1085309 - udp socket api should not allow access to privileged ports (i.e. < 1024)

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect)

Description

[Frederik Braun [:freddy]]

I am a bit concerned about the UDPSocket API, and want to start a discussion about its capabilities.

Since it allows specifying arbitrary source and and destination ports, an app using this API may be seen as authorized to speak on behalf of the device on the network. This also includes requesting or releasing DHCP leases for example.

I was wondering if we should restrict specifying a source port as well as specifying a destination port below 1024 should be limited to certified apps.

Comment 1

[Philipp Kewisch [:Fallen][📱📆]]

If you do this, I assume that certified apps and chrome code can still do it? Since there is so much discussion about extending the DNS service to support SRV, I was thinking of writing a DNS client with UDPSocket and using this in chrome code.

Comment 2

[Frederik Braun [:freddy]]

That's the suggestion:
UDPSocket with random source port to destination port >1024: privileged apps
UDPSocket with specific source port and arbitrary destination port: certified apps (and chrome code)

Comment 3

[Shih-Chiang Chien [:schien] (UTC+8) (use ni? plz)]

Attachment: [WIP] privileged-port-for-certified-app-only.patch

compiled but haven't tested yet.

Comment 4

[[:fabrice] Fabrice Desré]

So you don't trust the review process to prevent bad things from happening?

Comment 5

[[:fabrice] Fabrice Desré]

Because this may prevent legitimate uses for privileged apps too, and that's not cool.

Comment 6

[Kyle Machulis [:qdot] [:kmachulis] (INACTIVE)]

Looks like this is related to apps, which no longer exists. API still exists but is marked ChromeOnly. Marking incomplete.