Re: CGI.pm and the untrusted-URL problem

From: Marc Slemko (marcsat_private)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2000 - 11:46:06 PST

  • Next message: Steven M. Bellovin: "Re: Misleading sense of security in Netscape"

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Kragen Sitaker wrote:
    
    > Diagnosis
    > ---------
    >
    > It appears that this happens because the unencoded space is interpreted
    > by the HTTP server (Apache 1.3.6 in my tests) as separating the URL
    > from the protocol name.  So the environment variable SERVER_PROTOCOL
    > gets set to everything following the space, followed by a space and the
    > actual protocol, such as "HTTP/1.0".
    
    Correct, this does appear to be a bug.  I suspect that a lot of such bugs
    will be found.  Unfortunately.
    
    However it is important to note that this does not exploit a bug in
    Apache.  Apache is choosing to deal with an illegal request in a perfectly
    legitimate manner.  At least, that is my understanding of what the spec
    says; I haven't checked it closely WRT this particular issue.
    
    Part of Apache's functionality is to pass unknown methods and protocols on
    to CGIs.  It is be arguable that Apache should explicitly reject any
    request with more than two unencoded spaces in it.
    
    > Three of the four tested browsers (Netscape 4.6, MSIE 3.0, and Mozilla
    > M12) send the unencoded space in the request URL, which generates an
    > illegal HTTP Request-Line.
    >
    > CGI.pm simply takes that environment variable, chops off everything
    > from the slash onwards, lowercases it, and returns the result as the
    > URL scheme.
    >
    > Suggested fixes
    > ---------------
    >
    > RFC 1738 and RFC 2068 say that only a-z, 0-9, "+", ".",
    > and "-" are allowed in scheme names.  Accordingly, I suggest the
    > following change to CGI.pm:
    
    Or it could simple properly encode things, as it should do for all data
    supplied by the user that is output.
    
    Filtering is often easier, however, as encoding can be very context
    sensitive.
    
    > The successful exploit requires a remarkable chain of extreme forgiveness:
    > 1- The web browser must accept an illegal URL from (possibly valid,
    >    although very unusual) HTML.
    > 2- The web browser must send an illegal HTTP request with the illegal
    >    URL, without %-encoding the URL to make it legal.
    
    Note that IE appears to be far better in making sure it only makes legal
    requests.  Good job Microsoft, in this particular situation.  Too bad IE
    still has a nasty security hole caused by IE trying to guess the MIME
    type, which means that you can't output any text/plain content that has
    user-supplied data because you can't encode it (since it is text/plain)
    and you never know when IE will try to guess what MIME type it thinks it
    is.  The latter more than cancels out the former.
    
    There is at least one other serious issue caused by Navigator sending
    bogus HTTP requests that is completely server independent and that the
    server can do nothing about.  I will post details later this week when I
    get a chance.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 15:35:02 PDT