A mis-handling of invalid unicode characters in the Java implementation of Tink versions prior to 1.5 allows an attacker to change the ID part of a ciphertext, which result in the creation of a second ciphertext that can decrypt to the same plaintext. This can be a problem with encrypting deterministic AEAD with a single key, and rely on a unique ciphertext-per-plaintext.
Weakness
The product does not properly handle when an input contains Unicode encoding.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Tink |
Google |
* |
1.5 (excluding) |
Potential Mitigations
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
References