oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older
From: Eric Hodel <drbrain () segment7 net>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:11:00 -0700
On Sep 16, 2013, at 18:28, Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com> wrote:
On 09/14/2013 03:11 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:On 2013-09-10 09:32, Eric Hodel wrote:The vulnerability can be fixed by changing the first grouping to an atomic grouping in Gem::Version::VERSION_PATTERN in lib/rubygems/version.rb. For RubyGems 2.0.x: - VERSION_PATTERN = '[0-9]+(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?' # :nodoc: + VERSION_PATTERN = '[0-9]+(?>\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?' # :nodoc: For RubyGems 1.8.x: - VERSION_PATTERN = '[0-9]+(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*' # :nodoc: + VERSION_PATTERN = '[0-9]+(?>\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*' # :nodoc:This is not enough. The following script: # Regexes are from https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/lib/rubygems/version.rb#L150VERSION_PATTERN ='[0-9]+(?>\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?' # :nodoc: ANCHORED_VERSION_PATTERN = /\A\s*(#{VERSION_PATTERN})*\s*\z/ # :nodoc: '1111111111111111111111111111.' =~ ANCHORED_VERSION_PATTERN takes ~1m on my machine. The problem is not in VERSION_PATTERN but in its possible repetition inside ANCHORED_VERSION_PATTERN.Great, I guess we're going to need a new CVE. Before I assign one can we make sure we fix this so more fiddly expressions don't cause problems? Thanks.
Here's a new patch to go with the new (unassigned) CVE. This new patch replaces regular expression matches that are susceptible to backtracking with a parser-like approach.
Attachment:
CVE-2013-XXXX.patch
Description:
This patch applies to RubyGems 2.1.x releases. I will create patches for RubyGems 1.8.23.1, 1.8.26, 2.0.9 and 2.1.4 if it there is no obvious flaw seen in it. I would like to release this fix by Monday, 23 September as I will be traveling mid-week. The vulnerable regular expression constants are still present, but I can't think of a way to construct them that does not allow backtracking. I think they should be removed for the security fix release, but a fellow maintainer is worried about backwards compatibility and thinks they should be removed in the next feature release (2.2). What do people typically do? Here is a script to check the patch:
Attachment:
check.CVE-2013-XXXX.rb
Description:
Current thread:
- CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Eric Hodel (Sep 09)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Alexander Cherepanov (Sep 14)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Kurt Seifried (Sep 16)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Eric Hodel (Sep 17)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Kurt Seifried (Sep 18)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Alexander Cherepanov (Sep 18)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Eric Hodel (Sep 18)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Eric Hodel (Sep 20)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Tomas Hoger (Sep 20)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Kurt Seifried (Sep 16)
- Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older Alexander Cherepanov (Sep 14)