4 ms·

What are your thoughts on how to prevent the entire class of vulnerability from being able to happen again?

• gnachman 7y ago
  Be paranoid about what you send. It’s really clear that any time you output attacker controlled values it can be exploited. I went through several iterations of adding escaping and every one had vulnerabilities. It wasn’t good until the only escaping that remained was very conservative (hex encoded).
  • nixpulvis 7y ago
    I haven't had enough time to truly grasp the changes in the patch, but the use of a prefix, and a well known encoding scheme sounds a bit iffy to me. What's stopping an attacker from looking at the definitions here: https://github.com/gnachman/iTerm2/commit/538d570ea54614d3a2b5724f820953d717fbeb0c#diff-be3d2dc8a7d8a4a81bbba890ab32c9b6R46-R50 https://github.com/gnachman/iTerm2/commit/538d570ea54614d3a2... and using the same `NSUTF8StringEncoding` to build the same attacks? EDIT: Of course GitHub doesn't follow fragment ids when they are part of a large diff, but you can open up `sources/TmuxController.m` yourself.
    • gnachman 7y ago
      Not sure what you mean by NSUTF8StringEncoding. The important fact about encoding is that -encodedString:prefix: limits the output that iTerm2 produces to a very small set of characters from which it's hard to build an exploit.