Comment by NewJazz
2 days ago
musl’s crypt() returns the string * as an error indicator when the key is over 256 bytes long. * is also exactly what the stored field contains for every account with no password, so the “hash” matches and the login succeeds.
Does anyone know why musl does this? Are they the only C library that behaves this way?
For a C library that famously tries to adhere to POSIX as much as possible, this seems like a crazy choice. From POSIX standard:
Upon successful completion, crypt() shall return a pointer to the encoded string. The first two bytes of the returned value shall be those of the salt argument. Otherwise, it shall return a null pointer and set errno to indicate the error.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/c...
There's a very detailed trace of how the bug was developed over decades at sshhole.com and the relevant discussion in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50378228
Thanks yeah just woke up, finished making my way through the single-article website and still unclear if other libcs do the same thing (the article says libxcrypt picked it up, but only after musl did it).
Some more clarity ... Multiple implementations have these sentinel values (not OpenBSD). But unfortunately only musl had a sentinel value that was also used in shadow files...
https://hachyderm.io/@ncopa@fosstodon.org/117564809789053485
Apparently because some devs didn't check for NULL which resulted in crashes. Weird choice to fix other peoples' bad programming by deviating from the spec.
To be fair (as the sshole site mentions) it is also necessary to fake a password hash check to avoid timing side channels revealing to remote clients whether users exist, so returning a sentinel value is not a horrifically unreasonable solution to make sure even naive code does approximately the right thing.
Though I am surprised that all of the code examples do not use constant-time strcmp(). Actually, I wonder if even constant-time strncmp() would still leak information about whether the account is disabled because in that case both arguments are much shorter? Food for thought.
But yeah, the crypt(3) API is very 80s C, the man page even features a lengthy description of a long-deprecated and utterly broken hashing algorithm using DES that is even implied to be broken in the text itself (and the warning message is so old it refers to "parallel computers" as though they were a new concept). Given that the default mode is to use a broken hashing algorithm, I'm shocked anyone actually uses the libc crypt(3) -- surely it's trivial to just write your own that isn't awful...?
Constant time strcmp doesn't fix it. The problem is that the user doesn't have a password at all (the hash is *). But which hashing algorithm is used is encoded in the password. So they pick a different user's hash to not leak the information that there is no password. Alternate solution would be to hardcode a specific algorithm, but that could also leak info in many cases, I guess.
3 replies →
TBH that sounds like a straight up bug in that it deviates dangerously from the spec.
The spec only defines a single error state - ENOSYS, that is basically only for systems that don't implement crypt at all.
Error handling is underspecified. The spec doesn't give you enough well-defined behaviour, meaning everyone lists pages of error-handling extensions they have added.
Which is notable because musl is more known for adhering to the spec to the point where they break programs that assume nonstandard behavior.
> adhering to the spec
Pedantic, but more "author's understanding of the spec" which isn't always correct.
> assume nonstandard behavior
I go back and forth on this one (spec vs standard behavior). It feels like at some point the most widely used impl -is- the spec, as we've seen in other places (web standards).
4 replies →
This is either a bad engineering choice or an intentional bug. An empty string would have been better. Why '*' instead of, say, a tilde, @ symbol, or something that generally isn't used?
I'm not entirely sure an empty string, tilde, or @ symbol would really have been better, except in retrospect.