Skip to content

Fix #77565: Incorrect locator detection in ZIP-based phars #6507

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

cmb69
Copy link
Member

@cmb69 cmb69 commented Dec 11, 2020

We must not assume that the first end of central dir signature in a ZIP
archive actually designates the end of central directory record, since
the data in the archive may contain arbitrary byte patterns. Thus, we
better search from the end of the data, what is also slightly more
efficient.

We must not assume that the first end of central dir signature in a ZIP
archive actually designates the end of central directory record, since
the data in the archive may contain arbitrary byte patterns.  Thus, we
better search from the end of the data, what is also slightly more
efficient.
@cmb69 cmb69 added the Bug label Dec 11, 2020
@@ -161,6 +161,12 @@ static void phar_zip_u2d_time(time_t time, char *dtime, char *ddate) /* {{{ */
}
/* }}} */

static char *phar_find_eocd(const char *s, size_t n)
{
const char *end = s + n + sizeof("PK\5\6") - 1 - sizeof(phar_zip_dir_end);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is end not just s + n?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because that marker string might (theoretically) be part of the directory record. This code makes sure that we really get the start of the end of central directory record.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this really guarantees it either ... say it's at the start of a 255 byte trailing comment. The -sizeof(phar_zip_dir_end) won't skip over that. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ugh, you're right! It seems to me that the only way to reliably detect the end of central directory header would be to read through all headers and data from the beginning of the file. Anyhow, I'm going to commit a mitigitation for the current approach; maybe this is reasonably sufficient? With that change, two tests fail due to different errors; these would need to be fixed, if we're going that route.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This approach looks okay to me. Personally I'd start at end = s + n and then check eocd_start + sizeof(phar_zip_dir_end) <= p + n before accessing comment_len ... your current code is safe, but it took me a moment to understand that this is guaranteed due to the used start position.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I see that might be confusing; I added a respective assertion, and also adapted the tests.

cmb69 added 2 commits January 4, 2021 16:39
There is no way to detect the end of central directory signature by
searching from the end of the ZIP archive with absolute certainty,
since the signature could be part of the trailing comment.  To
mitigate, we check that the comment length fits to the found position,
but that might still not be the correct position in rare cases.
@php-pulls php-pulls closed this in d1b1c04 Jan 5, 2021
@cmb69 cmb69 deleted the cmb/77565 branch January 5, 2021 22:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants