I respectfully disagree with this. Using a license incorrectly causes an availability issue directly, and availability is one of the cybersecurity principles that represent weaknesses and vulnerabilities by the definitions I am aware of.
Can you please help me understand what definition CWE is using for each? The nearest definitions I can find are: “A ‘weakness’ is a condition in a software, firmware, hardware, or service component that, under certain circumstances, could contribute to the introduction of vulnerabilities” (https://cwe.mitre.org/about/new_to_cwe.html). Following the vulnerability theory (https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/vulnerability_theory/intro.html) suggests that we need to have a PRODUCT implementing FEATURE by performing certain BEHAVIORS that operate on RESOURCES. I will assume these definitions in my disagreement below, and acknowledge that my basic definitions of some of these terms may be off. The core question is therefore: is a license violation a vulnerability by the vulnerability theory used by the CWEs? I argue in the affirmative. You state, “No doubt that invalid licenses are a serious problem from the security perspective, but it's more a supply chain issue and legal problem.” Then a PRODUCT implementing software with a “supply chain issue” or “legal problem” to achieve its behavior on its resources produces an availability security impact against PRODUCT. If you want to identify it more generally as “supply chain issue” or “legal insufficiency,” it’s still a vulnerability that directly affects availability, incurs technical debt, and inflicts reputation/brand damage (https://cwe.mitre.org/cwraf/creatingyourownvignettes.html). I believe that more specific supply chain or legal issues are appropriate as well (and license violations would be a specific example), but these two general classes of vulnerabilities you’ve identified also meet the criteria for becoming a CWE. CWE-1357 almost meets some of this definition as well. Instead of a license-violating component being “not sufficiently trusted to meet expectations for security” (with availability being part of the security definition), it would be nice to have a CWE that can refer to a component (trusted or not) that in fact does not meet security expectations because of “supply chain” or “legal” vulnerabilities. Can you please further explain why a “supply chain issue and legal problem” is an abuse of the weakness definition? I feel like you acknowledge it’s a weakness while also saying it’s an abuse of the definition of a weakness, which indicates that I’m not understanding some of your argument. You lose me at “Invalid license itself cannot lead to a vulnerability just like that.” How is a coding weakness that affects availability not a distinct, individual vulnerability, regardless of what other vulnerabilities may also be in the software? Sincere thanks for your response and interaction, Jon From: Przemyslaw Roguski <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 1:21 PM To: Steven M Christey <[email protected]> Cc: Hood, Jonathan W CTR USARMY DEVCOM AVMC (USA) <[email protected]>; CWE Research Discussion <[email protected]> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) You don't often get email from [email protected]. <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Learn why this is important Hi All, In my personal opinion, adding new weakness or renaming existing one to something more "licensing" related is abuse of the weakness definition. We defined the weakness and vulnerability definitions a long time ago and any licensing problems do not fit the weakness use case. The real-world examples provided in this thread indicate that there were license problems, but it's only a side effect of the problem. Let me explain it in a different way. If you use a component or 3rd party software where it is a good, correct licence, but that component is not maintained correctly or has some vulnerabilities that some day lead to an exploit and successful attack, then it doesn't matter that there was a correct licence. No doubt that invalid licenses are a serious problem from the security perspective, but it's more a supply chain issue and legal problem. Invalid licence itself cannot lead to a vulnerability just like that. There must be another weakness that can lead to a vulnerability. Licences should be registered and monitored similarly to the components (artifacts) provenance, which is in scope of SBOMs. Hence adding a new weakness licensing related is not a good idea in my opinion. Best regards, Przemek Przemyslaw Roguski Security Architect, Product Security <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.redhat.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687493911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FR0P8d4l%2BV5h8MEjlYGd3AzsmsI2r6Xu3J8lTjFYpnI%3D&reserved=0> Red Hat Poland <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] IM: rogue <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fred.ht%2Fsig&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687493911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3MGGo7u9YUczFp7RnOc%2BX704B2sfPwm4AiUoBfWvuGU%3D&reserved=0> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM Steven M Christey <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: All, While “licensing problems” per se does not have any direct coverage in CWE, there are indirect implications for security, e.g., it affects maintainability and might affect ability to apply security patches. Since 2018, we’ve added several newer CWE entries related to system components that might already be applicable; we could possibly modify one of them to name licensing as a consideration. The most applicable would be CWE-1357: Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component. “The product is built from multiple separate components, but it uses a component that is not sufficiently trusted to meet expectations for security, reliability, updateability, and maintainability.” Other CWEs in the same general area: * CWE-1104: Use of Unmaintained Third Party Components (child of CWE-1357) * CWE-1329: Reliance on Component That is Not Updateable (child of CWE-1357) * CWE-1395: Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component I’d argue that there is already some overlap between these CWE entries, which we want to avoid as much as possible in CWE. So I would want to be very careful about creating a brand-new CWE just for licensing. Adapting the phrasing of the original proposal, it seems possible that a new "Use of Unauthorized Software" CWE could be created that is a parent of CWE-1357. However, there would need to be a strong case made that it isn’t an exact duplicate, i.e., are there weaknesses in this area that can NOT be described as “insufficiently trustworthy” in this sense? Any other input is welcome. - Steve From: Hood, Jonathan W CTR USARMY DEVCOM AVMC (USA) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:49 AM To: CWE Research Discussion <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [EXT] RE: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) I did want to renew this discussion. In light of the increased focus on supply chain risk management and composition analysis, the licensing issues and weaknesses in aggregated software are becoming more of a problem. Being able to categorize these weaknesses meaningfully would be helpful. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Hood, Jonathan W CTR USARMY RDECOM AMRDEC (US) Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 5:01 PM To: Kurt Seifried <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Christey, Steven M. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Wheeler, David A CTR (US) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Buttner, Drew <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CWE Research Discussion <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED I wanted to add another data point to this: suppose that there's a project that falls under DFARS Regulation 252.227-7014 ( <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.acq.osd.mil%2Fdpap%2Fdars%2Fdfars%2Fhtml%2Fcurrent%2F252227.htm%23252.227-7014&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687493911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UKRPca9fSVJ0G2k5l9Hg4Nlza4ooUO77y4b%2B325ZHns%3D&reserved=0> https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/252227.htm#252.227-7014), but the new contractor tries to use the software commercially. This could have been "exploited by an attacker" by suing the program, legal confiscation, or a fielding stay injunction. Real-world examples: • ReactOS: <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FReactOS%23Internal_audit&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687493911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z2L1sxGM5HGhui93Cu30aA814UWt98FeeAsYwuIThxc%3D&reserved=0> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit • MySQL AB: <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2002%2F11%2F21%2Fmysql_nusphere_settle_gpl_contract%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687493911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PUzBhig9MktqD1bhI0gbkd7Wt4NQSZGoqUICXM1ykhw%3D&reserved=0> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/mysql_nusphere_settle_gpl_contract/ In both of these cases, the integrity of the software was allegedly tainted, and availability of the software (ReactOS through their website, and MySQL through NuSphere) was demonstrably compromised. • Artifex v. Hancom — Hancom stopped distributing that portion of their software, again exploiting the availability. That being said, it's difficult to articulate the specific technical exploitation path without also including other intangible weaknesses such as "Susceptible to DMCA takedown notices" or "Written by a lawsuit-happy contractor." Perhaps an "Unauthorized use of software" CWE would cover the multitude of issues behind the licensing. It has a tangible behavior (using unauthorized software), a specified resource (the software, involved patents, licensing, and/or policies), a violation of desired properties (written permission to use the software), and several exploitation paths: • lawsuit • confiscation • DMCA takedown Jon -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Seifried [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 3:11 PM To: Christey, Steven M. < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: Wheeler, David A CTR (US) < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Buttner, Drew < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; CWE Research Discussion < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. ________________________________ I would class it more as an exposure type of issue, in that while not directly exploitable it does open you up to new problems that didn't exist before. Like a freeze attack on an update server, I can't diretly exploit that to hack a box, but if I prevent you getting updates for a while, eventually you'll be vulnerable to something I can exploit. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Christey, Steven M. < <mailto:[email protected]%20%3c%20Caution-mailto:[email protected]%20> [email protected] < Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > wrote: Using a general phrase of "Licensing Issue" is not particularly appropriate for CWE in that, typically, we try to write CWE descriptions that describe <behaviors> that operate on <resources> in ways that violate desired <properties> that, under the right circumstances, can be exploited by <attackers> to cross a security boundary. There's a similar approach for names, specifically so that generic terms like "issue" don't mislead CWE users into thinking they understand a CWE when doing mapping. I still find it difficult to figure out where or how attackers play a role in terms of licensing, although the role of licensing changes in delaying or preventing security patches does resonate with me - the system can be put into a state that attackers can exploit. However, there are many other programmer practices like "not having a complete test set" or "setting bug report to wrong fix priority" or any of dozens of other practices that I'm not sure we're quite ready to include in CWE yet. Note - I'm not stating any kind of official position on how/whether CWE should include licensing, just some thoughts. - Steve -- Kurt Seifried <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] < Caution-mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED From: Wheeler, David A [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 11:36 AM To: Kurt Seifried [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; Buttner, Drew [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: CWE Research Discussion [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. _____ I agree that improper licensing (overall) is a problem, but I think there needs to be at least one more specific CWE as well: “License change forbids previously allowed activity”. Presumably this would be a sub-category. In *both* of the cases you cite, it *was* okay to do something in one version, but the newer version changed to a license that forbid previously-allowed activities. It is this *change* of license that is especially likely to cause problems, since people often don’t re-review licenses when they simply upgrade a component. In particular, lawyers often get involved reviewing licenses when components are *first* brought in, but often no one knows to even *check* that there’s been a significant change in conditions. --- David A. Wheeler From: Kurt Seifried [Caution-mailto: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 12:03 PM To: Buttner, Drew Cc: CWE Research Discussion Subject: Re: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) So some new stuff has come to light recently: 1) Caution-https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fredislabs.com%2Fcommunity%2Fcommons-clause%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687493911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y3bS8zf2n3H3KzkrtFZCGj5sZSY3FOWKgQC9Uaaj%2B2M%3D&reserved=0> < Caution-https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fredislabs.com%2Fcommunity%2Fcommons-clause%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687650156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wXHKxiVa8AL428x76M5LnvIxDTJWCyV0W2z%2Ffal9CBE%3D&reserved=0> > 2) Caution-https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2018/08/21/intel_cpu_patch_licence/ <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2FAMP%2F2018%2F08%2F21%2Fintel_cpu_patch_licence%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687650156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BvUG78ft8UKpa3%2FpGIt2DAdmfhcHUE6Z5ILlNxYmdLs%3D&reserved=0> < Caution-https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2018/08/21/intel_cpu_patch_licence/ <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2FAMP%2F2018%2F08%2F21%2Fintel_cpu_patch_licence%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjonathan.w.hood6.ctr%40army.mil%7C1a2d92e6c02046c05f8b08dbde347182%7Cfae6d70f954b481192b60530d6f84c43%7C0%7C0%7C638348089687650156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BvUG78ft8UKpa3%2FpGIt2DAdmfhcHUE6Z5ILlNxYmdLs%3D&reserved=0> > so in case #1 we now have a situation where cloud providers and other places cannot update redis components if they sell it as a service due to the license changes. In case #2 we have Debian users left with a VERY a painful set of steps to take to manually update the microcode (rather than linux just magically doing it at boot time). I think in light of the above we should revisit this CWE and consider it for inclusion as it clearly has real world consequences and is becoming a problem. On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Buttner, Drew <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%C2%A0%3c%C2%A0Caution-mailto:[email protected]> < Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > wrote: CWE Community, Thank you to all that weighed in on this topic and added to the discussion earlier this month. The CWE team found the discussion very enlightening, and it really helped us understand this issue that we didn't know much about. However, our feeling is that improper licensing is outside of CWE's current scope. Although it is a way to impact software and its usage, we feel that this is not through the technical exploitation of a software security weakness in architecture, design, or code. Rather, it is though policy/programmatic exploitation. Looking at the hypothetical example provided, software that includes some improper licenses may be forced offline and become unavailable, but technically the software still works as intended. This is very different from a weakness in how resources are managed that causes an application to allocate all its handles and then become unavailable. The availability issue with licensing surrounds a policy that the software shall no longer be used. In many ways, there is similarity here with supply chain issues where one disrupts a supplier to stop/limit a product from being delivered, and hence make it not available. We feel that these types of issues, although legitimate, are not within the current scope of CWE which focuses on architecture, design, and coding weaknesses. Going forward, we will be looking to expand the scope of CWE to include certain quality related issue. As this happens, the scope may broaden to include some issues similar to improper licensing and within areas beyond the three mentioned above. If that is the case, then this discussion we be brought back to the forefront. We are still open for discussion on either the specific issue, or with our defined scope. We very much value feedback so please don't hesitate to share opinions if you have them. Thanks Drew -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> < Caution-mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [Caution-mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> < Caution-mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ] On Behalf Of Hood, Jonathan W CTR USARMY RDECOM AMRDEC (US) Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 10:52 AM To: cwe-research-list CWE Research Discussion <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%C2%A0%3c%C2%A0Caution-mailto:[email protected]> < Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > Subject: Request for CWE: Improper Licensing (UNCLASSIFIED) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED CWE Team, We've run into cases where a software license is being violated. A few generalized scenarios we've run into lately: • Someone violates the GPL in one of the many ways that the GPL can be violated (I'm not going to elaborate on this much; I like the GPL and am only using it as an example of a very-easy-to-violate license) • Someone partners with a school on an STTR from the government ⁃ The school assigns the task to a poor grad student ⁃ The grad student implements the academic license of a library they want to use ⁃ The grad student turns in a working solution with the academic license unknowingly embedded ⁃ The PI on the STTR turns in the working solution ⁃ The working solution is incorporated into a commercial project without switching to the commercial version of the dependency • Someone copyrights and licenses their software in an overly-restrictive or illegal way (re: Bayh-Dole Act IP with "royalty-free use by or on behalf of the government") Usually, the software team is ignorant of the issue they've introduced with the licenses. Nevertheless, inherent legal issues become cybersecurity concerns, especially when they can affect the availability and rights to use the software. Proposed CWE Title: Improper Licensing Impacts: Availability Description: Licensing issues indicate poor adherence to copyrights and other legal requirements. License violations can take many forms, and each can be costly to an organization. Several include: • Reliance, in a commercial solution, on software licensed for non-commercial use only. • Use of expired licenses • Including unlicensed components into a solution • Violating a license's terms • Placing software under an illegal or overly-restrictive license Each issue introduces legal risks that can affect the availability of the solution. Modes of Introduction: Implementation Applicable Platforms: All Likelihood of Exploit: Low I'm in favor of having a catch-all licensing issue CWE. Alternatively, higher fidelity may be achieved by creating a category and CWE hierarchy: • Category: Licensing Issues ⁃ CWE: Reliance on Incorrect License ⁃ CWE: Use of Expired License ⁃ CWE: Reliance on Unlicensed Component ⁃ CWE: Improper Adherence to License Terms ⁃ CWE: Institution of an Overly-Restrictive or Illegal License This may need to be moved under the CQEs once they are merged with CWEs. Jon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
