Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Harden url.c URL-decoding logic

PATCH In review Matthew DeVore 3 participants 5 messages Jun 4, 2019

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

v2 cover Harden url.c URL-decoding logic

This roll-up includes simple but important fixes from Brian Carlson and René Scharfe.

- fix typo of "NUL" in commit heading
- re-enable %-decoding in non-NULL-terminated strings

Matthew DeVore (2):
url: do not read past end of buffer
url: do not allow %00 to represent NUL in URLs

 url.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.21.0
#1 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/2 url: do not read past end of buffer

url_decode_internal could have been tricked into reading past the length of the **query buffer if there are fewer than 2 characters after a % (in a null-terminated string, % would have to be the last character). Prevent this from happening by checking len before decoding the % sequence.

---
 url.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
url.c +1 -1
index 25576c390b..9ea9d5611b 100644
@@ -39,21 +39,21 @@ static char *url_decode_internal(const char **query, int len,
 		unsigned char c = *q;
 
 		if (!c)
 			break;
 		if (stop_at && strchr(stop_at, c)) {
 			q++;
 			len--;
 			break;
 		}
 
-		if (c == '%') {
+		if (c == '%' && (len < 0 || len >= 3)) {
 			int val = hex2chr(q + 1);
 			if (0 <= val) {
 				strbuf_addch(out, val);
 				q += 3;
 				len -= 3;
 				continue;
 			}
 		}
 
 		if (decode_plus && c == '+')
Signature · 1 line
2.21.0
#2 lore raw

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] url: do not read past end of buffer

Quoted 20 lines · Matthew DeVore

url_decode_internal could have been tricked into reading past the length of the **query buffer if there are fewer than 2 characters after a % (in a null-terminated string, % would have to be the last character). Prevent this from happening by checking len before decoding the % sequence.

---
 url.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
url.c +0 -0
index 25576c390b..9ea9d5611b 100644
@@ -39,21 +39,21 @@ static char *url_decode_internal(const char **query, int len,
 		unsigned char c = *q;
 
 		if (!c)

url.c static char *url_decode_internal(const char **query, int len, · line 50

Quoted 10 lines
url.c +1 -1
 			break;
 		if (stop_at && strchr(stop_at, c)) {
 			q++;
 			len--;
 			break;
 		}
 
-		if (c == '%') {
+		if (c == '%' && (len < 0 || len >= 3)) {
 			int val = hex2chr(q + 1);

This made me wonder what happens when the caller sent -1 in len, but hex2chr() stops on such a string with % plus one hexadecimal at the end of the string, and we'd end up copying these two bytes one at a time, which is what we want, so it is OK. And the rejection of %00 done in 2/2 follows the same codeflow here, which is quite straight forward.

Nice.

Quoted 9 lines
url.c +0 -0
 			if (0 <= val) {
 				strbuf_addch(out, val);
 				q += 3;
 				len -= 3;
 				continue;
 			}
 		}
 
 		if (decode_plus && c == '+')
#3 lore raw

PATCH v2 2/2 url: do not allow %00 to represent NUL in URLs

In reply to Matthew DeVore

There is no reason to allow %00 to terminate a string, so do not allow it. Otherwise, we end up returning arbitrary content in the string (that which is after the %00) which is effectively hidden from callers and can escape sanity checks and validation, and possible be used in tandem with a security vulnerability to introduce a payload.

---
 url.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
url.c +1 -1
index 9ea9d5611b..1b8ef78cea 100644
@@ -41,21 +41,21 @@ static char *url_decode_internal(const char **query, int len,
 		if (!c)
 			break;
 		if (stop_at && strchr(stop_at, c)) {
 			q++;
 			len--;
 			break;
 		}
 
 		if (c == '%' && (len < 0 || len >= 3)) {
 			int val = hex2chr(q + 1);
-			if (0 <= val) {
+			if (0 < val) {
 				strbuf_addch(out, val);
 				q += 3;
 				len -= 3;
 				continue;
 			}
 		}
 
 		if (decode_plus && c == '+')
 			strbuf_addch(out, ' ');
 		else
Signature · 1 line
2.21.0
#4 lore raw
In reply to Matthew DeVore

First message had incorrect recipient list. Re-sending with non-typo'd Jeff's e-mail address.

Someone also politely reminded me off-band that I should make subsequent versions of patchsets be respond-to on the cover-letter of v1 of that patchset. I will do that from next time.