RustSec/Lobby

Rust Security Advisory Database

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

but yeah, i think a panic isn't exactly a security issue, annoying sure, but not really a security issue

rust doesn't really prevent you from panicking, and it's easy to catch unwind in a server application

so, sure, a HTTP request will return error 500 or whatever, but it won't crash the entire server

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

"easy" heh

but sure

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

it's easy if you aren't using unwinds as flow control

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

"easy" if everything is RefUnwindSafe :wink:

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

what isn't ;)?

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

anything with interior mutability and bugs :trollface:

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

i would say it's a good practice to avoid mutable state

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

that's great until you... want to do I/O, or have a secure channel, heh

as it were I'm in the midst of refactoring some code so it doesn't have to be RefUnwindSafe

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

if necessary, you can AssertUnwindSafe, implementing UnwindSafe is safe, but you may violate your code invariants

i think it's a great thing that Rust forces you to think about "will my application be in proper state when a panic occurs somewhere"

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

I'm in the process of moving things around so I don't have to lug things across unwind boundaries

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

that's great :)

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

and in the process deleting an impl RefUnwindSafe

msehnout

@msehnout

Hi, I work on a project, where we are trying to aggregate CVEs for many different languages and ecosystems (like PyPi, NPM, Maven etc.). The current approach works by collecting data from various sources and processing them in various ways, but it has many pitfalls due to the lack of clear versioning scheme like semver or backporting fixes to some older versions etc. Anyway, do you have any plans for an automated way in which the RUSTSEC advisories could be submitted? e.g. some Github bot. and, on the other hand, some API/RSS feed for fetching data about the advisories?

It would be nice, it there was a system that could be used across all languages, though I am not sure if that isn't too ambitious.

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

@msehnout I've heard rumors GitHub is working on something like that, but no, for now the closest thing would be automating submissions by opening issues via GitHub's API

msehnout

@msehnout

@tarcieri ok, thanks for your response

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

Okay, so I reported a security issue in yaml crate two months ago (2018-09-25), but I got no response from a maintainer

i'm not sure how to continue from here

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

@KonradBorowski_gitlab you can open a RUSTSEC issue... is there a public issue on the yaml crate?

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

i probably should create one, i only sent an e-mail

didn't want to make it public

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

maybe try following up and giving them 90 days?

that's more or less the "standard" now... I think mostly from people cargo culting what Project Zero does

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

okay

leo-lb

@leo-lb

hi there, considering that most people are importing dependencies without reading their code and that these can contain build script or procedural macros that can compromise one's computer, I was thinking we should maybe provide a sandboxed offline compilation process by default in Cargo (SELinux, Hyper-V APIs, jail). What is your opinion on such a thing?

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

@leo-lb this might interest you rust-secure-code/wg#29

leo-lb

@leo-lb

@tarcieri indeed it is, by that time, I had already found those as well as discussion on Zulip about it :) Thanks.

@tarcieri Do we have an integrated solution in the mean time? Sanboxing without losing integration with IDEs etc.

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

nope

Andronik Ordian

@ordian

ID:     RUSTSEC-2019-0003
Crate:     protobuf
Version: 1.7.5
Date:     2019-06-08
URL:     https://github.com/stepancheg/rust-protobuf/issues/411
Title:     Out of Memory in stream::read_raw_bytes_into()
Solution: upgrade to: >= 1.7.5, >= 2.6.0

Is it a bug in cargo audit?

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

">= 1.7.5, >= 2.6.0"

this seems wrong

it's saying that a version needs to both >= 1.7.5 and >= 2.6.0

Andronik Ordian

@ordian

RustSec/advisory-db#102

Konrad Borowski

@KonradBorowski_gitlab

generally there is no space after ^ operator, just saying

Andronik Ordian

@ordian

fixed

also RustSec/advisory-db#103

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

:thumbsup:

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

a note I left on RustSec/cargo-audit#76 - "Perhaps the rustsec crate should detect whether specified version ranges overlap and reject advisories that do."

Andronik Ordian

@ordian

@tarcieri good idea, but ideally this should be implemented by the semver crate that is currently lacking this overlap API. Another way to ensure that is to force that only the latest patched version has >= prefix, and others have ^ (semver compatible). In this case there was another bug, namely, the requirement were listed as one string, not two. Not sure how to prevent it from happening in future other than implement a custom semver parser.

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

well, there's plenty of custom validation logic on each advisory. however, there have also been instances in the past where VersionReq was a poor fit

but also, I keep thinking how much nicer things would be if things weren't specified in terms of version ranges, but contained in yank metadata instead

David

@dvdplm

yank metadata

Like a special reason-for-yanking code of some sort, e.g. “security vulnerability”?

Tony Arcieri

@tarcieri

yes

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-reviving-security-advisories-in-crates-io-rfc-pr-1752/9017/14?u=bascule

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity