Skip to Content [alt-c]

December 17, 2020

Security Vulnerabilities in Smallstep PKI Software

I recently did a partial security review of Smallstep, a commercially-backed open source private certificate authority written in Go. I found that Smallstep is vulnerable to JSON injection, misuses JWTs, and relies on client-side enforcement of server-side security. These vulnerabilities can be exploited to obtain unauthorized certificates. This post is a full disclosure of the issues.

I reviewed the certificates repository as of commit 1feb4fcb26dc78d70bc1d9e586237a36a8fbea9c and the crypto repository as of commit 162770cad29063385cb768b0191814e4c6a94e45. The vulnerabilities are present in version 0.15.5 of step-certificates and version 0.15.3 of step-cli, and have been fixed as of version 0.15.6.

JSON Injection in Certificate Templates

Like many PKI systems, Smallstep supports user-definable certificate profiles (which they call certificate templates) to specify the contents of a certificate (the subject, SANs, extensions, etc.). Smallstep's certificate profiles are implemented as JSON objects which are templated using Go's text/template package. Using templates, you can substitute a variety of information into the profile, including information from the certificate request.

Here's an example template from Smallstep's blog post announcing the feature:

{ "subject": {"commonName":"{{ .Insecure.CR.Subject.CommonName }}"}, "sans": {{ toJson .SANs }}, "keyUsage": ["digitalSignature", "keyAgreement"], "extKeyUsage": ["clientAuth"] }

20 years of HTML and SQL injection vulnerabilities have shown that it's a bad idea to use raw text templating to construct syntactic data like HTML, SQL, or JSON, which is why best practice is to use context-aware templating like SQL prepared statements or Go's html/template package. When using raw text templates, it's way too easy to suffer an injection vulnerability when the author of the template inevitably forgets to escape a value. Indeed, in the above example, the commonName field is unescaped, and Smallstep is rife with other examples of unescaped data in their documentation and in Go string literals that define the default SSH and X.509 templates.

Two factors make it easy for attackers to exploit the injection vulnerability. First, if a JSON object has more than one field with the same name, Go's JSON decoder takes the value from the last one. Second, Smallstep uses json.Decode to decode the object instead of json.Unmarshal, which means trailing garbage is ignored (this is an unfortunate foot gun in Go). Thus, an attacker who can inject values into a template has total control over the resulting object, as they can override the values of earlier fields, and then end the object so later fields are ignored. For example, signing a CSR containing the following common name using the above template results in a CA:TRUE certificate with a SAN of wheeeeeee.example and no extended key usage (EKU) extension:

"}, "basicConstraints":{"isCA":true}, "sans":[{"type":"dns","value":"wheeeeeee.example"}]}

Fortunately, despite the use of unescaped values in the default templates, I found that in virtually all cases the unescaped values come from trusted sources or are validated first. The one exception is the AWS provisioner, which in the default configuration will inject an unvalidated common name from the CSR into the template. However, in this configuration the DNS SANs are also completely unvalidated, so clients are already pretty trusted. Still, the vulnerability could be used to get a certificate with arbitrary or no EKUs, giving an attacker more capabilities than they would otherwise have. (The attacker could also get a CA:TRUE certificate, although by default the issuing CA has a pathlen:0 constraint so the CA:TRUE certificate wouldn't work.)

In any case, this approach to templates is extremely concerning. This issue cannot be fixed just by updating the built-in templates to use proper escaping, as users who write their own templates are likely to forget to escape, just as scores of developers have forgotten to escape HTML and SQL. The responsible way to offer this feature is with a context-aware JSON templating system akin to template/html that automatically escapes values.

Weaknesses in AWS Provisioner

This section applies to Smallstep's AWS provisioner, which enables EC2 instances to obtain X.509 certificates which identify the instance.

To prove that it is authorized to obtain a certificate, the Smallstep client retrieves a signed instance identity document from the EC2 metadata service and sends it to the Smallstep server. The Smallstep server verifies that the instance identity document was validly signed by AWS, and that the EC2 instance belongs to an authorized AWS account. If so, the Smallstep server issues a certificate.

EC2 instance identity documents aren't bound to a particular purpose when they are signed and they never expire. An attacker who obtains a single instance identity document from any EC2 instance in their victim's account has a permanent capability to obtain certificates. Instance identity documents are not particularly protected; anyone who can make an HTTP request from the instance can obtain them. Smallstep attempts to address this in a few ways. Unfortunately, the most effective protection is off by default, and the others are ineffective.

First, instance identity documents contain the date and time that the instance was created, and Smallstep can be configured to reject instance identity documents from instances that are too old. This is a good idea and works well with architectures where an instance obtains its certificate after first bootup and never needs to obtain future certificates. However, this protection is off by default. (Also, the documentation for the configuration parameter is not very good: it's described as "the maximum duration to grant a certificate in AWS and GCP provisioners" which sounds like maximum certificate lifetime. This is not going to help people choose a sensible value for this option.)

Second, by default Smallstep only allows an EC2 instance to request one certificate. After it requests a certificate, the instance is not supposed to be able to request any more certificates. Unfortunately, this logic is enforced client-side. Specifically, the server relies on the client to generate a unique ID, which in a non-malicious implementation is derived from the instance ID. Of course, a malicious client can just generate any ID it wants and the server will think the instance has never requested a certificate before.

(Aside: Smallstep claims that the one-certificate-per-instance logic "allows" them to not validate certificate identifiers by default. This doesn't make much sense to me, as an instance which has never requested a certificate before would still have carte blanche ability to request a certificate for any identifier, including those belonging to instances which already have requested certificates. It seems to me that to get the TOFU-like security properties that they desire, they should be enforcing a one-certificate-per-identifier rule rather than one-certificate-per-instance.)

Finally, Smallstep tries to use JWT in a bizarre and futile attempt to limit the lifetime of identity documents to 5 minutes. Instead of simply sending the identity document and signature to the server, the client sticks the identity document and signature inside a JSON Web Token which is authenticated with HMAC, using the signature as the HMAC key - the same signature that is in the payload of the JWT.

This leads to an incredible sequence of code on the server side which first deserializes the JWT payload without verifying the HMAC, and then immediately deserializes the payload again, this time verifying the HMAC using the key just taken out of the unverified payload:

var unsafeClaims awsPayload
if err := jwt.UnsafeClaimsWithoutVerification(&unsafeClaims); err != nil {
	return nil, errs.Wrap(http.StatusUnauthorized, err, "aws.authorizeToken; error unmarshaling claims")
}

var payload awsPayload
if err := jwt.Claims(unsafeClaims.Amazon.Signature, &payload); err != nil {
	return nil, errs.Wrap(http.StatusUnauthorized, err, "aws.authorizeToken; error verifying claims")
}

Obviously, this code adds zero security, as an attacker who wants to use an expired JWT can just adjust the expiration date and then recompute the HMAC using the key that is right there in the JWT.

Edited to add: Smallstep explains that they used JWT here because their other cloud provisioners use JWT natively and therefore it was easier to use JWT here as well. It was not intended as a security measure. Indeed, the 5 minute expiration is not documented anywhere, so I wouldn't call this a vulnerability. However, it would be wrong to call it a harmless no-op: the JWT provided the means for an untrusted, client-generated ID to be transmitted to the server, which was accidentally used instead of the trusted ID from the signed instance identity document, causing the vulnerability above. This is why it's so important to avoid unnecessary code and protocol components, especially in security-sensitive contexts.

Timeline

  • 2020-12-17 18:17 UTC: full disclosure and notification to Smallstep
  • 2020-12-17 21:02 UTC: Smallstep merges patch to escape JSON in default X.509 template
  • 2020-12-17 23:52 UTC: Smallstep releases version 0.15.6 fixing the vulnerabilities, plans to address other feedback
  • 2020-12-27 19:04 UTC: Ten days later, Smallstep's blog post and documentation still show examples of unescaped JSON, giving me doubts that they have fully understood the issue

Photo of Andrew

Hi, I'm Andrew. I run SSLMate, which makes SSL certificates easy through automation, great software, and friendly support.

I blog about security, PKI, Linux, and more. If you liked this post, check out my other posts or subscribe to my RSS feed.

My email address is andrew@agwa.name. I'm AGWA at GitHub and @__agwa on Twitter.

Comments

Reader maraino on 2020-12-17 at 23:54:

Hi Andrew, thanks for looking into this, the vulnerabilities have been address in the latest version https://github.com/smallstep/certificates/releases/tag/v0.15.6

Reply

Anonymous on 2021-07-30 at 08:44:

Were CVEs never published for these issues? Without CVEs many people/distributors won't get the "nudge" to upgrade to a fixed version.

Reply

Andrew Ayer on 2021-08-03 at 12:58:

You raise a good point. As far as I can tell, Smallstep did not request CVEs. They don't even appear to have a way to notify their users of the need to upgrade.

Reply

Post a Comment

Your comment will be public. If you would like to contact me privately, please email me. Please keep your comment on-topic, polite, and comprehensible.

(Optional; will be published)

(Optional; will not be published)

(Optional; will be published)

  • Blank lines separate paragraphs.
  • Lines starting with ">" are indented as block quotes.
  • Lines starting with two spaces are reproduced verbatim.
  • Text surrounded by *asterisks* is italicized.
  • Text surrounded by `back ticks` is monospaced.
  • URLs are turned into links.
  • Use the Preview button to check your formatting.