Recursion in Util.java. I suspect that this will lead to issues passing a Google Tier2 CASA
Ninguém assumiu esta issue ainda.
Avaliação
- Dificuldade
- 2/5
- Tempo estimado
- 1-3 horas
- Facilidade para iniciantes
- 35/100
- Tipo de issue
- Bug
- Clareza
- Razoavelmente clara
- Status de atividade
- Estagnada
- Stack de tecnologia
- android, java
- Domínio
- mobile-dev, security
Direção de pesquisa
Comece pelo bloco catch de isDebuggableApp referenciado em test-app/app/src/main/java/com/tns/Util.java e, em seguida, inspecione o ponto de entrada isDebuggable() em test-app/runtime/src/main/java/com/tns/Runtime.java. Confirme que o caminho de catch não pode entrar em recursão e verifique se o comportamento resultante atende ao comportamento esperado e aborda a preocupação de varredura relatada.
Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.
Descrição
Environment
Provide version numbers for the following components (information can be retrieved by running tns info in your project folder or by inspecting the package.json of the project):
✔ Getting NativeScript components versions information...
✔ Component nativescript has 8.5.3 version and is up to date.
✔ Component @nativescript/core has 8.5.9 version and is up to date.
✔ Component @nativescript/ios has 8.5.2 version and is up to date.
✔ Component @nativescript/android has 8.5.2 version and is up to date.
Describe the bug
Hello together, I am currently preparing for a Tier2 CASA from Google. As I do have to provide Source Code scans using FluidAttacks and it detected a vulnerability in this context of printStackTrace I found the following issue.
public static boolean isDebuggableApp(Context context) {
int flags;
try {
flags = context.getPackageManager().getPackageInfo(context.getPackageName(), 0).applicationInfo.flags;
} catch (NameNotFoundException e) {
flags = 0;
if (Util.isDebuggableApp(context)) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
boolean isDebuggableApp = ((flags & ApplicationInfo.FLAG_DEBUGGABLE) != 0);
return isDebuggableApp;
}
It is clear that printStackTrace() is only called in debug mode. However, I consider telling the guys at Google that this is save code as no good idea as it results in a recursion in the catch block. I would suspect that the e.printStackTrace(); in the catch block is actually never called, hence would it not make sense to completly remove it? I have also seen that the runtime provides
a check for isDebuggableApp. Maybe a save alternative would be to just call com.tns.Runtime.isDebuggable() ?
I do not know the inner workings good enough to know if the runtime always exists at that point. Please consider it as just an idea.
Expected behavior
Catch should not run into a rekursion
Additional context
https://gitlab.com/fluidattacks/universe/-/issues/10406
Currently I am seeing lots of issues in FluidAttacks indirectly referencing this code. Below output is just an example. To my understanding this is a false positive as printStackTrace is not called for production builds. However, also in production builds the recursion would exist to my understanding.
234. Technical information leak - Stacktrace,CWE-209,The error stacktrace can be printed in OWASP/app/src/debug/java/com/tns/ErrorReport.java,CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N/E:U/RL:U/RC:R,https://docs.fluidattacks.com/criteria/vulnerabilities/234,skims,SAST,92,"
82 | final int version = Build.VERSION.SDK_INT;
83 | if (version >= 23) {
84 | try {
85 | // Necessary to work around compile errors with compileSdk 22 and lower
86 | Method checkSelfPermissionMethod;
87 | try {
88 | checkSelfPermissionMethod = ActivityCompat.class.getMethod(""checkSelfPermission"", Context.class, Stri
89 | } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
90 | // method wasn't found, so there is no need to handle permissions explicitly
91 | if (Util.isDebuggableApp(activity)) {
> 92 | e.printStackTrace();
93 | }
94 | return;
95 | }
96 |
97 | int permission = (int) checkSelfPermissionMethod.invoke(null, activity, Manifest.permission.WRITE_EXTERNA
98 |
99 | if (permission != PackageManager.PERMISSION_GRANTED) {
100 | // We don't have permission so prompt the user
101 | Method requestPermissionsMethod = ActivityCompat.class.getMethod(""requestPermissions"", Activity.class
102 |
^ Col 0
",java.java_info_leak_stacktrace
- Linguagem predominante
- C++
- Estrelas
- 563
- Forks
- 144
- Merge médio
- 10h 46min
- PRs com merge (30d)
- 14
Guia de contribuição
Primeiros passos
- Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
- Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
- Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
- Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.
Mais de NativeScript/android
-
Dificuldade 5/5 Mais de uma semana Facilidade para iniciantes 38/100
NativeScript/android#2039 · 1 comentário ·
-
Dificuldade 4/5 3-5 dias Facilidade para iniciantes 48/100
NativeScript/android#2024 ·
-
Dificuldade 5/5 Mais de uma semana Facilidade para iniciantes 20/100
NativeScript/android#2020 ·
-
Dificuldade 5/5 Mais de uma semana Facilidade para iniciantes 42/100
NativeScript/android#2019 ·
-
Dificuldade 4/5 3-5 dias Facilidade para iniciantes 55/100
NativeScript/android#1986 ·
Todas as issues de NativeScript/android
Issues semelhantes
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 70/100
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 65/100
duckdb/duckdb-wasm#2258 ·
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 75/100
objectionary/eo-graphs#75 ·
-
Coarray integration tests carry no LABELS, so run_tests.py silently skips them under every backend Abertacoarray
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 70/100
-
Dificuldade 2/5 1-3 horas Facilidade para iniciantes 75/100
FISCO-BCOS/FISCO-BCOS#5642 ·