2023-12-05 22:14:06 +08:00
|
|
|
# The GNU C Library Security Policy
|
2023-05-18 07:44:46 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2023-12-05 22:14:06 +08:00
|
|
|
This document describes the policy followed by the GNU C Library maintainers
|
2023-05-18 07:44:46 +08:00
|
|
|
to handle bugs that may have a security impact. This includes determining if a
|
|
|
|
bug has a security impact, reporting such bugs to the community and handling
|
2023-12-05 22:14:06 +08:00
|
|
|
such bugs all the way to resolution. This policy may evolve over time, so if
|
2023-05-18 07:44:46 +08:00
|
|
|
you're reading this from a release tarball, be sure to check the latest copy of
|
|
|
|
the [SECURITY.md in the
|
|
|
|
repository](https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=SECURITY.md),
|
|
|
|
especially for instructions on reporting issues privately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## What is a security bug?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most security vulnerabilities in the GNU C Library materialize only after an
|
|
|
|
application uses functionality in a specific way. Therefore, it is sometimes
|
|
|
|
difficult to determine if a defect in the GNU C Library constitutes a
|
|
|
|
vulnerability as such. The follow guidelines can help with a decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Buffer overflows should be treated as security bugs if it is conceivable that
|
|
|
|
the data triggering them can come from an untrusted source.
|
|
|
|
* Other bugs that cause memory corruption which is likely exploitable should be
|
|
|
|
treated as security bugs.
|
|
|
|
* Information disclosure can be security bugs, especially if exposure through
|
|
|
|
applications can be determined.
|
|
|
|
* Memory leaks and races are security bugs if they cause service breakage.
|
|
|
|
* Stack overflow through unbounded alloca calls or variable-length arrays are
|
|
|
|
security bugs if it is conceivable that the data triggering the overflow
|
|
|
|
could come from an untrusted source.
|
|
|
|
* Stack overflow through deep recursion and other crashes are security bugs if
|
|
|
|
they cause service breakage.
|
|
|
|
* Bugs that cripple the whole system (so that it doesn't even boot or does not
|
|
|
|
run most applications) are not security bugs because they will not be
|
|
|
|
exploitable in practice, due to general system instability.
|
|
|
|
* Bugs that crash `nscd` are generally security bugs, except if they can only
|
|
|
|
be triggered by a trusted data source (DNS is not trusted, but NIS and LDAP
|
|
|
|
probably are).
|
|
|
|
* The [Security Exceptions](#SecurityExceptions) section below describes
|
|
|
|
subsystems for which determining the security status of bugs is especially
|
|
|
|
complicated.
|
|
|
|
* For consistency, if the bug has received a CVE name attributing it to the GNU
|
|
|
|
C library, it should be flagged `security+`.
|
|
|
|
* Duplicates of security bugs (flagged with `security+`) should be flagged
|
|
|
|
`security-`, to avoid cluttering the reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this context, _service breakage_ means client-side privilege escalation
|
|
|
|
(code execution) or server-side denial of service or privilege escalation
|
|
|
|
through actual, concrete, non-synthetic applications. Or put differently, if
|
|
|
|
the GNU C Library causes a security bug in an application (and the application
|
|
|
|
uses the library in a standard-conforming manner or according to the manual),
|
|
|
|
the GNU C Library bug should be treated as security-relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Security Exceptions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may be especially complicated to determine the security status of bugs in
|
|
|
|
some subsystems in the GNU C Library. This subsection describes such
|
|
|
|
subsystems and the special considerations applicable during security bug
|
|
|
|
classification in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Regular expression processing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regular expression processing comes in two parts, compilation (through regcomp)
|
|
|
|
and execution (through regexec).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementing regular expressions efficiently, in a standard-conforming way, and
|
|
|
|
without denial-of-service vulnerabilities is very difficult and impossible for
|
|
|
|
Basic Regular Expressions. Most implementation strategies have issues dealing
|
|
|
|
with certain classes of patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequently, certain issues which can be triggered only with crafted patterns
|
|
|
|
(either during compilation or execution) are treated as regular bugs and not
|
|
|
|
security issues. Examples of such issues would include (but is not limited
|
|
|
|
to):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Running out of memory through valid use of malloc
|
|
|
|
* Quadratic or exponential behaviour resulting in slow execution time
|
|
|
|
* Stack overflows due to recursion when processing patterns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crashes, infinite loops (and not merely exponential behavior), buffer overflows
|
|
|
|
and overreads, memory leaks and other bugs resulting from the regex
|
|
|
|
implementation relying on undefined behavior should be treated as security
|
|
|
|
vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### wordexp patterns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`wordexp` inherently has exponential memory consumption in terms of the input
|
|
|
|
size. This means that denial of service flaws from crafted patterns are not
|
|
|
|
security issues (even if they lead to other issues, such as NULL pointer
|
|
|
|
dereferences).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Asynchronous I/O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GNU C Library tries to implement asynchronous I/O without kernel support,
|
|
|
|
which means that several operations are not fully standard conforming. Several
|
|
|
|
known races can cause crashes and resource leaks. Such bugs are only treated
|
|
|
|
as security bugs if applications (as opposed to synthetic test cases) have
|
|
|
|
security exposures due to these bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Asynchronous cancellation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The implementation of asynchronous cancellation is not fully
|
|
|
|
standard-conforming and has races and leaks. Again, such bugs are only treated
|
|
|
|
as security bugs if applications (as opposed to synthetic test cases) have
|
|
|
|
security exposures due to these bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Crafted binaries and ldd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `ldd` tool is not expected to be used with untrusted executables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Post-exploitation countermeasures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certain features have been added to the library only to make exploitation of
|
|
|
|
security bugs (mainly for code execution) more difficult. Examples includes
|
|
|
|
the stack smashing protector, function pointer obfuscation, vtable validation
|
|
|
|
for stdio stream handles, and various heap consistency checks. Failure of such
|
|
|
|
countermeasures to stop exploitation of a different vulnerability is not a
|
|
|
|
security vulnerability in itself. By their nature, these countermeasures are
|
|
|
|
based on heuristics and will never offer complete protection, so the original
|
|
|
|
vulnerability needs to be fixed anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-05 22:14:06 +08:00
|
|
|
## Reporting security bugs
|
2023-05-18 07:44:46 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2023-12-05 22:14:06 +08:00
|
|
|
The process to report security bugs is documented on the glibc [security
|
|
|
|
page](https://sourceware.org/glibc/security.html). In general, most security
|
|
|
|
bugs may be reported publicly in the [glibc
|
|
|
|
bugzilla](https://sourceware.org/glibc/bugs.html), but if in doubt, please feel
|
|
|
|
free to report security issues privately first.
|
2023-05-18 07:44:46 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Triaging security bugs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section is aimed at developers, not reporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security-relevant bugs should be marked with `security+`, as per the [Bugzilla
|
|
|
|
security flag
|
|
|
|
documentation](https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Bugzilla%20Procedures#security),
|
|
|
|
following the guidelines above. If you set the `security+` flag, you should
|
|
|
|
make sure the following information is included in the bug (usually in a bug
|
|
|
|
comment):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The first glibc version which includes the vulnerable code. If the
|
|
|
|
vulnerability was introduced before glibc 2.4 (released in 2006), this
|
|
|
|
information is not necessary.
|
|
|
|
* The commit or commits (identified by hash) that fix this vulnerability in the
|
|
|
|
master branch, and (for historic security bugs) the first release that
|
|
|
|
includes this fix.
|
|
|
|
* The summary should include the CVE names (if any), in parentheses at the end.
|
|
|
|
* If there is a single CVE name assigned to this bug, it should be set as an
|
|
|
|
alias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following links are helpful for finding untriaged bugs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* [Unprocessed bugs](https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&o1=notsubstring&product=glibc&query_format=advanced&v1=security)
|
|
|
|
* [`security?` review requests](https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&o1=substring&product=glibc&query_format=advanced&v1=security%3f)
|
|
|
|
* [Open `security+` bugs](https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=VERIFIED&f1=flagtypes.name&o1=substring&product=glibc&query_format=advanced&v1=security%2B)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Fixing security bugs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For changes to master, the regular [consensus-driven
|
|
|
|
process](https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus) must be followed. It
|
|
|
|
makes sense to obtain consensus in private, to ensure that the patch is likely
|
|
|
|
in a committable state, before disclosing an emboargoed vulnerability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security backports to release branches need to follow the
|
|
|
|
[release process](https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release#General_policy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the [website
|
|
|
|
maintainers](https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Maintainers_for_the_website)
|
|
|
|
and have them draft a news entry for the website frontpage to direct users to
|
|
|
|
the bug, the fix, or the mailing list discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## CVE assignment
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-05 22:14:06 +08:00
|
|
|
Security bugs flagged with `security+` should have [CVE
|
|
|
|
identifiers](http://cve.mitre.org/about/). Please reach out to the glibc
|
|
|
|
security team using the documented [security
|
|
|
|
process](https://sourceware.org/glibc/security.html) and they work on getting a
|
|
|
|
CVE number.
|