Commit Graph

21 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Joe Farebrother
93f10fcf14 Add sanitizers for compiled regexes 2024-06-11 15:44:16 +01:00
Joe Farebrother
9331c2c33a Add tests 2024-06-04 09:39:37 +01:00
Anders Schack-Mulligen
bfcfedab8c Python: Update expected output (uninteresting). 2024-04-12 09:20:30 +02:00
Anders Schack-Mulligen
088a0a54ba Python: Add empty provenance column to expected files. 2024-02-09 11:32:08 +01:00
Rasmus Lerchedahl Petersen
11c71fdd18 Python: remove EssaNodes
This commit removes SSA nodes from the data flow graph. Specifically, for a definition and use such as
```python
  x = expr
  y = x + 2
```
we used to have flow from `expr` to an SSA variable representing x and from that SSA variable to the use of `x` in the definition of `y`. Now we instead have flow from `expr` to the control flow node for `x` at line 1 and from there to the control flow node for `x` at line 2.

Specific changes:
- `EssaNode` from the data flow layer no longer exists.
- Several glue steps between `EssaNode`s and `CfgNode`s have been deleted.
- Entry nodes are now admitted as `CfgNodes` in the data flow layer (they were filtered out before).
- Entry nodes now have a new `toString` taking into account that the module name may be ambigous.
- Some tests have been rewritten to accomodate the changes, but only `python/ql/test/experimental/dataflow/basic/maximalFlowsConfig.qll` should have semantic changes.
- Comments have been updated
- Test output has been updated, but apart from `python/ql/test/experimental/dataflow/basic/maximalFlows.expected` only `python/ql/test/experimental/dataflow/typetracking-summaries/summaries.py` should have a semantic change. This is a bonus fix, probably meaning that something was never connected up correctly.
2023-11-20 21:35:32 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
657b1997cc Python: Move FullServerSideRequestForgery and PartialServerSideRequestForgery to new dataflow API 2023-08-28 15:27:50 +02:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
ca93f4d223 Python: Accept .expected changes 2023-08-11 10:36:05 +02:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
d73289ac4e Python: Accept .expected changes 2023-04-27 11:54:39 +02:00
erik-krogh
4da0508dae Merge branch 'main' into py-last-msg 2022-10-11 10:49:19 +02:00
erik-krogh
944ca4a0da fix some more style-guide violations in the alert-messages 2022-10-07 11:23:34 +02:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
b01a0ae696 Python: Adjust .expected after flask source change
It's really hard to audit that this is all good.. I tried my best with
`icdiff` though -- and there is a problem with
ql/src/experimental/Security/CWE-348/ClientSuppliedIpUsedInSecurityCheck.ql
that needs to be fixed in the next commit
2022-10-03 20:35:49 +02:00
Tom Hvitved
57f2a74636 Python: Implement ContentSet 2022-04-04 13:51:44 +02:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
83f87f0272 Python: Adjust .expected based on new comment
That was changed in 9866214
2021-12-17 15:29:41 +01:00
yoff
9866214ebe Update python/ql/test/query-tests/Security/CWE-918-ServerSideRequestForgery/full_partial_test.py 2021-12-17 14:26:43 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
1d00730753 Python: Allow http[s]:// prefix for SSRF 2021-12-17 00:27:18 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
8d9a797b75 Python: Add tricky .format SSRF tests 2021-12-17 00:24:51 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
6f297f4e9c Python: Fix SSRF sanitizer tests
They were very misleading before, because a sanitizer that happened
early, would remove taint from the rest of the cases by use-use flow :|
2021-12-16 23:24:08 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
4b5599fe17 Python: Improve full/partial SSRF split
Now full-ssrf will only alert if **all** URL parts are fully
user-controlled.
2021-12-16 22:48:51 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
cb934e17b1 Python: Adjust SSRF location to request call
Since that might not be the same place where the vulnerable URL part is.
2021-12-16 22:48:51 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
b1bca85162 Python: Add interesting test-case 2021-12-16 22:48:51 +01:00
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen
1cc5e54357 Python: Add SSRF queries
I've added 2 queries:

- one that detects full SSRF, where an attacker can control the full URL,
  which is always bad
- and one for partial SSRF, where an attacker can control parts of an
  URL (such as the path, query parameters, or fragment), which is not a
  big problem in many cases (but might still be exploitable)

full SSRF should run by default, and partial SSRF should not (but makes
it easy to see the other results).

Some elements of the full SSRF queries needs a bit more polishing, like
being able to detect `"https://" + user_input` is in fact controlling
the full URL.
2021-12-16 01:48:34 +01:00