Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
53 lines (46 loc) · 5.31 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

53 lines (46 loc) · 5.31 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for clap-rs/clap

Attack Surface: 1. Argument Type Confusion (Leading to Injection)

  • Description: An attacker provides an argument of an unexpected data type, bypassing clap's intended type checking, and this incorrect type is then used unsafely in a security-critical operation (e.g., a system call). This is a direct involvement because clap's type handling is the first line of defense that is bypassed.
  • How clap Contributes: clap's type parsing and validation are the initial gatekeepers. If the type definition is too permissive (e.g., String instead of a more specific type), or a custom parser has a flaw, the wrong type can get through.
  • Example:
    • clap expects a filename as a String: value_parser!(String).
    • Attacker provides --file "'; rm -rf /;'".
    • If the application directly uses this value in a shell command without any further sanitization, the injected command could be executed. clap allowed the initial String through.
  • Impact: Code execution, system compromise.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Use clap's strictest possible type validation. Avoid String where more specific types (e.g., PathBuf, i32, custom validated types) are appropriate.
      • Implement additional, robust input validation after clap parsing, especially before using the value in any security-sensitive context. Never assume clap's validation is sufficient to prevent injection.
      • Use whitelisting (possible_values) whenever feasible to restrict input to a known-good set.

Attack Surface: 2. Argument Injection (Directly via clap Weakness)

  • Description: This is a more specific and direct form of argument injection. The vulnerability exists because of a flaw within clap itself (e.g., a bug in how clap handles quotes or special characters) that allows an attacker to inject malicious code even if the application performs some basic sanitization. This is distinct from the previous item, where the application's lack of sanitization was the primary issue.
  • How clap Contributes: The vulnerability is a direct result of a bug or design flaw within clap's parsing logic. This is less common but more severe, as it bypasses even basic application-level defenses.
  • Example:
    • Hypothetically, a bug exists in clap where it doesn't properly handle escaped quotes within an argument value.
    • Attacker exploits this clap bug to inject a command, even if the application attempts some basic escaping.
    • This is highly unlikely with a mature library like clap, but it represents the direct involvement scenario.
  • Impact: Code execution, system compromise.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Keep clap updated to the latest version to benefit from security patches. This is the primary defense against direct clap vulnerabilities.
      • Report any suspected clap vulnerabilities to the maintainers.
      • While waiting for a patch, implement workarounds if a specific vulnerability is identified (e.g., extra-strict input filtering that targets the known bug).
    • Users:
      • Keep applications using clap updated to the latest version.

Attack Surface: 3. Custom Parser/Validator Vulnerabilities (High-Risk Cases)

  • Description: Bugs in high-risk custom value parsers or validators (those handling security-sensitive data or operations) can lead to critical vulnerabilities. This is direct because the custom code is integrated with clap.
  • How clap Contributes: clap provides the mechanism for integrating custom parsing and validation logic. The vulnerability lies within this custom code, but it's directly tied to clap's extension points.
  • Example:
    • A custom validator is written to check if an argument is a "safe" URL, intended to prevent SSRF.
    • The validator has a flaw that allows attackers to bypass the check with a carefully crafted URL.
    • This directly leads to an SSRF vulnerability, and the custom validator (integrated with clap) is the root cause.
  • Impact: SSRF, code injection, other vulnerabilities depending on the flawed logic.
  • Risk Severity: Critical (if the custom code handles security-sensitive data)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Thoroughly test and review any custom parsing or validation logic, especially if it handles URLs, file paths, or other data used in security-critical operations.
      • Use a fuzzer to test the custom code with a wide range of inputs, focusing on edge cases and potential bypasses.
      • Prefer using clap's built-in validation features or well-established, security-audited libraries for common validation tasks (e.g., URL parsing) instead of writing custom code from scratch.
      • Apply secure coding principles when writing custom parsers/validators (e.g., input validation, output encoding, avoiding dangerous functions).