Re: Reducing the attack surface caused by Berkeley DB...
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:43:39 +0100
- From: Lionel Debroux <lionel_debroux@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Reducing the attack surface caused by Berkeley DB...
On 1/26/18 1:46 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 25, Lionel Debroux <lionel_debroux@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Several days ago, jmm from the security team suggested that I start
> > a discussion on debian-devel about Berkeley DB, which has known
> > security issues, because doing so may enable finding a consensus on
> > how to move
> Can you clarify the threat model?
I'll try to; admittedly, the threat model is less clear to me than the
number of publicly known weaknesses in a source package unmaintained
upstream (at least publicly), the ease of hanging or crashing the code
with corrupted input, and to some extent, the mild ease of creating such
corrupted input in non-fuzzing conditions (though it would probably have
been somewhat fixed earlier if it were frequent enough) :)
> E.g. is libdb attackable by user-supplied data from the program using
> it or do attacks require write access to the db files?
Most attacks I can imagine require write access to the DB files, but I'm
not convinced that most of the programs / libraries which use BDBs do it
in a read-only fashion, if that is possible.
As shown by the original reporter of #652036, BDB can (or could, at some
point) be programmatically caused to corrupt a DB file in such a way
that later opens, by e.g. a repair tool such as db_dump, causes an
infinite loop. I'm obviously unqualified to tell whether any of the many
callers of libdb can be locally, or remotely, caused to trigger such
Later, what got me interested in BDB as my first fuzzing target was DoS
following external data corruption caused by forced power off on a
laptop (<=> power outage for desktops, in theory), when launching `mocp`
from the package of the same name.
External data corruption could also infrequently occur on aging mass
storage (non-backup transfers of BDBs are probably infrequent), and bite
when restoring data, e.g. archived SVN repositories from the era before
FSFS became recommended. I got that thought because having a peek at
data from old backup tapes is relevant, once in every while, to some
people I know. I'll grant that the data sets these persons are
interested in are likely too old to be in a SVN in the first place, but
you get the idea.