Tag Archives: Security

cURL and libcurl

How the CNA thing is working out

3 Comments

Do you remember how curl became a CNA early last year?

I was reminded that I had not really gotten back to this topic and explained to you, my dear readers, how it is and how it has worked out. This curl-being-a-CNA thing I mean.

CNA stands for CVE Numbering Authority. Every CNA has the right and ability to allocate and publish their own CVE records. We manage a “vulnerability scope” that is ours and every CNA cares for all CVEs within our own respective scopes. Right now there are 450 CNAs, up from 350 when we joined.

CVE instability

Recently the entire CVE system has been shaky. The funding was gone, came back and now while back still seems unreliable and the entire thing is like walking on thin ice. While a related issue, it is not really changing how we work with vulnerabilities and our role as CNA. If the CVE system breaks down and we change to something else tomorrow, we would still try to work exactly the same under that system.

It was never a good idea for CVE to be so tightly associated with or under the control of the US government (any government really). Maybe this can still push the development in the right direction?

Becoming CNA

A primary reason for us to become CNA was to be able to block bogus CVEs from being registered against curl. This has worked fine, but we also have not yet had to reject a single CVE request…!

A secondary reason was to be able to set our own severity levels for the issues we publish. This has not worked out great – or at all really. Or rather, we can indeed set our own CVSS scores on issues and then that would had been fine, but since we object to the one-dimensional impossible mission of setting a single score for a problem with a product that can be used in virtually any product and in any context, it does not. When we don’t fill in the CVSS field, someone else does it for us and they do it more or less by rolling dice.

More on CVSS below.

The actual process of becoming a CNA is straight-forward. It does not cost any money (just some time and effort), there is not a lot of red tape or weirdo procedures to follow or forms to fill in. There are just a few basic and quite reasonable steps and confirmations made, and then you’re in.

Being CNA

The actual being a CNA part is a low friction and low maintenance role. Allocating and publishing CVEs can of course be burdensome, but it’s not a lot more work to do it yourself than to fill in forms and have someone else press submit.

The bulk of the security work in curl is still the same as before we became a CNA, as that is the researching, understanding, debating and assessing part of it. In our case, we had meticulous control and check of every possible detail of our security related issues already before and we still do. We take pride in providing top notch security information.

Working on the inside

Being a CNA of course allows us to discuss and work on things for and related to the CVE project on “the inside”. There are two things I primarily want like to see addressed:

Flaw 1 – everyone must be a CNA

The fact that the CVE system works so bad for involved parties (like Open Source projects) that are not CNAs I believe is a primary weakness in the system. I believe this is the main reason for the current avalanche of new CNAs signing up. We all want control of CVEs assigned to us – or claiming to be about our products.

I would like to see a system where projects could add their products to the scope of an existing CNA so that small projects can avoid becoming a CNA but still “protect” and “own” their respective CVE spaces. This alone would drastically lessen the need and attraction of the whole world becoming CNAs. I don’t think there is anything inherent in the system that prevents this from working, but it would perhaps be good with a more formalized way of accepting this approach.

Flaw 2 – CVSS is often more of a joke than useful

There is this OSS CNA user group, an informal formation of Open Source based CNAs that discuss CVE and vulnerability management within this system, and as a team we are currently drafting a proposal to allow Open Source projects to prevent ADPs (Authorized Data Publishers) like CISA to amend CVE records with CVSS scores.

This is far from being just a curl problem. The Linux kernel has it, perl has it, lots of projects who do foundational and ubiquitous software do. When we report a security problem, it is next to impossible for us to assess the CVSS score in a way that would work for everyone as our stuff can be used in some many different places in so many different ways.

For this reason we avoid setting CVSS scores, but for now we cannot stop official ADPs to then step in and do it for us. We cannot say stop. We cannot prevent them from doing this. We want to establish a formal mechanism and process where can say STOP. To tell them hands off from our CVSS score field. To let it remain unset if we decide so.

Other flaws

Of course there are more issues in this system, but I consider the two ones mentioned above more important than others.

Future

Remind me and I’ll follow up in a year or so and see how things are different if at all. I expect lots of new CNAs in the meantime. I expect the CVE system to go through at least some metamorphosis following in the footsteps of the US breakdown. I expect 2025 to have substantially more CVE entries published than during 2024 and I expect 2026 to have even more.

cURL and libcurl

disabling cert checks: we have not learned much

4 Comments

And by that I mean the global “we” as in the world of developers.

In the beginning there was SSL

When I first learned about SSL and how to use it in the mid to late 1990s, it took me a while to realize and understand the critical importance of having the client verifying the server’s certificate in the handshake. Once I had understood, we made sure that curl would default to doing the check correctly and refuse connecting if the certificate check fails.

Since curl and libcurl 7.10 (released in October 2002) we verify server certificates by default. Today, more than twenty-two years later, there should realistically be virtually no users left using a curl version that does not verify certificates by default.

What’s verifying

The standard way to verify a TLS server certificate is by A) checking that it is signed by a trusted certificate authority (CA) and B) that the cert was created for the thing you interact with; that the domain name is listed in the certificate.

Optionally, you can opt to “pin” a certificate which then verifies that the certificate is the one that corresponds to a specific hash. This is generally considered more fragile but avoids the use of a “CA store” (a set of certificates for the certificate authorities “you” trust) needed to verify the digital signature of the server certificate.

Skipping means insecure

Skipping the certificate verification makes the connection insecure. Because if you do not verify, there is nothing that prevents a middle-man to sit between you and the real server. Or even to just fake being the real server.

Challenges

If you try to use the production site’s certificate in your development environment, you might connect to the server using a different name and then the verification fails.

If you have an active middle man intercepting and wanting to snoop on the TLS traffic, it needs to provide a different certificate and unless that can get signed by a CA you trust, the verification fails.

If you have an outdated or maybe no CA store at all, then the verification fails.

If the server does not update its certificate correctly, it might expire and then the verification fails. Similarly, in order to do a correct verification your client needs a clock that is at least roughly in sync with reality or the verification might fail.

Verification also takes more time compared to how fast it is to just skip the entire step. Sometimes and to some, weirdly enticing.

And yet all curl and libcurl documentation for this strongly discourages users from disabling the check.

A libcurl timeline

curl added support for SSL in April 1998 (years before they renamed it TLS). curl makes certificate checks by default since 2002, both the tool and the library. At the time, I felt I was a little slow to react but at least we finally made sure that curl users would do this check by default.

Ten years later, in October 2012, there was a paper published called The most dangerous code in the world, in which the authors insisted that the widespread problem of applications not verifying TLS certificates with libcurl was because This interface is almost perversely bad. The problem was apparently libcurl’s API.

The same “fact” would be repeated later, for example in this 2014 presentation saying that this is our fault because the API (for PHP) looks like it takes a boolean when in reality it did not.

The libcurl API for this

I do not claim that we have the best API in libcurl, but I can say that extremely few libraries can boast an API and ABI stability that comes even close to ours. We have not broken the ABI since 2006. We don’t mind carrying a world on our shoulders that have learned to depend on this and us. So we don’t change the API, even though it could have been done a little better.

CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER is a boolean option to ask for server certificate verification against the CA store. It is set TRUE by default, so an application needs to set it to FALSE (0) to disable the check. This option works together with the next one.

CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST is a separate option to verify that the name embedded in the certificate matches the name in the URL (basically). This option was never a boolean but accepts a number. 0 disables the check, and 2 was for the maximum check level. With 2 being the default.

Both options are thus by default set to verify, and an application can lessen the checks by changing one or both of them.

Adaptations

After that most dangerous article was posted in 2012 that basically said we were worthless, without ever telling that to us or submitting an issue or pull-request with us, we changed how CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST worked in the 7.28.1 release – shipped in December 2012.

Starting then, we made setting the option to 1 an error (and it would just leave the original value untouched). Before that update, setting VERIFYHOST to 1 was a debug-like mode that made libcurl output warnings on mismatches but still let the connection through. A silly mode to offer.

In 2019 we tweaked the VERIFYHOST handling a little further and made the value 1 and 2 do the same thing: verify the name.

I have no idea what the authors of that 2012 paper would think about this API tweak, but at least the options are now two proper booleans.

I did not think the authors were right when they originally published that paper, but yet we improved the API a little. I dare to claim that the problem with disabled certificate checks is not because of a bad libcurl API.

curl

The curl tool of course is a libcurl using application and it itself offers the --insecure (-k) option which when used switches off both those above mentioned libcurl options. Also strongly discouraged to actually use beyond testing and triaging.

Other layers on top

libcurl is itself used by a lot of frameworks and languages that expose the options to their respective users. Often they then even use the same option names. We have over 60 documented language bindings for libcurl.

For example, the PHP/CURL binding is extremely popular and well used and it has the options provided and exposed using the exact same names, values and behavior.

Disabling the checks

More than twenty-two years of having this enabled by default. More than twelve years since the most dangerous paper. After countless articles on the topic. Everyone I talk to knows that we all must verify certificates.

In almost all cases, you can fix the failed verification the proper way instead of disabling the check. It is just usually a little more work.

State of checks using libcurl today

I searched GitHub on February 10 2025 for “CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER, FALSE” and it quickly showed me some 140,000 matching repositories. Sure, not all these matches are bad uses since they can be done conditionally etc and it can also be done using other bindings using different option names that this search does not catch etc. Or they might use pinning, which also is not caught by this simple search term.

Searching for “CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER, 0” shows 153,000 additional matches.

A quick walk-through shows that there are lot of genuine, mostly sloppy, certificate disabling curl using code among these matches.

We could fool ourselves into thinking that the state of certificate check disabling is better in modern software in wide use, made by big teams.

A quick CVE search immediately found several security vulnerabilities for exactly this problem published only last year:

  • CVE-2024-32928 – The libcurl CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER option was disabled on a subset of requests made by Nest production devices.
  • CVE-2024-56521 – An issue was discovered in TCPDF before 6.8.0. If libcurl is used, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST and CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER are set unsafely.
  • CVE-2024-5261 – In affected versions of Collabora Online, in LibreOfficeKit, curl’s TLS certificate verification was disabled (CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER of false).

If I was into bug-bounties, I would know where to start.

What do we do?

Clearly, this is work that never gets complete or done – it might arguable actually get worse as the volume of software grows. We need to keep telling people to fix this. To stop encouraging others to do wrong. Lead by good example. Provide good documentation and snippets for people to copy from.

I took a very tiny step and reported a bug against a documentation that seemed encourage the disabling. If we all submit a bug or two when we see these problems, things might gradually improve.

When/if you submit bug reports as well, please remember to stay polite, friendly and to the point. Explain why disabling the check is bad. Why keeping the check is good.

Rinse and repeat. Until the end of time.

cURL and libcurl, Security

CVSS is dead to us

24 Comments

CVSS is short for Common Vulnerability Scoring System and is according to Wikipedia a technical standard for assessing the severity of vulnerabilities in computing systems.

Typically you use an online CVSS calculator, click a few checkboxes and radio buttons and then you magically get a number from 0 to 10. There are also different versions of CVSS.

Every CVE filed to MITRE is supposed to have a CVSS score set. CVEs that are registered that lack this information will get “amended” by an ADP (Authorized Data Publishers) that think of it as their job. In the past NVD did this. Nowadays CISA does it. More on this below.

Problems

Let’s say you write a tool and library that make internet transfers. They are used literally everywhere, in countless environments and with an almost impossible number of different build combinations, target operating systems and CPU architectures. Let’s call it curl.

When you find a theoretical security problem in this product (theoretical because most problems are never actually spotted exploited), how severe is it? The CVSS calculation has a limited set of input factors that tend to result in a fairly high number for a network product. What if we can guess that the problem is only used by a few or only affects an unusual platform? Not included.

The CVSS scoring is really designed for when you know exactly when and how the product is used and how an exploit of the flaw affects it. Then it might at least work. For a generic code base shipped in a tarball that runs in more than twenty billion installations it does less so.

If you look around you can easily find numerous other (and longer) writings about the problems and challenges with CVSS. We are not alone thinking this.

CVSS is used

At the same time, it seems the popularity of security scanners have increased significantly over the last few years. The kind of products that scan your systems checking for vulnerable products and show you big alerts and warnings when they do.

The kind of programs that looks for a product, figures out a version number and then shouts if it finds a registered CVE for that product and version with a CVSS score above a certain threshold.

This kind of product that indirectly tricks users to deleting operating system components to silence these alerts. We even hear of people who have contractual agreements that say they must address these alerts within N number of business days or face consequences.

Just days ago I was contacted by users on macOS who were concerned about a curl CVE that their scanner found in the libcurl version shipped by Apple. Was their tool right or wrong? Do you think anyone involved in that process actually can tell? Do you think Apple cares?

curl skips CVSS

In the curl project we have given up trying to use CVSS to get a severity score and associated severity level.

In the curl security team we instead work hard to put all our knowledge together and give a rough indication about the severity by dividing it into one out of four levels: low, medium, high, critical.

We believe that because we are not tied to any (flawed and limited) calculator and because we are intimately familiar with the code base and how it is used, we can assess and set a better security severity this way. It serves our users better.

Part of our reason to still use these four levels is that our bug-bounty‘s reward levels are based on the level.

As a comparison, The Linux kernel does not even provide that course-grained indication, based on similar reasoning to why we don’t provide the numeric scores.

This is not treated well

The curl project is a CNA, which means that we reserve and publish our own CVE Ids to the CVE database. There is no middle man interfering and in fact no one else can file curl CVE entries anymore without our knowledge and us having a saying about it. That’s good.

However, the CVE system itself it built on the idea that every flaw has a CVSS score. When someone like us creates CVE entries without scores, that leaves something that apparently is considered a gaping sore in the system that someone needs to “fix”.

Who would “fix” this?

Authorized Data Publishers

A while ago this new role was added to the CVE ecosystem called ADPs. This job was previously done a little on the side but roughly the same way by NVD who would get all the CVEs, edit them and then publish them all themselves to the world with their additions. And the world really liked that and used the NVD database.

However NVD kind of drowned themselves by this overwhelming work and it has instead been replaced by CISA who is an “ADP” and is thus allowed to enrich CVE entries in the database that they think need “improvement”.

The main thing they seem to detect and help “fix” is the lack of CVSS in published CVE entries. Like every single curl CVE because we don’t participate in the CVSS dance.

No clues but it must get a score

Exactly in the same way this system was broken before when NVD did it, this new system is broken when CISA does it.

I don’t have the numbers for exactly how many CVE entries they do this “enrichment” for (there were over 40,000 CVEs last year but a certain amount of them had CVSS filed in by their CNAs). I think it is safe to assume that the volume is high and since they are filed for products in all sorts of categories it is certainly impossible for CISA to have experts in the many products and technologies each CVE describes and affects.

So: given limited time and having no real clue what the issues are about, the individuals in this team click some buttons in a CVSS calculator, get a score, a severity and then (presumably) quickly move on the next issue. And the next. And the next. In a never-ending stream of incoming security issues.

How on earth does anyone expect them to get this right? I mean sure, in some or perhaps even many cases they might get close because of luck, skill or something but the system is certainly built in a way that just screams: this will end up crazy wrong ever so often.

A recent example

In the end of 2024 I was informed by friends that several infosec related websites posted about a new curl-related critical security problem. Since we have not announced any critical security problems since 2013, that of course piqued my interest so I had a look.

It turned out that CISA had decided that CVE-2024-11053 should be earned a CVSS 9.1 score: CRITICAL, and now scanners and news outlets had figured that out. Or would very soon.

The curl security team had set the severity to LOW because of the low risk and special set of circumstances that are a precondition for the problem. Go read it yourself – the fine thing with CVEs for Open Source products is that the source, the fix and everything is there to read and inspect as much as we like.

The team of actual experts who knows this code and perfectly understands the security problem says LOW. The team at CISA overrides that and insists that are all wrong and that this problem risks breaking the Internet. Because we apparently need a CVSS at all costs.

A git repository

One positive change that the switch to CISA from NVD brought is that now they host their additional data in GitHub repository. Once I was made aware of this insane 9.1 score, I took time of my Sunday afternoon with my family and made a pull-request there urging them to at least lower the score to 5.3. That was a score I could get the calculator to tell me.

I wanted to have this issue sorted and stomped down as quickly as possible to if possible reduce the risk that security scanners everywhere would soon start alerting on this and we would get overloaded with queries from concerned and worried users.

It’s not like CISA gets overloaded by worried users when they do this. Their incompetence here puts a load on no one else but the curl project. But sure, they got their CVSS added.

After my pull request it took less than ninety minutes for them to update the curl records. Without explanation, with no reference to my PR, they now apparently consider the issue to be CVSS 3.4.

I’m of course glad it is no longer marked critical. I think you all understand exactly how arbitrary and random this scoring approach is.

A problem with the initial bad score getting published is of course that a certain number of websites and systems are really slow or otherwise bad at updating that information after they initially learned about the critical score. There will linger websites out there speaking about this “critical” curl bug for a long time now. Thanks CISA!

Can we avoid this?

In the curl security team we have discussed setting “fixed” (fake) scores on our CVE entries just in order to prevent CISA or anyone else to ruin them, but we have decided not to since that would be close to lying about them and we actually work fiercely to make sure we have everything correct and meticulously described.

So no, since we do not do the CVSS dance, we unfortunately will continue having CISA do this to us.

Stop mandatory CVSS?

I am of course advocating strongly within the CNA ecosystem that we should be able to stop CISA from doing this, but I am just a small cog in a very large machine. A large machine that seems to love CVSS. I do not expect to have much success in this area anytime soon.

And no, I don’t think switching to CVSS 4.0 or updates to this system is ultimately going to help us. The problem is grounded in the fact that a single one-dimensional score is just too limited. Every user or distributor of the project should set scores for their different use cases. Maybe even different ones for different cases. Then it could perhaps work.

But I’m not in this game for any quick wins. I’m on the barricades for better (Open Source) security information, and to stop security misinformation. Ideally for the wider ecosystem, because I think we are far from alone in this situation.

The love of CVSS is strong and there is a lot of money involved based on and relying on this.

Minor update

After posting this, I got confirmation that the Go Security team does what we do and has the same problems. Filippo Valsorda told me on Bluesky. Just to show that this is a common pattern.

Update two

Some fourteen hours after I posted this blog post and it spread around the world, my enrichment PR to CISA I mentioned above got this added comment:

While it is good to be recognized, it does not feel like it will actually address the underlying problem here.

Update three

What feels like two hundred persons have pointed out that the CVSS field is not mandatory in the CVE records. It is a clarification that does not add much. The reality is that users seem to want the scores so bad that CISA will add CVSS nonetheless, mandatory or not.

cURL and libcurl, Security

A twenty-five years old curl bug

2 Comments

I have talked about old curl bugs before, but now we have a new curl record.

When we announced the security flaw CVE-2024-11053 on December 11, 2024 together with the release of curl 8.11.1 we fixed a security bug that was introduced in a curl release 9039 days ago. That is close to twenty-five years.

The previous record holder was CVE-2022-35252 at 8729 days.

Now at 161 reported CVEs, the median time a security problem has existed in curl until fixed is 2583 days, a little over seven years.

Age

We know the age of every single curl security problem because every time we have a confirmed one, I spend a significant time and effort digging through the source code history to figure out in which exact commit the problem was introduced.

(This is also how we know that almost every CVE we have ever announced was introduced by my mistakes.)

What’s Wrong?

I don’t think anyone is doing anything wrong here. I think it illustrates the difficulty and challenges involved. There are a lot of people looking at curl code all the time. We run tests and analyzers on the code, all the time. In fact, in November 2024 alone, we had CI jobs running on GitHub alone at 9.17 CPU days per day. Meaning that on average more than nine machines were running curl tests and builds to help us verify that it works as intended.

Apart from that, we of course have all the human individual testers, security researchers and the Google OSS-Fuzz project that is fuzzing curl non-stop and has been doing so for the last 6-7 years.

Security is hard. I mean really really hard.

I have no immediate ideas how to find the next such bug other than the plain old: add more test cases for scenarios and setups not previously tested. That is hard, difficult and quite frankly quite boring work that nobody in particular wants to do nor fund someone else to do.

Enough eyeballs

I think we all agree by now that not all bugs are shallow. Or perhaps we can’t ever truly get enough eyeballs. Or maybe the saying works, just that it needs an addendum

Given enough eyeballs and time, all bugs are shallow

Learn from each mistake

It is often said, and it is true, that you learn from mistakes. The question is only what exactly to learn from each and every reported security vulnerability. Each new one always feels like a unique stupid mistake that was a one-off that surely will not happen again because that situation is now gone and we have no other like that.

Not a C mistake

Let me also touch this subject while talking security problems. This bug, the oldest so far in curl history, was a plain logic error and would not have been avoided had we used another language than C.

Otherwise, about 40% of all security problems in curl can be blamed on us using C instead of a memory-safe language. 50% of the high/critical severity ones.

Almost all of those C mistakes were done before there even existed a viable alternative language – if that even exists now.

Graphs

I decided to not sprinkle graph images in the post this time. You can find data and graphs for all my claims in here in the curl dashboard.

Sad update

After intensive bisecting, it turns out this bug was incorrectly believed to have been introduced in a certain commit, while in fact it was introduced much later. As of January 7th 2025, we have updated the metadata for this CVE and now it is no longer the oldest bug fixed in curl…

cURL and libcurl, Security

curl bug-bounty stats

tldr: the curl bug-bounty has been an astounding success so far.

We started the current curl bug-bounty setup in April 2019. We have thus run it for five and a half years give or take.

In the beginning we awarded researchers just a few hundred USD per issue because we did not know where it would go and as we used money from the curl fund (donated money) we wanted to make sure we could afford it.

Since a few years back, the money part of the bug-bounty is sponsored by the Internet Bug Bounty, meaning that the curl project actually earns money for every flaw as we get 20% of the IBB money for each bounty paid.

While the exact award amounts per report vary over time, they are roughly 500 USD for a low severity issue, 2,500 USD for a Medium and almost 5,000 USD for a High severity one.

To this day, we have paid out 84,260 USD to security researchers as rewards for their findings, distributed over 69 separate CVEs. 1,220 USD on average.

Counters

In this period we have received 477 reports, which is about 6 per month on average.

73 of the reports (15.4%) were confirmed and treated as valid security vulnerabilities that ended up CVEs. This also means that we get roughly one valid security report per month on average. Only 3 of these security problems were rated severity High, the rest were Low or Medium. None of them reached the worst level: Critical.

92 of of the reports (19.4%) were confirmed legitimate bugs but not security problems.

311 of the reports (65.3%) were Not Applicable. They were not bugs and not security problems. See below for more on this category.

1 of the reports is still being assessed as I write this.

Tightening the screws

Security is top priority for us but we also continue to develop curl at a high pace. We merge code into the repository at a frequency of more than four bugfixes per day on average over the last couple of years. When we tighten the screws in this project in order to avoid future problems and to mitigate the risks that we add new ones, we need to do it using policies and concepts that still allow us to move fast and be agile.

First response

We have an ambition to always have a first response posted within 24 hours. Over these first 477 reports, we have had a medium response time on under one hour and we have never missed our 24 hour goal. I am personally a little amazed by this feat.

Time to triage

The medium time from filed report until the curl security team has determined and concluded with some confidence that the problem is a security problem is 36 hours.

Assessing

Assessing a (good) report is hard and usually involves a lot of work: reading up on protocols details, reading code, trying different reproducer builds/scripts and bouncing back and forth with the reporters and the security team.

Acknowledging that it is a security problem is only one step. The adjacent one that is at least equally difficult is to then figuring out the severity. How serious is this flaw? A normal pattern is of course that the researcher considers the problem to be several degrees worse than the curl security team does so it can take a great deal of reasoning to reach an agreement. Sometimes we even decree a certain severity against the will of the researcher.

The team

There is a curl security team that works on and with security reports. The awesome people in this group are:

Max Dymond, Dan Fandrich, Daniel Gustafsson, James Fuller, Viktor Szakats, Stefan Eissing and myself.

They are all long-time curl maintainers. Knowledgeable, skilled, trusted.

Report quality

65.3% of the incoming reports are deemed not even a bug.

These reports can be all sorts of different things of course. When promising people money for their reports, there is no surprise that we get a fair share of luck-seekers trying to earn a few bucks the easy route.

Some reporters run scanners against the code, the mail server or the curl website and insist some findings are bounty worthy. The curl bug-bounty does not cover infrastructure, only the products, so they are not covered no matter what.

A surprisingly large amount of the bad reports are on various kinds of “information exposure” on the website – which is often ironic since the entire website already is available in a public git repository and the information exposed is hardly secret.

Reporting scanner results on code without applying your own thinking and confirming that the findings are indeed correct – and actual security problems – is rarely a good idea. That also goes for when asking AIs for finding problems.

Dismissing

Typically, the worse the report is, the quicker it is to dismiss. That is also why having this large share of rubbish is usually not a problem: we normally get rid of them with just a few minutes work spent.

The better crap we get, the worse the problem gets. An AI or a person that writes a long and good-looking report arguing for their sake can take a long time to analyze, asses and eventually debunk.

Since security problems are top priority in the project, getting too much good crap can to some degree cause a denial of service in the project as we need to halt other activities while we take care of the incoming reports.

We run our bug-bounty program on Hackerone, which has a reputation system for reporters. When we close reports as N/A, they get a reputation cut. This works as a mild deterrence for submitting low quality reports. Of course it also sometimes gives the reporter a reason to argue with us and insist we should rather close it as informative which does not come with a reputation penalty.

The good findings

I would claim that it is pretty hard to find a security problem in curl these days, but since we still average in maybe twelve per year recently they certainly still exist.

The valid reports today tend to happen because either a user accidentally did something that made them look, research and unveil something troublesome, or in the more common case: they have put in some real effort into research.

In the latter cases, we see researchers run their own custom fuzzers on parts of the code that our own fuzzers have not exercised as well, we see them check for code patterns that have led to problems before or in other projects and we also see researchers get inspiration by previous reports and fixes to see if perhaps there were gaps left.

The best curl security problem finders today understand the underlying involved protocols, the curl architecture, the source code and they look for inconsistencies between them all, as such might cause security problems.

Bounty hunters

The 69 bug bounty payouts so far have been done to 27 separate individuals. Five reporters have been rewarded for more than two issues each. The true curl security researcher heroes:

ReportsNameRewarded
25Harry Sintonen29,620 USD
8Hiroki Kurosawa9,800 USD
4Axel Chong7,680 USD
4Patrick Monnerat7,300 USD
3z2_4,080 USD
Top-5 curl bounty hunters

We are extremely fortunate to have this skilled set of people tracking down and highlighting our worst mistakes.

Harry of course sticks out in the top with his 25 rewarded curl security reports. More than three times the amount the number two has.

(Before you think the math is wrong: a few reports have been filed that ended up as valid CVEs but for which the reporters have declined getting a monetary reward.)

My advice

I think the curl bug-bounty is an absolute and undisputed success. I believe it is a key part in our mission to keep our users safe and secure.

If you consider kicking off a bug-bounty for your project here’s my little checklist:

  • Do your software engineering proper. Run all the tools, tests, checks, analyzers, scanners, fuzzers you can and make sure they are at zero reported defects. To avoid a raging herd of reports when you open the gates.
  • Start out with conservative bounty amounts to get a lay of the land, then raise them as you go.
  • Own all security problems for your project. Whoever reports them and however they appear, you assess, evaluate, research and fix them. You write and publish the complete and original security advisory.
  • Make sure you have a team. Even the best maintainers need sleep and occasional vacation days. Security is hard and having good people around to bounce problems with is priceless.
  • Close/reject crap reports as quickly as possible to prevent them from wasting team time and energy.
  • Always fix security problems with haste. Never let them linger around.
  • Transparency. Make as much as possible open and public once the CVEs are out, so that your processes, communications, methods are visible. This builds trust and allows for feedback and iterative improvements of the process.

Future

I think we will continue to receive valid security reports going forward, simply because we keep developing at a high pace and we change and add a lot of source code every year.

The trend in recent years have been more security reports, but the ratio of low/medium vs high/critical has sky-rocketed. The issues reported these days tend to be less sever than they were in the past.

My explanation for this is primarily that we have more people looking harder for problems now than in the past. Due to mitigations and past reports we introduce really bad security problems at a lower frequency than before.

cURL and libcurl, Security

Talk: Keeping the world from Burning

On Monday this week, I did a talk at the Nordic Software Security Summit conference in Stockholm Sweden. I titled it CVEMITRECVSSNVDCNAOSS WTF with the subtitle “Keeping the world from Burning”.

The talk was well received and I think it added something to the conversation. Almost every other talk during the rest of the conference that I saw referred back to it.

Since the talk was not recorded (no talks were at this event), I intend to do the presentation again – from home. This time live-streamed and recorded.

This happens on:

Monday September 30, 2024
14:00 UTC (16:00 CEST)

The stream happens on Twitch where I as always am curlhacker. Join the chatroom, ask questions, have a good time. There will of course be room for a Q&A.

No registration. No fee. Just show up.

At the conference, I did the presentation in under thirty minutes. This version might go on a few more minutes.

Abstract

The abstract I provided for this talk to the conference says:

Bogus CVEs, know-better organizations, conflicting databases, AI hallucinations, inflated severity scoring, security scanners, Jia Tan. As the lead developer in the curl project, Daniel describes some of the challenges involved and what you need to do to stay on top of security when working in a high profile Open Source project running in some twenty billion instances. The talk will be involving many examples from real life.

Differences

Since this is a second run of a talk I already did and I have no script, it will not be identical. I will also try to polish some minor details that I felt could need some brush-ups.

Recording

cURL and libcurl, Security

curl, Tor, dot onion and SOCKS

8 Comments

You can of course use curl to access hosts through Tor. (I know you know Tor so I am not going to explain it here.)

SOCKS

The typical way to access Tor is via a SOCKS5 proxy and curl has supported that since some time during 2002. Like this:

curl --socks5-hostname localhost:5432 https://example.com

or

curl --proxy socks5h://localhost:5432 https://example.com

or

export HTTPS_PROXY=socks5h://localhost:5432
curl https://example.com

Name resolving with SOCKS5

You know Tor, but do you know SOCKS5? It is an old and simple protocol for setting up a connection and when using it, the client can decide to either pass on the full hostname it wants to connect to, or it can pass on the exact IP address.

(SOCKS5 is by the way a minor improvement of the SOCKS4 protocol, which did not support IPv6.)

When you use curl, you decide if you want curl or the proxy to resolve the target hostname. If you connect to a site on the public Internet it might not even matter who is resolving it as either party would in theory get the same set of IP addresses.

The .onion TLD

There is a concept of “hidden” sites within the Tor network. They are not accessible on the public Internet. They have names in the .onion top-level domain. For example. the search engine DuckDuckGo is available at https://duckduckgogg42xjoc72x3sjasowoarfbgcmvfimaftt6twagswzczad.onion/.

.onion names are used to provide access to end to end encrypted, secure, anonymized services; that is, the identity and location of the server is obscured from the client. The location of the client is obscured from the server.

To access a .onion host, you must let Tor resolve it because a normal DNS server aware of the public Internet knows nothing about it.

This is why we recommend you ask the SOCKS5 proxy to resolve the hostname when accessing Tor with curl.

The proxy connection

The SOCKS5 protocol is clear text so you must make sure you do not access the proxy over a network as then it will leak the hostname to eavesdroppers. That is why you see the examples above use localhost for the proxy.

You can also step it up and connect to the SOCKS5 proxy over unix domain sockets with recent curl versions like this:

curl --proxy socks5h://localhost/run/tor/socks https://example.com

.onion leakage

Sites using the .onion TLD are not on the public Internet and it is pointless to ask your regular DNS server to resolve them. Even worse: if you in fact ask your normal resolver you practically advertise your intention of connection to a .onion site and you give the full name of that site to the outsider. A potentially significant privacy leak.

To combat the leakage problem, RFC 7686 The “.onion” Special-Use Domain Name was published in October 2015. With the involvement and consent from people involved in the Tor project.

It only took a few months after 7686 was published until there was an accurate issue filed against curl for leaking .onion names. Back then, in the spring of 2016, no one took upon themselves to fix this and it was instead simply added to the queue of known bugs.

This RFC details (among other things) how libraries should refuse to resolve .onion host names using the regular means in order to avoid the privacy leak.

After having stewed in the known bugs lists for almost five years, it was again picked up in 2023, a pull-request was authored, and when curl 8.1.0 shipped on May 17 2023 curl refused to resolve .onion hostnames.

Tor still works remember?

Since users are expected to connect using SOCKS5 and handing over the hostname to the proxy, the above mention refusal to resolve a .onion address did not break the normal Tor use cases with curl.

Turns out there are other common ways to do it.

A few days before the 8.1.0 release shipped a discussion thread was created: I want to resolve onion addresses.

Every change breaks someone’s workflow

XKCD 1172 – we hear you

Transparent proxies

Turns out there is a group of people who runs transparent proxies who automatically “catches” all local traffic and redirects it over Tor. They have a local DNS server who can resolve .onion host names and they intercept outgoing traffic to instead tunnel it through Tor.

With this setup now curl no longer works because it will not send .onion addresses to the local resolver because RFC 7686 tells us we should not,

curl of course does not know when it runs in a presumed safe and deliberate transparent proxy network or when it does not. When a leak is not a leak or when it actually is a leak.

torsocks

A separate way to access tor is to use the torsocks tool. Torsocks allows you to use most applications in a safe way with Tor. It ensures that DNS requests are handled safely and explicitly rejects any traffic other than TCP from the application you’re using.

You run it like 

torsocks curl https://example.com

Because of curl’s new .onion filtering, the above command line works fine for “normal” hostnames but no longer for .onion hostnames.

Arguably, this is less of a problem because when you use curl you typically don’t need to use torsocks since curl has full SOCKS support natively.

Option to disable the filter?

In the heated discussion thread we are told repeatedly how silly we are who block .onion name resolves – exactly in the way the RFC says, the RFC that had the backing and support from the Tor project itself. There are repeated cries for us to add ways to disable the filter.

I am of course sympathetic with the users whose use cases now broke.

A few different ways to address this have been proposed, but the problem is difficult: how would curl or a user know that it is fine to leak a name or not? Adding a command line option to say it is okay to leak would just mean that some scripts would use that option and users would run it in the wrong conditions and your evil malicious neighbors who “help out” will just add that option when they convince their victims to run an innocent looking curl command line.

The fact that several of the louder voices show abusive tendencies in the discussion of course makes these waters even more challenging to maneuver.

Future

I do not yet know how or where this lands. The filter has now been in effect in curl for a year. Nothing is forever, we keep improving. We listen to feedback and we are of course eager to make sure curl remains and awesome tool and library also for content over Tor.

This discussion is also held within the more proper realms of the tor project itself.

Credits

Image by Couleur from Pixabay

cURL and libcurl

the Apple curl security incident 12604

27 Comments

tldr: Apple thinks it is fine. I do not.

On December 28 2023, bugreport 12604 was filed in the curl issue tracker. We get a lot issues filed most days so this fact alone was hardly anything out of the ordinary. We read the reports, investigate, ask follow-up questions to see what we can learn and what we need to address.

The title stated of the problem in this case was quite clear: flag –cacert behavior isn’t consistent between macOS and Linux, and it was filed by Yuedong Wu.

The friendly reporter showed how the curl version bundled with macOS behaves differently than curl binaries built entirely from open source. Even when running the same curl version on the same macOS machine.

The curl command line option --cacert provides a way for the user to say to curl that this is the exact set of CA certificates to trust when doing the following transfer. If the TLS server cannot provide a certificate that can be verified with that set of certificates, it should fail and return error.

This particular behavior and functionality in curl has been established since many years (this option was added to curl in December 2000) and of course is provided to allow users to know that it communicates with a known and trusted server. A pretty fundamental part of what TLS does really.

When this command line option is used with curl on macOS, the version shipped by Apple, it seems to fall back and checks the system CA store in case the provided set of CA certs fail the verification. A secondary check that was not asked for, is not documented and plain frankly comes completely by surprise. Therefore, when a user runs the check with a trimmed and dedicated CA cert file, it will not fail if the system CA store contains a cert that can verify the server!

This is a security problem because now suddenly certificate checks pass that should not pass.

I reported this as a security problem in an email sent to Product Security at Apple on December 29 2023, 08:30 UTC. It’s not a major problem, but it is an issue.

Apple’s says it is fine

On March 8, 2024 Apple Product Security responded with their wisdom:

Hello,

Thank you again for reporting this to us and allowing us time to investigate.

Apple’s version of OpenSSL (LibreSSL) intentionally uses the built-in system trust store as a default source of trust. Because the server certificate can be validated successfully using the built-in system trust store, we don't consider this something that needs to be addressed in our platforms.

Best regards,
KC
Apple Product Security

Case closed.

I disagree

Obviously I think differently. This undocumented feature makes CA cert verification with curl on macOS totally unreliable and inconsistent with documentation. It tricks users.

Be aware.

Since this is not a security vulnerability in the curl version we ship, we have not issued a CVE or anything for this problem. The problem is strictly speaking not even in curl code. It comes with the version of LibreSSL that Apple ships and builds curl to use on their platforms.

Discussion

hacker news

cURL and libcurl

curl HTTP/3 security audit

An external security audit focused especially on curl’s HTTP/3 components and associated source code was recently concluded by Trail of Bits. In particular on the HTTP/3 related curl code that uses and interfaces the ngtcp2 and nghttp3 libraries, as that is so far the only HTTP/3 backend in curl that is not labeled as experimental. The audit was sponsored by the Sovereign Tech Fund via OSTIF.

The audit revealed no major discoveries or security problems but led to improved fuzzing and a few additional areas are noted as suitable to improve going forward. Maybe in particular in the fuzzing department. (If you’re looking for somewhere to contribute to curl, there’s your answer!)

The audit revealed that we had accidentally drastically shrunk the fuzzing coverage a while back without even noticing – which we of course immediately rectified. When fixed, we fortunately did not get an explosion in issues (phew!), which thus confirmed that we had not messed up in any particular way while the fuzzing ability had been limited. But still: several man weeks of professional code inspection and no serious flaws were detected. I am thrilled over this fact.

Because of curl’s use of third party libraries for doing QUIC and HTTP/3, the report advises that there should be follow-up audits of the involved libraries. Fair proposal, but that is of course something that is beyond what we as a project can do.

Trail of Bits is professional and a pleasure to work with. Now having done it twice, I have nothing but good things to say about the team we have worked with.

From curl’s side, I would like to also highlight and thank Stefan Eissing and Dan Fandrich for participating in the process.

The full report is available on the curl website, here.

The third

This is (quite fittingly since it is for HTTP/3) the third external security audit performed on curl source code, even if this was more limited in scope than the previous ones done in 2016 and 2022. Quite becomingly, the amount of detected important issues have decreased for every new audit. We love scrutiny and we take security seriously. I think this shows in the audit reports.

Related

OSTIF’s blog about the audit.

Image

The top image is a mashup of the official curl logo and the official IETF HTTP/3 logo. Done by me.

cURL and libcurl

DISPUTED, not REJECTED

5 Comments

I keep insisting that the CVE system is broken and that the database of existing CVEs hosted by MITRE (and imported into lots of other databases) is full of questionable content and plenty of downright lies. A primary explanation for us being in this ugly situation is that it is simply next to impossible to get rid of invalid CVEs.

First this

I already wrote about the bogus curl CVE-2020-1909 last year and how it was denied being rejected because someone without a name at MITRE obviously knows the situation much better than any curl developer. This situation then forces us, the curl project, to provide documentation to explain how this is a documented CVE but it is not a vulnerability. Completely contrary to the very idea of CVEs.

A sane system would have a concept where rubbish is scrubbed off.

Now this

The curl project registered for and became a CNA in mid January 2024 to ideally help us filter out bad CVE input better. The future will tell if this effort works or not. (It was also recently highlighted that the Linux kernel is now also a CNA for similar reasons and I expect to see many more Open Source projects go the same route.)

However, in late December 2023, just weeks before we became CNA, someone (anonymous again) requested a CVE Id from MITRE for a curl issue. Sure enough they were immediately given CVE-2023-52071, according to how the system works.

This CVE was made public on January 30 2024, and the curl project was of course immediately made aware of it. A quick glance on the specifics was all we needed: this is another bogus claim. This is not a security problem and again this is a fact that does not require an experienced curl developer to analyze, it is quite easily discoverable.

Given the history of previous bogus CVEs, I was soon emailed by CVE db companies asking me for confirmations about this CVE and I was of course honest and told them that no, this is not a security problem. Do not warn your users about this.

We are a CNA now, meaning that we should be able to control curl issues better, even if this CVE was requested before we were officially given the keys to the kingdom. We immediately requested this CVE to be rejected. On the grounds that it was wrongly assigned in the first place.

“Will provide some confusion”

In the first response from MITRE to our rejection request, they insisted that:

We discussed this internally and believe it does deserve a CVE ID. If we transfer, and Curl REJECTS, then the reporter will likely come back to us and dispute which will provide some confusion for the public.

They actually think putting DISPUTED on the issue is less confusing to the public than rejecting it, because rejecting risks an appeal from the original reporter?

They say in this response that they think it actually deserves a CVE Id. If there was any way to have a conversation with these guys I would like to ask them on what grounds they base this on. Then lecture them on how the world works.

This communication has only been done indirectly with MITRE via our root CNA (Red Hat).

DISPUTED vs REJECTED

So it did not fly.

According to the MITRE guidelines: When one party disagrees with another party’s assertion that a particular issue is a vulnerability, a CVE Record assigned to that issue may be designated with a “DISPUTED” tag.

If someone says the earth is flat, we need to say that fact is disputed? No it is not. It is plain wrong. Incorrect. Bad. Stupid. Silly. Remove-the-statement worthy.

This meant I needed to take the fight to the next level. This policy is not good enough and it needs to be adjusted. This is not a disagreement on the facts. I insist that this is not a vulnerability to begin with. It was wrongly assigned a CVE in the first place. It feels ridiculous that the burden of proof falls on me to prove how this is not a security problem instead of the other way around: if someone would just have had the spine to ask the original submitter to explain, prove, hint or suggest how this is a vulnerability then it would never have been a CVE created for this in the first place. Because that person could not have done that.

The plain truth is that there is no system for doing this. There is no requirement on the individual to actually back up or explain what they claim. The system is designed for good-faith reporters against bad-faith product organizations. So that bad companies cannot shut down whistleblowers basically. Instead it allows irresponsible or bad-faith reporters populate the CVE database with rubbish.

Once the CVE is in, the product organization, like curl here, is not allowed to REJECT it. We have to go the lame route and say that the facts in the CVE are DISPUTED. We are apparently in disagreement whether the totally incorrect claim is totally incorrect or not. Bizarre.

Did I mention this is a broken system?

Elevated

Being a CNA at least means we have a foot in the door. An issue has been filed against the policy and guidelines and it has been elevated at MITRE via our root CNA (Red Hat). I cannot say if this eventually will make a difference or not, but I have decided to “take one for the team” and spend this time and effort on this case in the belief that if we manage to nudge the process ever so slightly in the right direction, it could be worth it.

For the sake of everyone. For the sake of my sanity.

Documented

In the curl documentation for CVE-2023-52071, which we unwittingly have to provide even though the issue is bogus, I have included this whole story including quoting the motivations from my email to MITRE as to why this CVE should be rejected in spite of the current procedure not allowing us to.

Future

Hopefully, supposedly, ideally, crossing my fingers, future CVEs against curl or libcurl will immediately be passed via us since we are now a CNA. This is how it is supposed to work. We will of course immediately and with no mercy reject and refuse all attempts in filing silly CVEs for issues that aren’t vulnerabilities.

The “elevated issue” above might (hopefully) lead to non-CNA organizations getting an increased ability to filter off junk from the system – and then perhaps lessen the need for the entire world to become CNAs. I am not overly optimistic that we will reach that position anytime soon, as clearly the system has worked like this for a long time and I expect resistance to change.

I can almost guarantee that I will write more blog posts about CVEs in the future. Hopefully when I have great news about updated CVE rejection policies.

Update

(Feb 23, 21:33 UTC) The CVE records have now been updated by MITRE and according to NVD for example, this CVE is now REJECTED. Wow.

I was not told about this, someone in a discussion thread mentioned it.