re talking about here.

Using another language would’ve caused at least some problems due to that language, plus I feel a need to underscore the fact that none of the memory safe languages anyone would suggest we should switch to have been around for 19 years. A portion of our security bugs were even created in our project before those alternatives you would suggest were available! Let alone as stable and functional alternatives.

This is of course no guarantee that there isn’t still more ugly things to discover or that we won’t mess up royally in the future, but who will throw the first stone when it comes to that? We will continue to work hard on minimizing risks, detecting problems early by ourselves and work closely together with everyone who reports suspected problems to us.

Number of problems as a measurement

The fact that we have 62 CVEs to date (and more will follow surely) is rather a proof that we work hard on fixing bugs, that we have an open process that deals with the problems in the most transparent way we can think of and that people are on their toes looking for these problems. You should not rate a project in any way purely based on the number of CVEs – you really need to investigate what lies behind the numbers if you want to understand and judge the situation.

Future

Let me clarify this too: I can very well imagine a future where we transition to another language or attempt various others things to enhance the project further – security wise and more. I’m not really ruling anything out as I usually only have very vague ideas of what the future might look like. I just don’t expect it to be happening within the next few years.

These “you should switch language” remarks are strangely enough from the backseat drivers of the Internet. Those who can tell us with confidence how to run our project but who don’t actually show us any code.

Languages

What perhaps made me most sad in the aftermath of said previous post, is everyone who failed to hold more than one thought at a time in their heads. In my post I wrote 800 words on some of the reasoning behind us sticking to the language C in the curl project. I specifically did not say that I dislike certain other languages or that any of those alternative languages are bad or should be avoided. Please friends, I wrote about why curl uses C. There are many fine languages out there and you should all use them as much as you possibly can, and I will too – but not in the curl project (at the moment). So no, I don’t hate language XXXX. I didn’t say so, and I didn’t imply it either. Don’t put that label on me, thanks.