Re: Re: Disabling PHP tags by php.ini and CLI options

On 04/11/2012 10:38 AM, John Crenshaw wrote: > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com] >> I guess he is saying that it prevents: >> >> Random bytes >> <?php kill();?> >> More random bytes >> >> Where random bytes might be an image file so finfo_file() might identify it as a valid >> image > > Right, but anyone can trivially construct a fully valid bitmap with a starting byte sequence of > 42 4D 3B 2F 2A, which resolves to > BM;/*. PHP will decide that BM meant 'BM', effectively > skipping it, then the open comment will slide the PHP interpreter past any remaining header stuff. > You can close the comment and place the actual code payload anywhere in the image data. The early > bytes in other image formats are similarly exploitable. As far as I can tell there is really no > security win here. > >> 4. Only protecting against mid-script injections and not top-of-script injections is a >> somewhat subtle concept when the real problem is the vulnerable include $_GET['filename'] >> hole. If this really is a prevalent problem, maybe instead of trying to mitigate the symptoms, why >> don't we try to attack the actual cause of the problem. I would love to hear some ideas along >> those lines that don't fundamentally change the nature of PHP for somewhat cloudy benefits. >> >> -Rasmus > > It's disturbingly common. Probably 90% of the automated attacks I see in the 404 error > logs are trying to exploit various inclusion vulnerabilities. > > One idea that comes to mind immediately is the old taint RFC: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint. This doesn't actually prevent > LFI, but it (optionally) warns the developer that they did something very bad, regardless of whether > it actually caused a problem with the specific input data. I'd really love to see that one > finalized and implemented. > > Another wild alternative could be to have a non-trivial string format internally, where PHP > strings are actually a set of distinct blocks which each contain encoding information. This would > make it possible to concatenate strings just as always, but since the attributes of each block are > known the entire string contents could be manipulated to an arbitrary final encoding, (or rejected > as impossible to safely convert) when the string is actually used. In the include case this > isn't really very different from taint, because safe conversion is impossible, but for things > like XSS and SQL injection it could actually *fix* the otherwise vulnerable code. A simplified > example of how this might work: I think you may be overthinking it. I was thinking more along the lines of having some rules for include/require. Something like every non-relative include/require must start with a const string and any variable part cannot have '..' in it. As in: Say $variable gets set to '/etc/passwd' then include $variable; would fail because it is an absolute-path include without a leading const. However, this would work: include '/tmp/' . $variable; And so would this: include INSTALL_PATH . $variable; Relative includes including the ones that are relative to include_path wouldn't change. If the bad guys can write to the doc root or a directory below the doc root then they don't need LFI, they can just hit the path directly from their browser. Obviously still disruptive and there would be some BC breaks, but I bet it would be more effective than trying to optionally turn off the parser in the right places. -Rasmus