Since WeakCrypto always makes me think that it's about all weak crypto (like
using MD5, or completely broken ciphers such as ARC4 ro DES) and not just about
weak key generation.
instead of points-to.
Looking at query results also made me realize I didn't supply a very good
"origin" for ECC in cryptography package, so I improved that 👍 -- maybe that
sohuld have been split into multiple commits... too late :(
* Removed backend arugment that is not required
* Added DSA constants (they are just accidentially the same as RSA right now)
* Removed FakeWeakEllipticCurve and used a real weak elliptic curve instead
I did spend some time to figure out how to best write `minimumSecureKeySize`
predicate. I wanted to write once and for all the recommended sizes for each
cryptosystem.
I considered making the predicate such as
```codeql
int minimumSecureKeySize() {
this.getName() = "RSA" and result = 2048
or
this.getName() = "DSA" and result = 2048
or
this.getName() = "ECC" and result = 244
}
```
but then it would be impossible to add a new model without also being able to
modify the body of this predicate -- which seems like a bad way to start off a
brand new way of modeling things.
So I considered if we could add it to the non-range class, such as
```codeql
class RSAKeyGeneration extends KeyGeneration {
RSAKeyGeneration() { this.getName() = "RSA" }
override int minimumSecureKeySize() { result = 2048 }
}
```
This has the major problem that when you're writing the models for a new
API (and therefore extending KeyGeneration::Range), there is no way for you to
see that you need to take this extra step :| (also problem about how we should
define `minimumSecureKeySize` on `KeyGeneration` class then, since if we make it
abstract, we effectively disable the ability to refine `KeyGeneration` since any
subclass must provide an implementation.)
So, therefore I ended up with this solution ;)
Tests working can be verified by running
```
ls ql/python/ql/test/experimental/library-tests/frameworks/crypto*/*.py | xargs -L1 sh -c 'python $0 || exit 255'
```
When I changed the taint modeling in 19b7ea8d85, that obviously also means that
some of the related locations for alerts will change. So that's why all the
examples needs to be updated.
Besides this, I had to fix a minor problem with having too many alerts. If
running a query agaisnt code like in the example below, there would be 3 alerts,
2 of them originating from the import.
```
from flask import Flask, request
app = Flask(__name__)
@app.route("/route")
def route():
SINK(request.args.get['input'])
```
The 2 import sources where:
- ControlFlowNode for ImportMember
- GSSA Variable request
I removed these from being a RemoteFlowSource, as seen in the diff.
I considered restricting `FlaskRequestSource` so it only extends
`DataFlow::CfgNode` (and make the logic a bit simpler), but I wasn't actually
sure if that was safe to do or not... If you know, please let me know :)
This was raised as a question at review, and I don't really have a good enough
argument for moving it under POI. At the end of the day, they are _security_
related enough I guess :)
One minor change to the tests results needed: there is no longer local
flow going into the `ModuleVariableNode` for `attr_ref` in the
`moduleattr.ql` test, but I think this is reasonable.
Reported in https://github.com/github/codeql/issues/2650
I found this during a bit of spring cleaning in my working
directory. As this doesn't have any immediate security implications, I
don't know when we'll get round to fixing it, but it can't hurt to
have the test case checked in.
In general, if there is _some_ decorator on a function, it might not be safe to
track content out of it (since the decorator could do anything), but in this
case, we can see what the decorator does, so we should be able to handle it (but
we don't right now).
By my understanding of how type-tracking works, if we track content through
`my_decorator`, then we would also track content to the result of
`unrelated_func()`, which I wanted to make sure our tests would catch.
I found out the core of the problem seems to come from our lack of being able to
track to the inner scope, and added an explicit test for that.
This is slightly dubious, and should really be in the currently
unimplemented "def" counterpart to the "use" bits we already have.
However, it seems to work correctly, and in the spirit of moving
things along, this seemed like the easier solution. We can always
replace the implementation with the "proper" approach at a later point.
In lieu of removing the offending flow (which would likely have
consequences for a lot of other tests), I opted to simply _include_
the relevant nodes directly.
There is now a bit of redundancy in the tests, but I thought it useful
to actually include some of the cases called out explicitly in the
documentation, so as to make it easy to see that the code actually
does what we expect (in these cases, anyway).
