New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Swift: detect the use of static initialization vectors #11084
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
QHelp previews: swift/ql/src/queries/Security/CWE-1204/StaticInitializationVector.qhelpStatic initialization vector for encryptionWhen a cipher is used in certain modes (such as CBC or GCM), it requires an initialization vector (IV). Under the same secret key, IVs should be unique and ideally unpredictable. If the same IV is used with the same secret key, then the same plaintext results in the same ciphertext. This behavior may enable an attacker to learn if the same data pieces are transferred or stored, or help the attacker run a dictionary attack. In particular, if the IV is hardcoded or constant, an attacker may just lookup potential keys in a dictionary, then concatenate those with the hardcoded or constant IV rather than trying to discover the entire encryption key. RecommendationUse a randomly generated IV. ExampleThe following example shows a few cases of instantiating a cipher with various encryption keys. In the 'BAD' cases, the IV is hardcoded or constant, making the encrypted data vulnerable to recovery. In the 'GOOD' cases, the IV is randomly generated and not hardcoded, which protects the encrypted data against recovery. References
|
|
@geoffw0 I think I've addressed all comments here. Ready for docs review? |
|
Yep, ready for docs review. |
Using a static initialization vector (IV) for encryption is not secure. To maximize encryption and prevent dictionary attacks, IVs should rather be unique and unpredictable (e.g., randomly generated).
The rule currently supports all ciphers that the CryptoSwift API provides, but we can always extend it further if more APIs are added.
I'd appreciate a review of the query itself, the accompanying tests, and the associated documentation.