- May 26, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
- May 25, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
I introduced this bug when I moved signing_key_cert into signed_descriptor_t. Bug not in any released Tor. Fixes bug 19175, and another case of 19128. Just like signed_descriptor_from_routerinfo(), routerlist_reparse_old() copies the fields from one signed_descriptor_t to another, and then clears the fields from the original that would have been double-freed by freeing the original. But when I fixed the s_d_f_r() bug [#19128] in 50cbf220, I missed the fact that the code was duplicated in r_p_o(). Duplicated code strikes again! For a longer-term solution here, I am not only adding the missing fix to r_p_o(): I am also extracting the duplicated code into a new function. Many thanks to toralf for patiently sending me stack traces until one made sense.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
If OpenSSL fails to generate an RSA key, do not retain a dangling pointer to the previous (uninitialized) key value. The impact here should be limited to a difficult-to-trigger crash, if OpenSSL is running an engine that makes key generation failures possible, or if OpenSSL runs out of memory. Fixes bug 19152; bugfix on 0.2.1.10-alpha. Found by Yuan Jochen Kang, Suman Jana, and Baishakhi Ray. This is potentially scary stuff, so let me walk through my analysis. I think this is a bug, and a backport candidate, but not remotely triggerable in any useful way. Observation 1a: Looking over the OpenSSL code here, the only way we can really fail in the non-engine case is if malloc() fails. But if malloc() is failing, then tor_malloc() calls should be tor_asserting -- the only way that an attacker could do an exploit here would be to figure out some way to make malloc() fail when openssl does it, but work whenever Tor does it. (Also ordinary malloc() doesn't fail on platforms like Linux that overcommit.) Observation 1b: Although engines are _allowed_ to fail in extra ways, I can't find much evidence online that they actually _do_ fail in practice. More evidence would be nice, though. Observation 2: We don't call crypto_pk_generate*() all that often, and we don't do it in response to external inputs. The only way to get it to happen remotely would be by causing a hidden service to build new introduction points. Observation 3a: So, let's assume that both of the above observations are wrong, and the attacker can make us generate a crypto_pk_env_t with a dangling pointer in its 'key' field, and not immediately crash. This dangling pointer will point to what used to be an RSA structure, with the fields all set to NULL. Actually using this RSA structure, before the memory is reused for anything else, will cause a crash. In nearly every function where we call crypto_pk_generate*(), we quickly use the RSA key pointer -- either to sign something, or to encode the key, or to free the key. The only exception is when we generate an intro key in rend_consider_services_intro_points(). In that case, we don't actually use the key until the intro circuit is opened -- at which point we encode it, and use it to sign an introduction request. So in order to exploit this bug to do anything besides crash Tor, the attacker needs to make sure that by the time the introduction circuit completes, either: * the e, d, and n BNs look valid, and at least one of the other BNs is still NULL. OR * all 8 of the BNs must look valid. To look like a valid BN, *they* all need to have their 'top' index plus their 'd' pointer indicate an addressable region in memory. So actually getting useful data of of this, rather than a crash, is going to be pretty damn hard. You'd have to force an introduction point to be created (or wait for one to be created), and force that particular crypto_pk_generate*() to fail, and then arrange for the memory that the RSA points to to in turn point to 3...8 valid BNs, all by the time the introduction circuit completes. Naturally, the signature won't check as valid [*], so the intro point will reject the ESTABLISH_INTRO cell. So you need to _be_ the introduction point, or you don't actually see this information. [*] Okay, so if you could somehow make the 'rsa' pointer point to a different valid RSA key, then you'd get a valid signature of an ESTABLISH_INTRO cell using a key that was supposed to be used for something else ... but nothing else looks like that, so you can't use that signature elsewhere. Observation 3b: Your best bet as an attacker would be to make the dangling RSA pointer actually contain a fake method, with a fake RSA_private_encrypt function that actually pointed to code you wanted to execute. You'd still need to transit 3 or 4 pointers deep though in order to make that work. Conclusion: By 1, you probably can't trigger this without Tor crashing from OOM. By 2, you probably can't trigger this reliably. By 3, even if I'm wrong about 1 and 2, you have to jump through a pretty big array of hoops in order to get any kind of data leak or code execution. So I'm calling it a bug, but not a security hole. Still worth patching.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
Fortunately, the arithmetic cannot actually overflow, so long as we *always* check for the size of potentially hostile input before copying it. I think we do, though. We do check each line against MAX_LINE_LENGTH, and each object name or object against MAX_UNPARSED_OBJECT_SIZE, both of which are 128k. So to get this overflow, we need to have our memarea allocated way way too high up in RAM, which most allocators won't actually do. Bugfix on 0.2.1.1-alpha, where memarea was introduced. Found by Guido Vranken.
-
- May 24, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
Previously, if the header was present, we'd proceed even if the function wasn't there. Easy fix for bug 19161. A better fix would involve trying harder to find libscrypt_scrypt.
-
- May 23, 2016
-
-
- May 20, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
Now that the field exists in signed_descriptor_t, we need to make sure we free it when we free a signed_descriptor_t, and we need to make sure that we don't free it when we convert a routerinfo_t to a signed_descriptor_t. But not in any released Tor. I found this while working on #19128. One problem: I don't see how this could cause 19128.
-
- May 19, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
teor (Tim Wilson-Brown) authored
No behaviour change - just remove the variables
-
teor (Tim Wilson-Brown) authored
Comment-only change
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
-
-
-
No behaviour change This function is used twice. The code is simpler if we split it up and inline it where it is used.
-
-
Previosuly, during bootstrap, we would continue to download consensuses if we had a consensus, but didn't have the certificates to validate it.
-
- May 18, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
With the fix for #17150, I added a duplicate certificate here. Here I remove the original location in 0.2.8. (I wouldn't want to do that in 027, due to the amount of authority-voting-related code drift.) Closes 19073.
-
- May 17, 2016
-
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
This API change makes it so that routerinfo_incompatible...() no longer takes a routerinfo_t, so that it's obvious that it should only look at fields from the signed_descriptor_t. This change should prevent a recurrence of #17150.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
We need to make sure that the corresponding sd and ei match in their certificates.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
We need this field to be in signed_descriptor_t so that routerinfo_incompatible_with_extrainfo can work correctly (#17150). But I don't want to move it completely in this patch, since a great deal of the code that messes with it has been in flux since 0.2.7, when this ticket was opened. I should open another ticket about removing the field from routerinfo_t and extrainfo_t later on. This patch fixes no actual behavior.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
The routerinfo we pass to routerinfo_incompatible_with_extrainfo is the latest routerinfo for the relay. The signed_descriptor_t, on the other hand, is the signed_descriptor_t that corresponds to the extrainfo. That means we should be checking the digest256 match with that signed_descriptor_t, not with the routerinfo. Fixes bug 17150 (and 19017); bugfix on 0.2.7.2-alpha.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
This patch includes no semantic changes; it's just a field movement. It's prerequisite for a fix to 19017/17150.
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-
Nick Mathewson authored
-