-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
zap.Open: Invalidate relative path roots #1398
Open
r-hang
wants to merge
3
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
rhang/sanitize-zap-open
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A filename can contain
..
, so I don't think this check is rightshould we instead look for an absolute path before calling
newFileSinkFromPath
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
newFileSinkFromPath must support relative paths. Paths without the file:// form are allowed to be relative. This is documented and tested already.
Paths that take the file:// form will use net/url, and the path will always be absolute (because u.Path will always start with / for them).
The ask was to specifically reject path traversals with the URLs. We could check for /../ instead.
TBH, I'm not convinced that there's a vulnerability here, but I'll believe that a security expert could use some combination of symlinks and .. to get arbitrary file access.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The path traversal security issue may be a false positive, since we have the hostname check above(
file://foo/bar
parses to host=foo
, path=/bar
).Stepping back, what is the security vulnerability exactly? If the user has control over the paths, they can specify relative paths like
../foo
which is a valid supported path -- does it matter if it's via URL or a relative path?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I said, I'm not convinced that there's a vulnerability here.
But you're right, given that the user has full control of this input, this is even less a question of sanitization.
If we want to appease the linter, we can add a
filepath.Clean
there, but the actual check may be unnecessary.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Commented in #1390 (comment)