top | item 33083122

(no title)

thefrozenone | 3 years ago

How does this tool go from a vuln. in a library to -> a set of affected functions/control paths? My understanding was that the CVE format is unustructed which makes an analysis like this difficult

discuss

order

ievans|3 years ago

We added support to the Semgrep engine for combining package metadata restrictions (from the CVE format) with code search patterns that indicate you're using the vulnerable library (we're writing those mostly manually, but Semgrep makes it pretty easy):

    - id: vulnerable-awscli-apr-2017
      pattern-either:
      - pattern: boto3.resource('s3', ...)
      - pattern: boto3.client('s3', ...)
      r2c-internal-project-depends-on:
        namespace: pypi
        package: awscli
        version: "<= 1.11.82"
      message: this version of awscli is subject to a directory traversal vulnerability in the s3 module
This is still experimental and internal (https://semgrep.dev/docs/experiments/r2c-internal-project-de...) but eventually we'd like to promote it and also maybe open up our CVE rules more as well!

mattkopecki|3 years ago

Here is a good writeup of some of the pros and cons of using a "reachability" approach.

https://blog.sonatype.com/prioritizing-open-source-vulnerabi...

>Unfortunately, no technology currently exists that can tell you whether a method is definitively not called, and even if it is not called currently, it’s just one code change away from being called. This means that reachability should never be used as an excuse to completely ignore a vulnerability, but rather reachability of a vulnerability should be just one component of a more holistic approach to assessing risk that also takes into account the application context and severity of the vulnerability.

theptip|3 years ago

My question too. All I see is this citation:

> [1] We’ll be sharing more details about this work later in October. Stay tuned!