(guix cve) discards configuration "vendor", leading to false positives

OpenSubmitted by Brice Waegeneire.
Details
2 participants
  • Brice Waegeneire
  • Ludovic Courtès
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
B
B
Brice Waegeneire wrote on 20 Mar 2020 10:10
CVE checker return false positives
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
0bb3b7878b37095b4ed7fa49aee5936f@waegenei.re
Hello,

The CVE checker of “guix lint” returns false positives:
┌────
│ LANGUAGE=C guix lint git 2>&1
├───
│ gnu/packages/version-control.scm:149:2: git@2.25.1: probably
vulnerable to CVE-2020-2136, CVE-2019-1003010, CVE-2018-1000110,
CVE-2018-1000182
/gnu/store/8q0nfd6vnc6lnjh13rwl7fyimwlv7fml-guix-module-union/share/guile/site/3.0/gnu/packages/version-control.scm:153:12:
git@2.25.1: can be upgraded to 2.25.2
/gnu/store/8q0nfd6vnc6lnjh13rwl7fyimwlv7fml-guix-module-union/share/guile/site/3.0/gnu/packages/version-control.scm:154:11:
git@2.25.1: source not archived on Software Heritage
└────


• [CVE-2020-2136]: “Jenkins Git Plugin 4.2.0 and earlier […]”
• [CVE-2019-1003010]: “[…] Jenkins Git Plugin 3.9.1 and earlier […]”
• [CVE-2018-1000110]: “[…] Jenkins Git Plugin version 3.7.0 and earlier
[…]”
• [CVE-2018-1000182]: “[…] Jenkins Git Plugin 3.9.0 and older […]”

Also note the missing / on the first line and it output on `stderr'
instead of `stdout'.





Brice.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 Mar 2020 17:25
(name . Brice Waegeneire)(address . brice@waegenei.re)(address . 40142@debbugs.gnu.org)
87sgi1znd8.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Brice Waegeneire <brice@waegenei.re> skribis:

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> The CVE checker of “guix lint” returns false positives:
> ┌────
> │ LANGUAGE=C guix lint git 2>&1
> ├───
> │ gnu/packages/version-control.scm:149:2: git@2.25.1: probably
> vulnerable to CVE-2020-2136, CVE-2019-1003010, CVE-2018-1000110,
> CVE-2018-1000182

[...]

Toggle quote (6 lines)
> • [CVE-2020-2136]: “Jenkins Git Plugin 4.2.0 and earlier […]”
> • [CVE-2019-1003010]: “[…] Jenkins Git Plugin 3.9.1 and earlier […]”
> • [CVE-2018-1000110]: “[…] Jenkins Git Plugin version 3.7.0 and earlier
> […]”
> • [CVE-2018-1000182]: “[…] Jenkins Git Plugin 3.9.0 and older […]”

(guix cve) reports it as applying to “git”:

Toggle snippet (9 lines)
scheme@(guix cve)> (define items
(call-with-decompressed-port 'gzip (http-fetch (yearly-feed-uri 2020))
json->cve-items))
scheme@(guix cve)> (find (lambda (item)
(string=? (cve-id (cve-item-cve item)) "CVE-2020-2136"))
items)
$130 = #<<cve-item> cve: #<<cve> id: "CVE-2020-2136" data-type: CVE data-format: MITRE references: (#<<cve-reference> url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/03/09/1" tags: ("Third Party Advisory")> #<<cve-reference> url: "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2020-03-09/#SECURITY-1723" tags: ("Vendor Advisory")>)> configurations: (("git" (<= "4.2.0"))) published-date: #<date nanosecond: 0 second: 0 minute: 15 hour: 16 day: 9 month: 3 year: 2020 zone-offset: 0> last-modified-date: #<date nanosecond: 0 second: 0 minute: 4 hour: 20 day: 9 month: 3 year: 2020 zone-offset: 0>>

I think the problem stems from the fact that the CVE configuration
specify “jenkins:git” (where “jenkins” is the “vendor” and “git” is the
“product”), but we just strip the vendor part:

Toggle snippet (20 lines)
$ wget -O - -q https://nvd.nist.gov/feeds/json/cve/1.1/nvdcve-1.1-2020.json.gz| gunzip | jq

[…]

"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"operator": "OR",
"cpe_match": [
{
"vulnerable": true,
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:jenkins:git:*:*:*:*:*:jenkins:*:*",
"versionEndIncluding": "4.2.0"
}
]
}
]

It’s usually the case that the vendor part has little relevance for free
software packages, but in this case it does make a difference.

Probably the fix would be to preserve the vendor part in the API and to
somehow use it meaningfully.

Ideas & patches welcome!

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> Also note the missing / on the first line and it output on `stderr'
> instead of `stdout'.

What do you mean?

Thanks,
Ludo’.
B
B
Brice Waegeneire wrote on 21 Mar 2020 17:57
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 40142@debbugs.gnu.org)
95d598f98f65efd7a5c89aaf52b80df1@waegenei.re
Hello,

On 2020-03-21 16:25, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (5 lines)
> Probably the fix would be to preserve the vendor part in the API and to
> somehow use it meaningfully.
>
> Ideas & patches welcome!

I'll see what I can write a patch to fix it then.

Toggle quote (5 lines)
>> Also note the missing / on the first line and it output on `stderr'
>> instead of `stdout'.
>
> What do you mean?

I misunderstood the meaning of “gnu/packages/version-control.scm:149:2:”
and thought there was a missing / before “gnu/”; this is irrelevant.
About
the output stream of “guix lint” I think it should output to `stdout',
not
`stderr' as it's currently the case.

Brice.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 Mar 2020 22:57
control message for bug #40142
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87y2rtwev3.fsf@gnu.org
retitle 40142 (guix cve) discards configuration "vendor", leading to false positives
quit
B
B
Brice Waegeneire wrote on 1 Apr 2020 19:01
(guix cve) discards configuration "vendor", leading to false positives
(address . 40142@debbugs.gnu.org)
ee58b7a4cda4f5a09eb1bbd303ac36d6@waegenei.re
Hello,

I have thought of a way to improve on those false positives. And I have
submitted a patch to solve the stderr situation at

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> Probably the fix would be to preserve the vendor part in the API and to
> somehow use it meaningfully

It looks like, for most free software the name of the software is used
as
the vendor too, but I'm guessing that's not always the case in
particular
when two project are using the same name. So we can't just filter the
entries where the vendor name isn't the name of the package or we could
end up with false negatives which seems worse than false positive for a
vulnerability checker.

One solution would be to display the name of the vendor when it doesn't
correspond to the name of the package. Such solution would still output
false positives but at least it will be quicker to identify then as
such,
compared to looking up and reading trough each CVE.

- Brice
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 2 Apr 2020 12:38
(name . Brice Waegeneire)(address . brice@waegenei.re)(address . 40142@debbugs.gnu.org)
87mu7up3zb.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Brice Waegeneire <brice@waegenei.re> skribis:

Toggle quote (9 lines)
> It looks like, for most free software the name of the software is used
> as
> the vendor too, but I'm guessing that's not always the case in
> particular
> when two project are using the same name. So we can't just filter the
> entries where the vendor name isn't the name of the package or we could
> end up with false negatives which seems worse than false positive for a
> vulnerability checker.

Yeah.

Toggle quote (6 lines)
> One solution would be to display the name of the vendor when it doesn't
> correspond to the name of the package. Such solution would still output
> false positives but at least it will be quicker to identify then as
> such,
> compared to looking up and reading trough each CVE.

Yes, though I think that (guix cve) should simply preserve the vendor
part, and leave it up to its user, ‘guix lint’, to display vendor
mismatches.

Thanks,
Ludo’.
?