An Exploration of JSON Interoperability Vulnerabilities
The same JSON document can be parsed with different values across microservices, leading to a variety of potential security risks. If you prefer a hands-on approach, try the labs and when they scare you, come back and read on.
A handy diff argument handling feature that's actually very old
If only one of file1 and file2 is a directory, diff shall be applied to the non-directory file and the file contained in the directory file with a filename that is the same as the last component of the non-directory file.
How CDNs Generate Certificates
Obviously, to do stuff like this, you need to generate certificates. The reasonable way to do that in 2020 is with LetsEncrypt. We do that for our users automatically, but “it just works” makes for a pretty boring writeup, so let’s see how complicated and meandering I can make this.
It’s time to talk about certificate infrastructure.
Path Building vs Path Verifying: Implementation Showdown
In my previous post, I talked about what the issue with Sectigo’s expired root was, from the perspective of the PKI graph, and talked a bit about what makes a good certificate verifier implementation. Unfortunately, despite browsers and commercial OSes mostly handling this issue, the sheer variety of open-source implementations means that there’s a number of not-so-good verifiers out there.
In this post, I’ll dig in a little deeper, looking at specific implementations, and talking about how their strategies either lead to this issue, or avoided this issue but will lead to other issues.
It’s pretty much all terrible, except the parts that are extremely terrible.
The Original Cookie specification from 1997 was GDPR compliant
We were never supposed to be able to do what most publishers and tech companies do today. In fact, what if I were to tell you that the original specification for how cookies should be implemented in browsers pretty much defined what GDPR is today?
Imagine back to a time when people thought user agents would be agents for the user.
C++ “move” semantics are simple, but they are still widely misunderstood. This post is an attempt to shed light on that situation.
I like that the appendix is 3 times the article’s length.
Trap representations and padding bits
The C programming language does not hide from you how the values you manipulate are represented. One consequence is that when padding happens, its presence may have observable effects in carelessly crafted programs. Padding is well-known to appear between members of a struct, and also possibly after the last member of a struct. The remaining space in a union when the active member is not the widest one is also considered padding. A C programmer that only cares for usual x86 platforms might be excused for thinking that, for them, this is it. As for trap representations, these may be believed to be reserved for weird hardware that use one’s complement or explicit parity bits.
The example at the end regarding _Bool is nice.
It’s Not Wrong that “🤦🏼♂️”.length == 7 But It’s Better that “🤦🏼♂️”.len() == 17 and Rather Useless that len(“🤦🏼♂️“) == 5
The string that contains one graphical unit consists of 5 Unicode scalar values. First, there’s a base character that means a person face palming. By default, the person would have a cartoonish yellow color. The next character is an emoji skintone modifier the changes the color of the person’s skin (and, in practice, also the color of the person’s hair). By default, the gender of the person is undefined, and e.g. Apple defaults to what they consider a male appearance and e.g. Google defaults to what they consider a female appearance. The next two scalar values pick a male-typical appearance specifically regardless of font and vendor. Instead of being an emoji-specific modifier like the skin tone, the gender specification uses an emoji-predating gender symbol (MALE SIGN) explicitly ligated using the ZERO WIDTH JOINER with the (skin-toned) face-palming person. (Whether it is a good or a bad idea that the skin tone and gender specifications use different mechanisms is out of the scope of this post.) Finally, VARIATION SELECTOR-16 makes it explicit that we want a multicolor emoji rendering instead of a monochrome dingbat rendering.
And then we move on from there, in quite some depth.
Public Suffix List Problems
This is a collection of thoughts from a maintainer of the Public Suffix List (PSL) about the importance of avoiding new Web Platform features, security, or privacy boundaries assuming the PSL is a good starting point.
Equally terrifying, however, is how many providers only discovered the existence of the PSL once LE was using it to rate limit - meaning that their users were able to influence cookies and other storage without restriction, until an incidental change (wanting to get more certs) caused the server operator to realize.
Some obscure C features
The current most used version of the language, c99, gained some new features over the years, many of which are completely unknown to most C programmers (Older specifications obviously also have some dark corners).
Would not recommend.
We present an attack on the encryption key negotiation protocol of Bluetooth BR/EDR. The attack allows a third party, without knowledge of any secret material (such as link and encryption keys), to make two (or more) victims agree on an encryption key with only 1 byte (8 bits) of entropy. Such low entropy enables the attacker to easily brute force the negotiated encryption keys, decrypt the eavesdropped ciphertext, and inject valid encrypted messages (in real-time). The attack is stealthy because the encryption key negotiation is transparent to the Bluetooth users. The attack is standard-compliant because all Bluetooth BR/EDR versions require to support encryption keys with entropy between 1 and 16 bytes and do not secure the key negotiation protocol. As a result, the attacker completely breaks Bluetooth BR/EDR security without being detected. We call our attack Key Negotiation Of Bluetooth (KNOB) attack.
HTTP/2 Denial of Service Advisory
Netflix has discovered several resource exhaustion vectors affecting a variety of third-party HTTP/2 implementations. These attack vectors can be used to launch DoS attacks against servers that support HTTP/2 communication.
Son of Slowloris returns!
While this added complexity enables some exciting new features, it also raises implementation questions.
Here comes trouble...
The Security Considerations section of RFC 7540 (see Section 10.5) addresses some of this in a general way. However, unlike the expected “normal” behavior—which is well-documented and which implementations seem to follow very closely—the algorithms and mechanisms for detecting and mitigating “abnormal” behavior are significantly more vague and left as an exercise for the implementer. From a review of various software packages, it appears that this has led to a variety of implementations with a variety of good ideas, but also some weaknesses.
ASCII table and history
To understand why Control+i inserts a Tab in your terminal you need to understand ASCII, and to understand ASCII you need know a bit about its history and the world it was developed in. Please bear with me (or just go the table).
Most teleprinters communicated using the ITA2 protocol. For the most part this would just encode the alphabet, but there are a few control codes: WRU (“Who R U”) would cause the receiving teleprinter to send back its identification, BEL would ring a bell, and it had the familiar CR (Carriage Return) and LF (Line Feed).
glibc realloc(ptr, 0) vs. C17 specification
Better Encrypted Group Chat
End-to-end encrypted group messaging is also a hard problem to solve. Existing solutions such as Signal, WhatsApp, and iMessage have inherent problems with scaling, which I’ll discuss in detail, that make it infeasible to conduct group chats of more than a few hundred people. The Message Layer Security (MLS) protocol aims to make end-to-end encrypted group chat more efficient while still providing security guarantees like forward secrecy and post-compromise security.
The primary contribution of molasses has been in detecting errors in the specification and other implementations through unit and interoperability testing. Molasses implements most of MLS draft 6. Why not all of draft 6? There was an error in the spec that made it impossible for members to be added to any group. This broke all the unit tests that create non-trivial groups. Errors like this are hard to catch just by reading the spec; they require some amount of automated digging. Once they are found, the necessary revisions tend to be pretty obvious, and they are swiftly incorporated into the subsequent draft.
Nice work and a very nice explanation of the protocol.
Dragonblood new results
August 2019 — During our initial disclosure, the Wi-Fi Alliance privately created security recommendations to mitigate our attacks. In these recommendations, they claim that Brainpool curves are safe to use, at least if products securely implement Dragonfly’s quadratic residue test (i.e. it must be implemented without side-channel leaks). However, we found that using Brainpool curves introduces a second class of side-channel leaks in the Dragonfly handshake of WPA3. In other words, even if the advice of the Wi-Fi Alliance is followed, implementations remain at risk of attacks. This demonstrates that implementing Dragonfly and WPA3 without side-channel leaks is surprisingly hard. It also, once again, shows that privately creating security recommendations and standards is at best irresponsible and at worst inept.
That last line.
No-one knows the type of char + char
What are “the usual arithmetic conversions”?
Unicode programming, with examples
Unicode is more than a numbering scheme for the characters of every language – although that in itself is a useful accomplishment. Unicode also includes characters’ case, directionality, and alphabetic properties. The Unicode standard and specifications describe the proper way to divide words and break lines, sort text, format numbers, display text in different directions, split/combine/reorder vowels South Asian languages, and determine when characters may look visually confusable.
U2F Technical Overview
U2F is a challenge-response protocol extended with phishing and MitM protection, application-specific keys, device cloning detection and device attestation. There are two flows: registration and authentication.
For the full package of FIDO U2F specifications, visit the FIDO Alliance Specifications homepage.
Standardizing WASI: A system interface to run WebAssembly outside the web
WebAssembly is an assembly language for a conceptual machine, not a physical one. This is why it can be run across a variety of different machine architectures.
Just as WebAssembly is an assembly language for a conceptual machine, WebAssembly needs a system interface for a conceptual operating system, not any single operating system. This way, it can be run across all different OSs.
This is what WASI is — a system interface for the WebAssembly platform.