Skip to content

Audit Status #60

Closed
Closed

Description

@drahnr

Since this is one of the more widespread used rsa crates, it would be great if this could be audited by a third party. Are there currently any plans to do so?

Activity

  1. tarcieri commented on Sep 1, 2020

    @tarcieri
    Member

    I don't think anyone is planning an audit. If anyone would like to pay for one, that'd be great.

  2. zicklag commented on Sep 16, 2020

    @zicklag
    Contributor

    According to the README for the pgp crate, rsa actually has gotten a review. If this is true then we could take that note out of the README about the lack of an audit and replace it with this statement, which would be nice. :)

    rPGP and its RSA dependency got a first independent security review mid 2019.

  3. tarcieri commented on Sep 16, 2020

    @tarcieri
    Member

    Interesting! No one told us about it! 😉

    We will soon publish the full review report.

    It'd be great to know who performed the audit and have a published copy of the report so we can include it in the README.md. We've done something similar for the RustCrypto/AEAD crates:

    https://github.com/RustCrypto/AEADs/tree/master/aes-gcm#security-notes

  4. r10s commented on Sep 16, 2020

    @r10s

    the RSA audit was performed by Include Security and was granted by the Open Technology Fund while supporting Delta Chat developments.

    not sure if there is already a copy of the report published somewhere, but it is planned iirc :) cc @hpk42

  5. drahnr commented on Oct 9, 2020

    @drahnr
    Author

    @r10s @hpk42 is there an ETA of the mentioned report?

  6. hpk42 commented on Oct 12, 2020

    @hpk42
  7. joshbenaron commented on Mar 18, 2021

    @joshbenaron

    Hey,
    Has there been anymore progress/confirmation on the above issues? Have any low risk issues been fixed?

    Also, is this crate still maintained?

  8. changed the title [-]audit planned?[/-] [+]Audit Status[/+] on Jul 26, 2021
  9. tarcieri commented on Jul 27, 2021

    @tarcieri
    Member
  10. tarcieri commented on May 24, 2022

    @tarcieri
    Member

    The following warning is still in README.md:

    ⚠️ WARNING: This crate has been audited by a 3rd party, but a full blog post with the results and the updates made since the audit has not been officially released yet. See #60 for more information.

    Has this information been made publicly available via a first-party site yet? (i.e. hosted by someone directly involved in the audit)

    The report I linked in the previous post seems to have been uploaded to a chat service, so it'd be nice to link to something official instead.

  11. andrewbaxter commented on Jun 26, 2022

    @andrewbaxter

    In case the report disappears, it looks like there was 1 finding with this RSA library:

    • key sizes are not bounded, so if a user can pass in an arbitrarily large key it could cause memory/cpu to be consumed for a very long time and lead to DOS (very rough summary)
  12. tarcieri commented on Dec 11, 2022

    @tarcieri
    Member

    Key sizes are now bounded unless the user explicitly opts out of that. See e.g.:

    https://docs.rs/rsa/0.7.2/rsa/struct.RsaPublicKey.html#method.new

    (as well as new_with_max_size and new_unchecked)

  13. thomaseizinger commented on Apr 5, 2023

    @thomaseizinger

    The following warning is still in README.md:

    warning WARNING: This crate has been audited by a 3rd party, but a full blog post with the results and the updates made since the audit has not been officially released yet. See #60 for more information.

    Has this information been made publicly available via a first-party site yet? (i.e. hosted by someone directly involved in the audit)

    The report I linked in the previous post seems to have been uploaded to a chat service, so it'd be nice to link to something official instead.

    Could we just upload it to this repository instead? The warning is very discouraging from using the crate when in reality, the only problem found has been fixed already.

  14. tarcieri commented on Apr 5, 2023

    @tarcieri
    Member

    I opened #287 to remove the scary warning (which was somewhat nonsensical in its current state), and link to an officially hosted copy of the audit instead

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions