mirror of
https://github.com/curl/curl.git
synced 2024-12-21 06:50:10 +08:00
263409cf24
Closes #9208
215 lines
9.0 KiB
Markdown
215 lines
9.0 KiB
Markdown
# curl security process
|
|
|
|
This document describes how security vulnerabilities should be handled in the
|
|
curl project.
|
|
|
|
## Publishing Information
|
|
|
|
All known and public curl or libcurl related vulnerabilities are listed on
|
|
[the curl website security page](https://curl.se/docs/security.html).
|
|
|
|
Security vulnerabilities **should not** be entered in the project's public bug
|
|
tracker.
|
|
|
|
## Vulnerability Handling
|
|
|
|
The typical process for handling a new security vulnerability is as follows.
|
|
|
|
No information should be made public about a vulnerability until it is
|
|
formally announced at the end of this process. That means, for example, that a
|
|
bug tracker entry must NOT be created to track the issue since that will make
|
|
the issue public and it should not be discussed on any of the project's public
|
|
mailing lists. Also messages associated with any commits should not make any
|
|
reference to the security nature of the commit if done prior to the public
|
|
announcement.
|
|
|
|
- The person discovering the issue, the reporter, reports the vulnerability on
|
|
[https://hackerone.com/curl](https://hackerone.com/curl). Issues filed there
|
|
reach a handful of selected and trusted people.
|
|
|
|
- Messages that do not relate to the reporting or managing of an undisclosed
|
|
security vulnerability in curl or libcurl are ignored and no further action
|
|
is required.
|
|
|
|
- A person in the security team responds to the original report to acknowledge
|
|
that a human has seen the report.
|
|
|
|
- The security team investigates the report and either rejects it or accepts
|
|
it. See below for examples of problems that are not considered
|
|
vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
- If the report is rejected, the team writes to the reporter to explain why.
|
|
|
|
- If the report is accepted, the team writes to the reporter to let them
|
|
know it is accepted and that they are working on a fix.
|
|
|
|
- The security team discusses the problem, works out a fix, considers the
|
|
impact of the problem and suggests a release schedule. This discussion
|
|
should involve the reporter as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
- The release of the information should be "as soon as possible" and is most
|
|
often synchronized with an upcoming release that contains the fix. If the
|
|
reporter, or anyone else involved, thinks the next planned release is too
|
|
far away, then a separate earlier release should be considered.
|
|
|
|
- Write a security advisory draft about the problem that explains what the
|
|
problem is, its impact, which versions it affects, solutions or workarounds,
|
|
when the release is out and make sure to credit all contributors properly.
|
|
Figure out the CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) number for the flaw.
|
|
|
|
- Request a CVE number from
|
|
[HackerOne](https://docs.hackerone.com/programs/cve-requests.html)
|
|
|
|
- Update the "security advisory" with the CVE number.
|
|
|
|
- The security team commits the fix in a private branch. The commit message
|
|
should ideally contain the CVE number.
|
|
|
|
- The security team also decides on and delivers a monetary reward to the
|
|
reporter as per the bug-bounty policies.
|
|
|
|
- No more than 10 days before release, inform
|
|
[distros@openwall](https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros)
|
|
to prepare them about the upcoming public security vulnerability
|
|
announcement - attach the advisory draft for information with CVE and
|
|
current patch. 'distros' does not accept an embargo longer than 14 days and
|
|
they do not care for Windows-specific flaws.
|
|
|
|
- No more than 48 hours before the release, the private branch is merged into
|
|
the master branch and pushed. Once pushed, the information is accessible to
|
|
the public and the actual release should follow suit immediately afterwards.
|
|
The time between the push and the release is used for final tests and
|
|
reviews.
|
|
|
|
- The project team creates a release that includes the fix.
|
|
|
|
- The project team announces the release and the vulnerability to the world in
|
|
the same manner we always announce releases. It gets sent to the
|
|
curl-announce, curl-library and curl-users mailing lists.
|
|
|
|
- The security web page on the website should get the new vulnerability
|
|
mentioned.
|
|
|
|
## security (at curl dot se)
|
|
|
|
This is a private mailing list for discussions on and about curl security
|
|
issues.
|
|
|
|
Who is on this list? There are a couple of criteria you must meet, and then we
|
|
might ask you to join the list or you can ask to join it. It really is not a
|
|
formal process. We basically only require that you have a long-term presence
|
|
in the curl project and you have shown an understanding for the project and
|
|
its way of working. You must have been around for a good while and you should
|
|
have no plans of vanishing in the near future.
|
|
|
|
We do not make the list of participants public mostly because it tends to vary
|
|
somewhat over time and a list somewhere will only risk getting outdated.
|
|
|
|
## Publishing Security Advisories
|
|
|
|
1. Write up the security advisory, using markdown syntax. Use the same
|
|
subtitles as last time to maintain consistency.
|
|
|
|
2. Name the advisory file after the allocated CVE id.
|
|
|
|
3. Add a line on the top of the array in `curl-www/docs/vuln.pm'.
|
|
|
|
4. Put the new advisory markdown file in the curl-www/docs/ directory. Add it
|
|
to the git repository.
|
|
|
|
5. Run `make` in your local web checkout and verify that things look fine.
|
|
|
|
6. On security advisory release day, push the changes on the curl-www
|
|
repository's remote master branch.
|
|
|
|
## Hackerone
|
|
|
|
Request the issue to be disclosed. If there are sensitive details present in
|
|
the report and discussion, those should be redacted from the disclosure. The
|
|
default policy is to disclose as much as possible as soon as the vulnerability
|
|
has been published.
|
|
|
|
## Bug Bounty
|
|
|
|
See [BUG-BOUNTY](https://curl.se/docs/bugbounty.html) for details on the
|
|
bug bounty program.
|
|
|
|
# Not security issues
|
|
|
|
This is an incomplete list of issues that are not considered vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
## Small memory leaks
|
|
|
|
We do not consider a small memory leak a security problem; even if the amount
|
|
of allocated memory grows by a small amount every now and then. Long-living
|
|
applications and services already need to have counter-measures and deal with
|
|
growing memory usage, be it leaks or just increased use. A small memory or
|
|
resource leak is then expected to *not* cause a security problem.
|
|
|
|
Of course there can be a discussion if a leak is small or not. A large leak
|
|
can be considered a security problem due to the DOS risk. If leaked memory
|
|
contains sensitive data it might also qualify as a security problem.
|
|
|
|
## Never-ending transfers
|
|
|
|
We do not consider flaws that cause a transfer to never end to be a security
|
|
problem. There are already several benign and likely reasons for transfers to
|
|
stall and never end, so applications that cannot deal with never-ending
|
|
transfers already need to have counter-measures established.
|
|
|
|
If the problem avoids the regular counter-measures when it causes a never-
|
|
ending transfer, it might very well be a security problem.
|
|
|
|
## Not practically possible
|
|
|
|
If the flaw or vulnerability cannot practically get executed on existing
|
|
hardware it is not a security problem.
|
|
|
|
## API misuse
|
|
|
|
If a reported issue only triggers by an application using the API in a way
|
|
that is not documented to work or even documented to not work, it is probably
|
|
not going to be considered a security problem. We only guarantee secure and
|
|
proper functionality when the APIs are used as expected and documented.
|
|
|
|
There can be a discussion about what the documentation actually means and how
|
|
to interpret the text, which might end up with us still agreeing that it is a
|
|
security problem.
|
|
|
|
## Local attackers already present
|
|
|
|
When an issue can only be attacked or misused by an attacker present on the
|
|
local system or network, the bar is raised. If a local user wrongfully has
|
|
elevated rights on your system enough to attack curl, they can probably
|
|
already do much worse harm and the problem is not really in curl.
|
|
|
|
## Experiments
|
|
|
|
Vulnerabilities in features which are off by default (in the build) and
|
|
documented as experimental, are not eligible for a reward and we do not
|
|
consider them security problems.
|
|
|
|
## URL inconsistencies
|
|
|
|
URL parser inconsistencies between browsers and curl are expected and are not
|
|
considered security vulnerabilities. The WHATWG URL Specification and RFC
|
|
3986+ (the plus meaning that it is an extended version) [are not completely
|
|
interoperable](https://github.com/bagder/docs/blob/master/URL-interop.md).
|
|
|
|
Obvious parser bugs can still be vulnerabilities of course.
|
|
|
|
## Visible command line arguments
|
|
|
|
The curl command blanks the contents of a number of command line arguments to
|
|
prevent them from appearing in process listings. It does not blank all
|
|
arguments even if some of them that are not blanked might contain sensitive
|
|
data. We consider this functionality a best-effort and omissions are not
|
|
security vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
- not all systems allow the arguments to be blanked in the first place
|
|
- since curl blanks the argument itself they will be readable for a short
|
|
moment in time no matter what
|
|
- virtually every argument can contain sensitive data, depending on use
|
|
- blanking all arguments would make it impractical for users to differentiate
|
|
curl command lines in process listings
|