Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
135 lines (103 loc) · 13.8 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

135 lines (103 loc) · 13.8 KB

Okay, let's dive deep into the security analysis of RE2, building upon the provided security design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: The primary objective is to conduct a thorough security analysis of the RE2 library, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in its design and implementation. This analysis will specifically target the key components responsible for regular expression parsing, compilation, and execution, with a strong emphasis on preventing denial-of-service (ReDoS) attacks and other security threats. We aim to provide actionable recommendations to enhance RE2's security posture.

  • Scope: The scope of this analysis includes:

    • The core RE2 library code (C++) available at https://github.com/google/re2.
    • The documented build process and testing procedures.
    • The stated design goals and security controls mentioned in the provided security design review.
    • Common deployment scenarios (statically and dynamically linked).
    • Excludes: Third-party bindings or wrappers for other languages (e.g., Python's re2 package), as those introduce their own security considerations outside the core library. We also exclude in-depth analysis of Google's internal build and testing infrastructure, focusing on what's publicly visible.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Component Identification: Infer the architecture and key components from the codebase structure, documentation, and the provided C4 diagrams. This involves understanding the data flow for regular expression processing.
    2. Threat Modeling: For each identified component, we'll consider potential threats, focusing on those relevant to a regular expression library (DoS, information disclosure, code execution). We'll use the STRIDE model (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) as a guide, but prioritize threats relevant to RE2's context.
    3. Security Control Review: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing security controls (design choices, fuzzing, code reviews, etc.) against the identified threats.
    4. Vulnerability Analysis: Based on the threat model and security control review, identify potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses.
    5. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies to address the identified vulnerabilities and enhance overall security. These recommendations will be tailored to RE2's design and implementation.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the codebase and documentation, we can identify these key components and their security implications:

  • re2/re2.h and re2/re2.cc (Public API): This is the main interface for users of the library.

    • Threats: Malicious input (both regular expressions and strings to be matched) is the primary threat. Excessively long inputs, deeply nested expressions, and carefully crafted patterns can lead to resource exhaustion (CPU, memory).
    • Security Controls: RE2's design (DFA-based) inherently mitigates many ReDoS attacks. Input validation (length limits, complexity limits – should be configurable by the user) is crucial here.
    • Vulnerabilities: Insufficiently strict input validation could still allow some forms of resource exhaustion. API misuse (e.g., not checking return values for errors) by applications using RE2 could lead to vulnerabilities in those applications.
    • Mitigation:
      • Configurable Resource Limits: Provide clear API options for users to set limits on input string length, regular expression complexity (e.g., number of nodes in the parsed representation), and overall memory usage. These should have safe defaults.
      • Error Handling Guidance: The documentation should clearly emphasize the importance of checking return values and handling potential errors (e.g., kNoError, kErrorOutOfMemory, kErrorInternal).
      • Input Sanitization Examples: Provide examples of how to sanitize inputs before passing them to RE2, especially in security-sensitive contexts.

  • re2/regexp.h and re2/regexp.cc (Regular Expression Parsing and Representation): This component parses the regular expression string into an internal representation (syntax tree).

    • Threats: Maliciously crafted regular expressions designed to trigger worst-case parsing behavior or create excessively large/complex internal representations.
    • Security Controls: The parser should be robust against malformed input and have limits on the complexity of the parsed expression. Fuzzing is critical here.
    • Vulnerabilities: Bugs in the parser (e.g., stack overflows, integer overflows) could lead to crashes or potentially code execution. Insufficient limits on the size/complexity of the parsed representation could lead to memory exhaustion.
    • Mitigation:
      • Parser Hardening: Thoroughly review the parser code for potential vulnerabilities, particularly those related to integer handling and memory allocation.
      • Complexity Limits: Implement and enforce strict limits on the number of nodes, nesting depth, and overall size of the parsed regular expression.
      • Fuzzing with Complex Inputs: Extend fuzzing to specifically target the parser with a wide variety of malformed and complex regular expressions.

  • re2/prog.h and re2/prog.cc (Program Compilation and Execution): This component compiles the parsed regular expression into a "program" (DFA or NFA) and executes it against the input string.

    • Threats: Regular expressions that lead to large DFA state explosions, consuming excessive memory. Input strings that trigger worst-case matching behavior.
    • Security Controls: RE2's use of a DFA (with a fallback to NFA when the DFA becomes too large) is the primary defense against ReDoS. Memory limits during DFA construction are crucial.
    • Vulnerabilities: Bugs in the DFA/NFA construction or execution algorithms could lead to crashes or incorrect results. Insufficient memory limits could lead to denial-of-service. The NFA fallback, while necessary, could be more vulnerable to ReDoS than the DFA.
    • Mitigation:
      • DFA State Limit: Implement a strict, configurable limit on the number of DFA states. When this limit is reached, either fail the compilation or switch to the NFA with appropriate safeguards.
      • NFA Safeguards: If the NFA is used, consider techniques to mitigate ReDoS, such as limiting the number of NFA states explored or using a bounded backtracking approach.
      • Memory Allocation Monitoring: Carefully monitor memory allocation during program compilation and execution. Fail gracefully if limits are exceeded.
      • Fuzzing with DFA-Exploding Patterns: Specifically target fuzzing with regular expressions known to cause DFA state explosions.

  • util/ (Utility Functions): This directory contains various utility functions, including memory management (util/arena.h, util/memory.h).

    • Threats: Memory leaks, buffer overflows, use-after-free errors, and other memory-related vulnerabilities.
    • Security Controls: Careful coding practices, code reviews, and potentially static analysis.
    • Vulnerabilities: Any memory safety bug in these utility functions could have widespread consequences throughout the library.
    • Mitigation:
      • Memory Safety Audits: Conduct regular audits of the memory management code, focusing on potential vulnerabilities.
      • Static Analysis: Use static analysis tools (e.g., Clang Static Analyzer, Coverity) to identify potential memory safety issues.
      • Address Sanitizer (ASan): Use ASan during testing to detect memory errors at runtime.

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow (Inferred)

The overall data flow is as follows:

  1. Input: The user provides a regular expression string and an input string to the RE2 library (via the re2::RE2 class).
  2. Parsing: The regular expression string is parsed into a syntax tree (re2::Regexp).
  3. Compilation: The syntax tree is compiled into a program (re2::Prog), which may be a DFA or an NFA.
  4. Execution: The program is executed against the input string, producing match results (or indicating no match).
  5. Output: The match results (including captured groups, if any) are returned to the user.

4. Specific Security Considerations (Tailored to RE2)

  • DFA State Explosion Mitigation: This is the critical security consideration for RE2. While RE2 uses a DFA, cleverly crafted regular expressions can still cause a state explosion, leading to excessive memory consumption. The library must have robust mechanisms to detect and prevent this. The configuration of the DFA state limit should be exposed to the user.

  • NFA Fallback Security: The NFA fallback is a potential weak point. While it's necessary for handling complex expressions that would cause DFA explosions, it's inherently more susceptible to ReDoS. Careful consideration must be given to mitigating ReDoS in the NFA implementation.

  • Input Validation and Sanitization: RE2 should provide clear guidance and tools for users to validate and sanitize inputs before passing them to the library. This includes limiting input length and complexity. The library itself should also perform input validation, but it should not rely solely on the user to do so.

  • Memory Management: Given that RE2 is written in C++, memory safety is paramount. Any memory leaks, buffer overflows, or use-after-free errors could lead to crashes or potentially code execution vulnerabilities.

  • Error Handling: RE2 should provide clear and consistent error handling. Applications using RE2 must check for errors and handle them appropriately. The documentation should emphasize this.

  • Fuzzing Coverage: Fuzzing is essential for finding bugs in a complex library like RE2. The fuzzing should be comprehensive, covering all major components and targeting known ReDoS patterns.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to RE2)

These are specific, actionable recommendations, building on the previous sections:

  • Implement a RE2::Options class (if not already fully comprehensive): This class should allow users to configure:

    • max_mem: Maximum memory usage (in bytes) for the entire matching process.
    • max_regexp_length: Maximum length of the regular expression string.
    • max_input_length: Maximum length of the input string.
    • max_dfa_states: Maximum number of DFA states allowed before switching to NFA or failing.
    • max_nfa_states: Maximum number of NFA states to explore (if NFA is used). This is a crucial safeguard for the NFA fallback.
    • longest_match: Whether to find the longest match (default) or the first match. This can affect performance and, in some cases, security.
    • log_errors: Whether to log errors (useful for debugging).

  • Enhance re2::Regexp parsing:

    • Add a max_nodes limit to the parser to prevent excessively complex expressions from being parsed.
    • Add a max_nesting_depth limit to prevent deeply nested expressions.
    • Thoroughly review the parser code for integer overflow vulnerabilities, especially when handling character ranges and repetitions.

  • Strengthen re2::Prog compilation and execution:

    • Enforce the max_dfa_states limit strictly. When the limit is reached, either return an error (kErrorDFAStateLimitExceeded) or switch to the NFA with the max_nfa_states limit enforced.
    • Consider adding a "resource exhaustion" error code that is returned if any of the configured limits are exceeded during matching.
    • Instrument the code to track memory allocation and deallocation, making it easier to detect leaks and other memory errors.

  • Improve Fuzzing:

    • Use a fuzzer that can generate structurally valid regular expressions (e.g., a grammar-based fuzzer).
    • Include a corpus of known ReDoS patterns in the fuzzing input.
    • Run fuzzing continuously as part of the development process (e.g., using OSS-Fuzz).
    • Fuzz with Address Sanitizer (ASan), Memory Sanitizer (MSan), and Undefined Behavior Sanitizer (UBSan) enabled.

  • Static Analysis Integration: Integrate static analysis tools (e.g., Clang Static Analyzer, Coverity) into the build process to automatically detect potential vulnerabilities.

  • Security Audits: Conduct regular, independent security audits of the RE2 codebase.

  • Documentation Updates:

    • Clearly document all configuration options and their security implications.
    • Provide examples of how to use RE2 securely, including input validation and error handling.
    • Explain the trade-offs between security and performance (e.g., the cost of using the NFA fallback).
    • Document the known limitations of RE2 (e.g., lack of support for backreferences).
    • Create a dedicated security section in the documentation that summarizes the security considerations and best practices.

  • Supply Chain Security:

    • Use a secure build system.
    • Regularly update and vet all dependencies.
    • Sign releases to ensure integrity.

  • Dependency Management:

    • Regularly update and vet dependencies.
    • Use a dependency management tool to track and manage dependencies.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, RE2 can further strengthen its security posture and provide a more robust and reliable regular expression library for its users. The key is to combine the inherent security advantages of the DFA approach with rigorous input validation, resource limits, and thorough testing.