diff options
author | Romain Forlot <romain.forlot@iot.bzh> | 2017-05-02 17:51:53 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Romain Forlot <romain.forlot@iot.bzh> | 2017-05-02 17:51:53 +0200 |
commit | 3102ec9ce009d0f28355c5b7df9c5bd5013e6e75 (patch) | |
tree | 80a1ea19ff06cc9308b236a0d8d6358d21dd0381 /CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/docs/security.rst | |
parent | 12e680a3c97a2750c657a8c561a79706f3689149 (diff) | |
parent | 278ffb890e3d8722e4c7d824baaf221a1e375fc4 (diff) |
Add 'CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/' from commit '278ffb890e3d8722e4c7d824baaf221a1e375fc4'
git-subtree-dir: CAN-binder/libs/nanopb
git-subtree-mainline: 12e680a3c97a2750c657a8c561a79706f3689149
git-subtree-split: 278ffb890e3d8722e4c7d824baaf221a1e375fc4
Diffstat (limited to 'CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/docs/security.rst')
-rw-r--r-- | CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/docs/security.rst | 84 |
1 files changed, 84 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/docs/security.rst b/CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/docs/security.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d854612 --- /dev/null +++ b/CAN-binder/libs/nanopb/docs/security.rst @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +====================== +Nanopb: Security model +====================== + +.. include :: menu.rst + +.. contents :: + + + +Importance of security in a Protocol Buffers library +==================================================== +In the context of protocol buffers, security comes into play when decoding +untrusted data. Naturally, if the attacker can modify the contents of a +protocol buffers message, he can feed the application any values possible. +Therefore the application itself must be prepared to receive untrusted values. + +Where nanopb plays a part is preventing the attacker from running arbitrary +code on the target system. Mostly this means that there must not be any +possibility to cause buffer overruns, memory corruption or invalid pointers +by the means of crafting a malicious message. + +Division of trusted and untrusted data +====================================== +The following data is regarded as **trusted**. It must be under the control of +the application writer. Malicious data in these structures could cause +security issues, such as execution of arbitrary code: + +1. Callback, pointer and extension fields in message structures given to + pb_encode() and pb_decode(). These fields are memory pointers, and are + generated depending on the message definition in the .proto file. +2. The automatically generated field definitions, i.e. *pb_field_t* lists. +3. Contents of the *pb_istream_t* and *pb_ostream_t* structures (this does not + mean the contents of the stream itself, just the stream definition). + +The following data is regarded as **untrusted**. Invalid/malicious data in +these will cause "garbage in, garbage out" behaviour. It will not cause +buffer overflows, information disclosure or other security problems: + +1. All data read from *pb_istream_t*. +2. All fields in message structures, except: + + - callbacks (*pb_callback_t* structures) + - pointer fields (malloc support) and *_count* fields for pointers + - extensions (*pb_extension_t* structures) + +Invariants +========== +The following invariants are maintained during operation, even if the +untrusted data has been maliciously crafted: + +1. Nanopb will never read more than *bytes_left* bytes from *pb_istream_t*. +2. Nanopb will never write more than *max_size* bytes to *pb_ostream_t*. +3. Nanopb will never access memory out of bounds of the message structure. +4. After pb_decode() returns successfully, the message structure will be + internally consistent: + + - The *count* fields of arrays will not exceed the array size. + - The *size* field of bytes will not exceed the allocated size. + - All string fields will have null terminator. + +5. After pb_encode() returns successfully, the resulting message is a valid + protocol buffers message. (Except if user-defined callbacks write incorrect + data.) + +Further considerations +====================== +Even if the nanopb library is free of any security issues, there are still +several possible attack vectors that the application author must consider. +The following list is not comprehensive: + +1. Stack usage may depend on the contents of the message. The message + definition places an upper bound on how much stack will be used. Tests + should be run with all fields present, to record the maximum possible + stack usage. +2. Callbacks can do anything. The code for the callbacks must be carefully + checked if they are used with untrusted data. +3. If using stream input, a maximum size should be set in *pb_istream_t* to + stop a denial of service attack from using an infinite message. +4. If using network sockets as streams, a timeout should be set to stop + denial of service attacks. +5. If using *malloc()* support, some method of limiting memory use should be + employed. This can be done by defining custom *pb_realloc()* function. + Nanopb will properly detect and handle failed memory allocations. |