界: API Abuse

API 是调用方和被调用方之间的约定。最常见的 API 滥用是由于调用方未能遵守此约定的终止导致的。例如,如果某个程序在调用 chroot() 后未能调用 chdir(),则违反了用于指定如何安全地更改活动根目录的约定。库滥用的另一个典型示例是期望被调用方向调用方返回可信的 DNS 信息。在这种情况下,调用方通过对被调用方行为做出某种假设(返回值可用于身份验证目的)滥用其 API。另一方也可能违反调用方-被调用方约定。例如,如果编码器子类化 SecureRandom 并返回一个非随机值,则将违反此约定。

Often Misused: Strings

Abstract
在多字节和 Unicode 字符之间转换的函数很容易引起 buffer overflow。
Explanation
Windows 提供了 MultiByteToWideChar()WideCharToMultiByte()UnicodeToBytes()BytesToUnicode() 函数,以在多字节(通常为 ANSI)字符串和 Unicode(宽字符)字符串之间进行转换。由于这些函数的长度参数所指定的单位各不相同,一个是字节,另一个是字符,使得它们的使用很容易出错。在一个多字节字符串中,每一个字符占用的字节数是可变的,因此,此类字符串的长度很容易指定为所有字节数的总量。但在 Unicode 中,字符通常有固定的长度,所以字符串长度一般都是根据它们所包含的字符数来决定的。所以,在长度参数中错误地指定了错误的单位,会导致 buffer overflow。

示例:以下函数采用一个定义为多字节字符串的用户名和一个指针来组成用户信息的结构,并以用户相关信息对该结构进行填充。因为在 Windows authentication 中,用户名使用 Unicode,所以 username 参数是第一个从多字节字符串转换成 Unicode 字符串的参数。


void getUserInfo(char *username, struct _USER_INFO_2 info){
WCHAR unicodeUser[UNLEN+1];
MultiByteToWideChar(CP_ACP, 0, username, -1,
unicodeUser, sizeof(unicodeUser));
NetUserGetInfo(NULL, unicodeUser, 2, (LPBYTE *)&info);
}


该函数错误地将 unicodeUser 的长度以字节形式传递出去,而不是字符形式。调用 MultiByteToWideChar() 可能会把 (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) 宽字符或者 (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR)*sizeof(WCHAR) 字节,写到 unicodeUser 数组,该数组仅分配了 (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) 字节。如果 username 字符串包含了多于 UNLEN 的字符,那么调用 MultiByteToWideChar() 将会溢出 unicodeUser 缓冲区。
References
[1] Security Considerations: International Features Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176, CWE ID 251
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3590.1 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3590.1 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3590.1 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3590.1 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3590.1 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3590.1 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3590.1 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_strings.multibytewidechar