xdg-dbus-proxy is a filtering proxy for D-Bus connections. Prior to 0.1.7, a policy parser vulnerability allows bypassing eavesdrop restrictions. The proxy checks for eavesdrop=true in policy rules but fails to handle eavesdrop =true (with a space before the equals sign) and similar cases. Clients can intercept D-Bus messages they should not have access to. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.1.7.
Weakness
The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Xdg-dbus-proxy | Flatpak | * | 0.1.7 (excluding) |
| Xdg-dbus-proxy | Ubuntu | esm-infra/focal | * |
| Xdg-dbus-proxy | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Xdg-dbus-proxy | Ubuntu | noble | * |
| Xdg-dbus-proxy | Ubuntu | questing | * |
| Xdg-dbus-proxy | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
Extended Description
Attackers can sometimes bypass input validation schemes by finding inputs that appear to be safe, but will be dangerous when processed at a lower layer or by a downstream component. For example, a simple XSS protection mechanism might try to validate that an input has no “” tags using case-sensitive matching, but since HTML is case-insensitive when processed by web browsers, an attacker could inject “” and trigger XSS.
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.