W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: (formal) comment on security considerations

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:55:50 -0500
Message-ID: <45D225D6.5070306@ibiblio.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, jena-devel <jena-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>

Jeremy,
   
    The final decision in DanC's hands, but we already decided as a WG
not to use conformance labels. However, we do want implementers to be
aware of security issues. So, if that text was added to section 7 as
informative text and we substituted the words "GRDDL-aware agent" for
"GRDDL-aware processor", would you feel like your comment has been
addressed?

          thanks,
             harry

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>
> This is a personal comment concerning the security considerations
> section.
>
> a) editorial: the last paragraph of
>
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#sec
>
> should be elsewhere, and not under security.
>
> b) substantive:
>
> Neither
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#sec
> nor
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-20061024/#sec
>
> is adequately detailed.
>
> Without detailed instructions a typical semantic web developer is
> unlikely to produce adequately secure code at reasonable cost.
> The phrase "should take the appropriate measures" puts an unreasonable
> burden on implementers, who may need to hire security experts to
> advise them as to what are "the appropriate measures".
>
> Without appropriate advice, most GRDDL implementations are likely
> to have significant security flaws, which may will lead to the
> technology being branded as insecure and untrustworthy, reducing
> the value of the work of the working group, and other, more secure,
> implementations.
>
> A better approach would be, in the words quoted in your spec, to:
> [[
> [use] the discussion of the "application/postscript" type [...] as a
> model for considering other [...] remote execution capabilities.
> ]]
>
> as an appendix to this comment, I attempt precisely that, and offer
> that as a first draft of text that would address this comment.
>
> I note that the text from RFC 2046 appears to have normative force,
> but "should" and "may" have their usual English meanings, rather than
> the precise definitions of RFC 2119. My preference is that advice to
> implementers concerning security should be normative.
>
> Making this change before last call would allow last call reviewers to
> offer their own expert opinion as to whether the suggested text (as
> modified by the WG) is adequate or not.
>
> =====
> End of comment.
>
> As an aside, in discussion with colleagues, the point was made that an
> underlying problem is the unsatisfactory nature of the security
> considerations for XSLT (both versions). The GRDDL WG may choose to
> alert the XSLT and XQuery WGs to this comment.
>
> =====
>
> Appendix: Draft Text
>
> Provenance:
> taken from
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
> section 4.5.2, with much alteration
> copyright issues may need to be explored, I see no copyright notice in
> that copy of RFC 2046, I assume the general IETF policy allows this
> form of reuse.
>
>
>
>    The execution of general-purpose programming languages
>    as interpreters for transformations entails
>    serious security risks, and implementors are discouraged from simply
>    sending GRDDL transforms to "off-the-shelf" interpreters.  While it
>    is usually safe to pass documents from trusted sources through a
>    GRDDL processor, where the potential
>    for harm is constrained by lack of mailicious intent,
>    implementors should consider all of the following before they add
>    the ability to execute arbitrary GRDDL transforms linked from
>    arbitrary Web documents.
>
>    The remainder of this section outlines some, though probably not all,
>    of the possible problems with the execution of GRDDL transforms,
>    with particular reference to transforms in XSLT.
>
> [[ New point (1), not in RFC 2046 ]]
>     (1)   GRDDL, like many Web technologies, fundamentally
>           relies on the dereferencing of URLs. With unconstrained
>           use of GRDDL, untrusted transform may access URLs which
>           the end-user has read or write permission, while
>           the author of the transform does not. This is particularly
>           pertinent for URLs from the file: scheme; but many other
>           schemes are also impacted.
>           The untrusted
>           code may, having read documents which the author
>           did not have permission to access, transmit the
>           content of the documents, to arbitrary Web
>           servers by encoding the contents within a URL,
>           that may be passed to the server. [[See tests,
>           currently security4, security6 in the Jena GRDDL Reader
>           test area]]
>
>     (2)   Dangerous operations in the XSLT language
>           include, but may not be limited to, the operations
>           involving getting a URL:
>           "document()", "doc()", "unparsed-text() and
>           "unparsed-text-available()", and "xsl:result-document"
>           which involves writing to a URL.
>           "xsl:include" and "xsl:import" present fewer risks
>           if they are processed before execution
>           of the transform, rather than during it.
>           However, some GRDDL processing paths, particularly
>           those involving profile transformations and
>           schema transformations, process an xsl:include
>           or xsl:import for one transform after having
>           completed the execution of some other transform.
> [[Note: last sentence is true, but I don't think it exposes any risks
> that are not exposed by the truth that GRDDL will get a URL generated
> during a profile transformation, as in security6. Perhaps the last
> sentence is unnecessary and distracting]]
>
>
>           Writers of GRDDL transforms should avoid the use of
>           potentially dangerous URL operations, since these
>           operations are quite likely to be unavailable in secure
>           GRDDL implementations.  Software executing
>           GRDDL transforms should either completely disable
>           all potentially dangerous URL operations or take
>           special care not to delegate any special authority to
>           their operation.  In particular, operations to read
>           or write URLs should not be executed with the
>           privileges of the current user, but with the privileges
>           associated with an untrusted party.
>           Such disabling and/or checking
>           should be done completely outside of the reach of the
>           transform language itself; care should be taken to
>           insure that no method exists for re-enabling full-
>           function versions of these operators.
>
> [[ Note (2) and (3) of 4.5.2 RFC 2046 not applicable]]
>
>
>     (3)   Some implementations of the transform language may
>           provide nonstandard
>           facilities for the direct loading and execution of
>           other programming language code. For example, an XSLT
>           implementation may provide a method of calling Java code.
>           Such facilities are quite obviously open
>           to substantial abuse.  GRDDL transforms should
>           not make use of such features.  Besides being totally
>           implementation-specific, they are also likely to be
>           unavailable in secure implementations of the transformation
>           langauge.
>           Software executing GRDDL transforms should not
>           allow such operators to be used if they exist.
>
>     (4)   XSLT is an extensible language, and many, if not
>           most, implementations of it provide a number of their
>           own extensions.  This document does not deal with such
>           extensions explicitly since they constitute an unknown
>           factor.  GRDDL transforms should not make use
>           of nonstandard extensions; they are likely to be
>           missing from some implementations.  Software executing GRDDL
>           transforms should make sure that any
>           nonstandard operations are secure and don't
>           present any kind of threat.
>
>     (5)   It is possible to write transforms that consumes huge
>           amounts of various system resources.  It is also
>           possible to write transforms that loop
>           indefinitely.  Both types of transforms have the
>           potential to cause damage if sent to unsuspecting
>           recipients.  GRDDL documents should avoid the
>           construction and dissemination of such transforms, which
>           is antisocial.  Software executing GRDDL
>           transforms should provide appropriate mechanisms to abort
>           processing after a reasonable amount of time has
>           elapsed. In addition, GRDDL software should be
>           limited to the consumption of only a reasonable amount
>           of any given system resource.
>
> [[ point (7) of 4.5.2 RFC 2046 n/a ]]
>
>     (6)   Finally, bugs may exist in some interpreters of the
>           transform language
>           which could possibly be exploited to gain unauthorized
>           access to a recipient's system.  Apart from noting this
>           possibility, there is no specific action to take to
>           prevent this, apart from the timely correction of such
>           bugs if any are found.
>
>
>
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 20:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC