Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
121 lines (106 loc) · 11 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

121 lines (106 loc) · 11 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for pallets/click

Attack Surface: 1. Command Injection via Unsanitized Arguments

  • Description: Executing arbitrary system commands by injecting malicious code into arguments that are passed to shell commands.
  • How Click Contributes: click simplifies the process of accepting and parsing command-line arguments. It makes user-provided input readily available to the application logic. If developers directly embed these parsed arguments into shell commands (e.g., using subprocess with shell=True) without proper sanitization, click facilitates the pathway for command injection by passing unsanitized user input to a vulnerable execution context.
  • Example:
    • Vulnerable Code: 
      import click
import subprocess

@click.command()
@click.argument('filename')
def process_file(filename):
    subprocess.run(f"cat {filename}", shell=True, check=True)
    • Attack: python vulnerable_script.py "$(malicious_command)"
    • Explanation: The attacker provides an argument like $(malicious_command). Because shell=True is used in subprocess.run and the filename argument (parsed by click) is directly embedded without sanitization, the shell interprets $(...) as command substitution, executing malicious_command on the system.
  • Impact: Full system compromise, arbitrary code execution, data breach, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Avoid shell=True: The primary mitigation is to avoid using shell=True in functions like subprocess.run or os.system. Use list-based arguments to execute commands directly without shell interpretation.
      • Parameterize Commands: Construct commands using parameterized approaches that prevent shell injection.
      • Input Sanitization: If shell execution with user input is absolutely necessary, rigorously sanitize and validate all user inputs parsed by click before incorporating them into shell commands. Use escaping mechanisms like shlex.quote.
    • Users:
      • Exercise extreme caution when providing input to CLI applications, especially if they involve file processing or system interactions. Avoid running applications from untrusted sources.

Attack Surface: 2. Denial of Service (DoS) via Argument Bomb

  • Description: Causing resource exhaustion (CPU, memory) by providing excessively long or complex arguments that the application struggles to parse or process.
  • How Click Contributes: click is designed to efficiently parse command-line arguments, including potentially very long strings. It provides a straightforward way to accept user-supplied data as arguments. If the application logic then processes these arguments without limits or efficient handling, click effectively delivers the "bomb" argument to the vulnerable processing stage.
  • Example:
    • Vulnerable Code: 
      import click

@click.command()
@click.argument('large_data')
def process_data(large_data):
    # Inefficiently process 'large_data' (e.g., string operations, memory allocation)
    print(f"Data length: {len(large_data)}")
    # ... (Imagine resource-intensive operations on 'large_data') ...
    • Attack: python vulnerable_script.py "$(python -c 'print("A"*10000000)')"
    • Explanation: The attacker provides a massive string (10 million 'A's) as input via command substitution. click parses this argument and passes it to process_data. If process_data performs resource-intensive operations on this very large string, it can lead to a DoS by consuming excessive CPU or memory.
  • Impact: Application unavailability, system slowdown, resource exhaustion, potentially crashing the application or system.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Input Validation & Limits: Implement validation to restrict the size and complexity of arguments accepted by the CLI. Set maximum lengths for string arguments or limits on the number of items in list arguments.
      • Efficient Processing: Design application logic to handle potentially large inputs gracefully. Use streaming or chunking techniques when processing large data to avoid loading everything into memory at once.
      • Resource Management: Implement resource limits (e.g., memory limits, CPU time limits) for the application to prevent resource exhaustion.
    • Users:
      • Avoid providing extremely large or complex inputs to CLI applications, especially if you suspect they might be vulnerable to DoS attacks.

Attack Surface: 3. Path Traversal via File Path Arguments (using click.Path or click.File)

  • Description: Accessing or manipulating files outside the intended directory by providing crafted file paths that bypass directory restrictions.
  • How Click Contributes: click provides convenient parameter types like click.Path and click.File specifically designed for handling file paths as command-line arguments. While these types offer features like path existence checks, they do not inherently prevent path traversal vulnerabilities. If developers rely solely on click.Path or click.File without implementing additional path validation and sanitization in their application logic, click facilitates the acceptance of malicious paths from users.
  • Example:
    • Vulnerable Code: 
      import click

@click.command()
@click.argument('filepath', type=click.Path(exists=True))
def read_file(filepath):
    with open(filepath, 'r') as f:
        content = f.read()
        print(content)
    • Attack: python vulnerable_script.py "../../../etc/shadow"
    • Explanation: The attacker provides a path like ../../../etc/shadow. click.Path(exists=True) will check if /etc/shadow exists (and it likely does), but it does not prevent the path from traversing outside the intended working directory. The application then opens and reads /etc/shadow, potentially exposing sensitive system information.
  • Impact: Unauthorized file access, data breach, potential for further exploitation if write operations are also involved.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Path Validation & Sanitization: Always validate and sanitize file paths received through click.Path or click.File. Do not rely solely on click's built-in path type features for security.
      • Path Normalization: Use functions like os.path.abspath, os.path.realpath, and os.path.normpath to normalize paths and resolve symbolic links to a canonical form.
      • Directory Restriction (Chroot/Jail): Implement checks to ensure that the resolved path is within the expected directory or a designated "jail" directory. Verify that the path does not escape the intended scope.
      • Principle of Least Privilege: Run the application with the minimum necessary file system permissions.
    • Users:
      • Be extremely cautious about the file paths you provide to CLI applications, especially when dealing with sensitive data or system files. Avoid providing paths that traverse upwards (using ../) or outside the expected working directory.

Attack Surface: 4. Vulnerabilities in Custom click.ParamType Implementations

  • Description: Introducing vulnerabilities through flawed or insecure validation logic within custom parameter type classes that extend click's input handling capabilities.
  • How Click Contributes: click's extensibility allows developers to create custom click.ParamType classes to handle complex input validation or parsing requirements. If these custom types are not implemented with security in mind, they can become a point of vulnerability. click provides the framework for custom types, but the security of these types is entirely dependent on the developer's implementation.
  • Example:
    • Vulnerable Code (Custom ParamType with insecure validation): 
      import click

class LimitedStringType(click.ParamType):
    name = "limited_string"

    def convert(self, value, param, ctx):
        if len(value) > 50: # Insecure length check - easily bypassed if encoding is manipulated
            self.fail(f"String too long (max 50 chars)", param, ctx)
        # ... (Potentially other flawed validation logic) ...
        return value

@click.command()
@click.argument('input_string', type=LimitedStringType())
def process_string(input_string):
    print(f"Processing: {input_string}")
    • Attack: Exploiting weaknesses in the custom validation logic. For example, if the length check is based on character count but doesn't handle multi-byte characters correctly, an attacker might bypass the length limit by using specific encodings. Or, if a regex is used for validation but is poorly written, it might allow unexpected inputs.
    • Impact: Bypassing intended input validation, leading to unexpected application behavior, data corruption, or other vulnerabilities that the validation was meant to prevent.
    • Risk Severity: High (if the bypassed validation protects against critical vulnerabilities)
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developers:
        • Secure Coding Practices in Custom Types: Apply rigorous secure coding practices when developing custom click.ParamType classes. Thoroughly test and review the validation logic for potential bypasses or vulnerabilities.
        • Robust Validation Logic: Use well-established and robust validation techniques. Avoid writing custom validation from scratch if possible; leverage existing, well-tested validation libraries or functions.
        • Input Sanitization within convert: Ensure proper input sanitization and encoding handling within the convert method of custom ParamType classes to prevent encoding-related bypasses.
        • Unit Testing: Implement comprehensive unit tests specifically for custom ParamType classes, including tests for boundary conditions, invalid inputs, and potential bypass scenarios.
      • Users:
        • This is primarily a developer-side issue. Users generally cannot directly mitigate vulnerabilities in custom parameter types. However, reporting unexpected behavior or validation bypasses to application developers is crucial for identifying and fixing these issues.