Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
40 lines (35 loc) · 4.58 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

40 lines (35 loc) · 4.58 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for fmtlib/fmt

Attack Surface: Denial of Service (DoS) via Format String Complexity

  • Description: The fmt library, while generally efficient, can be vulnerable to denial of service attacks if it is forced to process extremely complex or deeply nested format strings. Parsing and processing such strings can consume excessive CPU resources, leading to service degradation or complete unavailability.
  • fmt Contribution: fmt's format string parsing engine is directly responsible for processing the format string and consuming resources. The complexity of the format string directly impacts the processing time within fmt.
  • Example:
    • An application uses fmt::format to log or display user-provided data, incorporating potentially attacker-controlled strings into the format string (even indirectly as arguments if the format string itself is complex).
    • An attacker crafts and submits requests containing extremely long and convoluted format strings.
    • When the application attempts to format these strings using fmt, the CPU usage spikes, potentially exhausting server resources and preventing legitimate requests from being processed.
  • Impact: High - Service disruption, resource exhaustion, application unavailability, impacting business continuity and user experience.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Implement strict input validation and sanitization for any user-provided data that could influence format string complexity, even indirectly.
      • Set limits on the maximum length and complexity of format strings processed by the application, especially if derived from external sources.
      • Consider using rate limiting or request throttling to mitigate the impact of a flood of requests with complex format strings.
      • Monitor application resource usage (CPU, memory) to detect potential DoS attacks related to format string processing.

Attack Surface: Insecure Custom Formatters Leading to Arbitrary Code Execution or Data Breach

  • Description: fmt allows developers to extend its functionality by creating custom formatters for user-defined types. If these custom formatters are implemented insecurely, they can introduce critical vulnerabilities, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution or sensitive data breaches. This occurs when custom formatters perform unsafe operations, access unauthorized resources, or mishandle data.
  • fmt Contribution: fmt's custom formatter mechanism is the entry point for executing developer-provided code during the formatting process. fmt relies on the security of the custom formatter implementation.
  • Example:
    • A developer creates a custom formatter for a class that handles sensitive user data.
    • The custom formatter, due to a coding error (e.g., buffer overflow, incorrect access control), allows an attacker to:
      • Read sensitive data that should not be exposed during formatting.
      • Execute arbitrary code by exploiting a vulnerability in the custom formatter's logic (e.g., if the formatter interacts with external systems or libraries unsafely).
    • When fmt::format is used to format an object of this class, the insecure custom formatter is invoked, potentially triggering the vulnerability.
  • Impact: Critical - Arbitrary code execution, data breach, privilege escalation, complete system compromise, significant financial and reputational damage.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Adhere to secure coding practices when developing custom formatters. Treat custom formatters as security-sensitive code.
      • Thoroughly review and test custom formatter implementations for potential vulnerabilities, including buffer overflows, out-of-bounds access, and insecure data handling.
      • Minimize the complexity of custom formatters and avoid performing unnecessary or unsafe operations within them.
      • Ensure custom formatters only access and process data they are explicitly authorized to handle.
      • Consider using code analysis tools and static analyzers to identify potential vulnerabilities in custom formatter code.
      • If possible, avoid creating overly complex custom formatters and rely on built-in formatting options or safer alternatives when feasible.