[Distutils] PEP470 installation security problems
holger at merlinux.eu
Wed Oct 8 12:57:36 CEST 2014
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 20:27 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 8 October 2014 19:44, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 2014, at 4:44 AM, holger krekel <holger at merlinux.eu> wrote:
> >> I am sorry if raising the issue of private/public compromises sounds
> >> like FUD to you. From my experience it's a real attack vector. I talked
> >> about this at EP2014 (http://youtu.be/aNrrGf-uNUY?t=6m1s ) and people
> >> got back to me afterwards, surprised.
> >> And I don't think you can successfully ask people in companies
> >> around the work to register private package names publically (let alone
> >> the issue of clashes etc.). Admit it, that's even more unlikely than
> >> peple using some PEP438 features :)
> >> And yes, if someone forgets to set the private index he could still pull
> >> in malicious public links even with devpi or new pip options.
> > I think raising the issue is FUDish because it has nothing to do with using
> > multi repository support for things that are registered on PyPI. The attack
> > vector you’re describing isn’t possible at all for any project that is effected
> > by PEP 470, which are projects which wish to register themselves in the PyPI
> > index without using PyPI as their repository.
> >From my perspective, there's also the question of "relative risk". As
> soon as anyone is installing anything at all directly from PyPI, their
> perceived threat level should already be through the roof. Why?
> Because of .pth files.
Well, for installing NAME from pypi you need to trust that the people
who registered and maintain NAME are not doing something bad (and the
machine is not compromised but in that case all bets are off obviously).
And i can make a choice to trust "django", "flask, "warehouse" and other
pypi names. I am exposing myself to whatever the maintainers published
but it's my choice. This is a very different thing compared to:
pip install --extra-index http://private.repo mypackage
I may think i am trusting just "mypackage" from my private repo.
But in fact i am betting on nobody uploading "mypackage" to the pypi wiki.
I don't think this is very obvious to many -- it certainly wasn't
> .pth files run automatically at every interpreter startup, so if
> you're installing directly from PyPI, then *every single package you
> install* has the power to completely subvert your application (if
> you're installing into an application specific virtual environment) or
> your entire Python installation (if you're installing into a shared
> Python instance). Even if they don't install malicious .pth files,
> then many of them are going to get imported at some point anyway, so
> they're going to able to reach out and do whatever they want to the
> Python level internal process state.
> "pip install python-nation" helps illustrate the degree to which we're
> generally trusting folks uploading stuff to PyPI to not be evil, and
> that level of trust also extends to folks providing external
> repositories rather than hosting directly on PyPI.
> If folks are more worried about the risk of PyPI or a third party repo
> shadowing their private packages than they are about malicious .pth
> files or generally malicious runtime behaviour in dependencies, then I
> strongly believe their threat meters need recalibrating. We focus on
> MITM attacks in the upstream infrastructure, because if *developers*
> are actively malicious, then you're already hosed - they don't need to
> do anything clever, they can just decide to own your system as a side
> effect of running their code. (Most of them won't, which is why the
> risk is low in practice. But as far as theoretical attacks go, this is
> near the top of my personal threat model, just behind third party MITM
> If folks are using Python in a context where these risks are
> unacceptable to them, then they should either be getting their
> packages via a trusted third party (like a community or commercial
> Linux distribution, or a commercial Python redistributor), or at least
> using a PyPI caching proxy with whitelisting support (which is why PEP
> 470 recommends the use of devpi in conjunction with turning off the
> default index).
> Establishing trustworthiness is expensive and relatively slow, which
> is why PyPI, like a lot of language specific distribution systems,
> doesn't currently offer it as feature. The generally more limited and
> older selection of packages in the redistributor channels reflects
> some of the impact of those additional costs. Bringing those costs
> down is something we're going to have to fix on the redistributor side
> - upstream initiatives like PEP 426 may help, but a lot of it is going
> to be a matter of Linux distros reassessing what services we're able
> to provide to the wider open source community.
> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
More information about the Distutils-SIG