- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:14:39 +0100
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: "Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote: > Hi Mark, > >>>"Implementations that store the content of widget archives to the file >>system during signature verification MUST NOT trust any path components of >>file names present in the archive, to avoid overwriting of arbitrary files >>during signature verification." >>> >>>{Comment] I don't understand this sentence - which may well be a problem >>with my understanding rather than the sentence - please can you enlighten >>me, thanks. > I assume it is as follows: > > 1. Imagine the WUA is processing a widget archive, i.e. a zip file where each file has its associate relative path. > > ZIP spec contains the following text: > > file name: (Variable) > > The name of the file, with optional relative path. > The path stored should not contain a drive or > device letter, or a leading slash. > I.e. the path may be virtually any string. Yep. Don't know if this helps, but in the packaging we define the notion of a "file entry", which is essentially, the file name (path), and the compressed data. > 2. Prior to signature verification the archive is untrusted. right. In the packaging spec, we call this a potential zip archive and a potential widget archive, IIRC. > 3. Next, let's assume WUA is configured to store the temporary files from the widget archive (storage may be necessary for devices with limited RAM) in a folder like C:/widgetplayer (e.g. on Win32/WinCE). > > 4. Then a file from a widget archive could have a path like "../windows/XXX". > > 5. As for me the text says that the path should be ignored when processing the signature to prevent WUA from storing the files e.g. in a sensitive folder like "c:/windows/" as it could be the case when combining the above paths. > This sounds like an implementation detail. A warning note to implementers should be sufficient to address this. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 11:15:26 UTC