From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD3B98902
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:12:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0BEE98DE7
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:12:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:12:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D31D4318B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:12:44 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b0ab477a-a7f4-4b4d-bd59-a7a89ca17e85@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:12:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com>
References: <20231115122334.157407-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
<2a01ac45-0918-4973-b20d-8f21cf1dd99c@proxmox.com>
<60e53499-e3d2-4f26-8b0c-07b888524c91@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <60e53499-e3d2-4f26-8b0c-07b888524c91@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.086 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [proxmox.com, jsonschema.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] fix #5034 ldap attribute regex
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:12:45 -0000
On 15.11.23 15:49, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 15/11/2023 um 14:28 schrieb Stefan Sterz:
>> On 15.11.23 13:23, Markus Frank wrote:
-- >8 snip 8< --
>>
>>> src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
>>> index 49e0d7a..ef58b62 100644
>>> --- a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
>>> +++ b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
>>> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('ldap-simple-attr', \&verify_ldap_simple_attr);
>>> sub verify_ldap_simple_attr {
>>> my ($attr, $noerr) = @_;
>>>
>>> - if ($attr =~ m/^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$/) {
>>> + if ($attr =~ m/^[a-zA-Z0-9\-]+$/) {
>>
>> if i'm not mistaken, this regex should try to filter an `AttributeValue`
>> [1]. in case we do stick with this regex approach here, you may want to
>> relax this even further, as per the standard:
>>
>>> If that UTF-8-encoded Unicode string does not have any of the
>>> following characters that need escaping, then that string can be used
>>> as the string representation
>>> of the value.
>>>
>>> - a space (' ' U+0020) or number sign ('#' U+0023) occurring at
>>> the beginning of the string;
>>>
>>> - a space (' ' U+0020) character occurring at the end of the
>>> string;
>>>
>>> - one of the characters '"', '+', ',', ';', '<', '>', or '\'
>>> (U+0022, U+002B, U+002C, U+003B, U+003C, U+003E, or U+005C,
>>> respectively);
>>>
>>> - the null (U+0000) character.
>>>
>
> Ack, so I was wrong, the format might still make sense albeit checking
> for above cases would then indeed better, something along the lines of:
>
> if ($attr !~ /(?:^(?:\s|#))|["+,;<>\0\\]|(?:\s$)/) {
> return $attr;
> }
>
> If we leave that regex out completely we should ensure that we don't get
> any tainting issues.
>
> The format could move to PVE::Auth::LDAP too, FWIW, but that's a different
> story.
just to through this out there, my last attempt at validating this [1]
looked something like this:
```
my $escaped = qr!\\(?:[ "#+,;<=>\\]|[0-9a-fA-F]{2})!;
my $start = qr!(?:${escaped}|[^"+,;<>\\\0 #])!;
my $middle = qr!(?:${escaped}|[^"+,;<>\\\0])!;
my $end = qr!(?:${escaped}|[^"+,;<>\\\0 ])!;
my $attr_val = qr!("[^"]+"|${start}(?:${middle}*${end})?)!;
```
since things can also be escaped or in quotes, which makes them valid
again. could probably be improved here, though.
[1]: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2023-May/056840.html