IPv6 zones in URLs are a mistake(xeiaso.net) |
IPv6 zones in URLs are a mistake(xeiaso.net) |
The Python `ipaddress` library has an `ip_address` address that returns either an IPv4Address or IPv6Address if the passed string is a valid IPv4 or IPv6 address, or throws a ValueError if the address is invalid.
I've seen code that uses that function to determine if a user-supplied string is a valid IP before passing it to a command line. At first glance, that seems fine, but some shell metacharacters are valid in the IPv6 zone ID.
`fe80::1%a;whoami>${PATH:0:1}tmp${PATH:0:1}pwned` is a valid IPv6 IP, and if you did `ping fe80::1%a;whoami>${PATH:0:1}tmp${PATH:0:1}pwned`, you'd have the output of `whoami` written to /tmp/pwned.
Obviously, people shouldn't writing code that puts user input into a shell call without the proper method of execution (ie, shell=False when using subprocess.Popen), but people often think "I validated it, it's fine" and then get popped because their validation wasn't as good as they thought it was.
EDIT: In case it isn't clear, `${PATH:0:1}` is necessary in the attack payload because a `/` is invalid in a zone ID. `${PATH:0:1}` is a tricky way to get a `/` character by just grabbing the first character of your PATH environment variable.
Is this really a Python problem? `subprocess.run` for example defaults to `shell=False` so you have to set `shell=True`, and on top of that be building up argv?
The "default" API for `subprocess.run` has you doing `subprocess.run(["ping", ip])` which... I think just entirely avoids this problem?
There's def a general sort of "oh people will just copy/paste stuff into a shell" or the whole shell script arg escaping mess. Just feels like Python is not really doing anything bad here.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20100915-00/?p=12...
> \\fe80--1ff-fe23-4567-890as3.ipv6-literal.net\share
(It basically has to be this way, or the URL syntax would need to be updated to support future address families with their own address formats. New address families can be loaded at runtime, including ones that didn't exist at the time your current software was compiled -- and this is handled properly by the BSD socket API -- so hardcoding possible address formats is incorrect.)
The _only_ character that needs special handling is ], and if you're willing to declare that you can't be bothered to support link-local addresses at all then declaring that you'll support anything except addresses containing a "]" should be far easier.
Second, if you don't want to use interface IDs, you can just enable ULAs on your networks, and routing will take you to the correct interface.
> [fe80::4]:80
I really do wish they'd just stuck with dots. Or if we must upend things, commit to the bit and change the character to separate ports.
Then it would get confused with domain names (e.g. babe.cafe).
Just yesterday I tried to use rsync (like I do all the time, in my mind there's no reason to use scp when rsync does everything better), but this time I needed to specify an IPv6 address. On the (admittedly ancient) rsync version that comes with macOS, this doesn't work:
rsync foo 'user@[fe80::4]:/tmp'
Note already, how I had to put the second argument in quotes, because otherwise the shell tries to expand the square brackets as filename expansion.
But even then rsync just complains, because rsync itself separates host from path through colon. I think the only workaround is to do something like `rsync -e 'ssh user@[fe80::4] ...'`... but I just used an updated rsync from homebrew, which is of course the saner method. Still, just another colon/bracket-caused issue.
Nonetheless I do agree that the choice of colons isn't great due to how it ambiguates their meaning.
[fe80::4%eth0]:80
About here my I felt my heart start to beat really fast and I started to hyperventilate.
I'll just accept that this is as much of a nightmare as it seems.
At work, I have a rare case of a useful application of IPv6: setting IPv4 addresses. We have multiple embedded devices in one product which all got the same default IPv4. But their serials map to their MACs which map to their link-local IPv6.
So workers scan the serial and I connect to all devices at once via their IPv6 address. Then, I set their individual IPv4 address and that's all I do via IPv6.
I must say, I rather enjoy both IPv6s autoconfiguration, and the fact that my non-link-local addresses are actually unique (and if I want to, routable).
Link-local ipv6 addresses are not designed for the use case of serving web applications.
How is IPv6 weird here, it's the exact same thing in IPv4, no? If you have two different network interfaces, you have to identify which is which somehow, either by assigning a specific IP range to it or by adding some kind of identifier.
Making zones part of addresses in the first place was probably a mistake, I agree, but the problem of address conflicts when users can choose arbitrary addresses certainly isn't a design flaw of IPv6.
Is there an equivalent syntax for IPv4 addresses?
`http::Uri` does, and it accepts both `%` and `%25`.
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
Routing tables get you to the destination but I think the question is about which source address to use ie which network card/interface to use as source - after all, they are all in fe80::.
For a destination in fe80:: the OS will pick the one on the right interface (in effect the IPv6 version of ARP).
You never use fe80:: as a source for a network beyond fe80:: because it and they are link local addresses. You'll send to the default gateway/GoLR/etc unless you have more explicit routes and set your source address as your IPv6 "identity" which might be one of many.
Anyway, here's your problem:
"But if you try to parse this as a URL in Go, you get an error:"
Go needs fixing!
fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth0.11 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth0.13 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth0.14 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth0.15 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
fe80::/64 dev eth0.16 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
If you want to do this properly then you configure a Unique Local Addresses (ULA) out of the range fc00::/7. These are the equivalent of 192.168 or 172.16 or 10. and they can be routed.
Trying to run services on fe80: addresses is a mistake IMHO
These link local addresses are quiet handy. But sadly the parsing of these with modern browsers is a flame war ever since. I assume that's the reason why we don't see its usage that often.
Another nice use case is to use these link local addresses in cloud environments...
After you'd get a unique local than thebn would be used for normal routing needs.
Did I get the wrong?
Even though it's rare, I actually do use it if I want to talk to another host on a very specific interface. Sometimes there's multiple paths.
RFC 6874: Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6874.html)
Which says that, yes, you need to %-encode the %, so a URL containing a host of fe80::4%eth0 becomes http://[fe80::4%25eth0]/. Yes, that's ugly. Sorry.
> TL;DR: computers were a mistake.
I agree entirely.
(For what it's worth, I am a maintainer of Go's net/url package, and I believe net/url correctly handles zone ids in URLs. It's always possible there's something wrong I'm not aware of. Please let me know if there is!)
Now if someone else a URI, is there going to be any confusion on how many times a URI needs to be decoded?
If the answer is yes, then we have a problem.
(and by looking at the other comments in this thread, the answer is most definitely yes)
Ideally, you’d be able to connect a PC and a printer with an Ethernet cable, they would both (having failed to find a better alternative) allocate a link-local address for themselves, and then the PC would use DNS-SD over mDNS to discover the printer and show it to you. Similar story with PCs exporting their media files over the network, a—say—set-top box, and a switch they’re all plugged into.
And for some combinations of parts this actually works. It’s just that the functionality is not always well-exposed by the OS, that a switch + DHCP server in a box (in practice, a consumer router) can work just as well with no configuration as an unmanaged switch can, and that people are not that interested in local-only wired networks anymore.
There’s also the “having failed to find a better alternative” part: unlike with IPv6, the RFC does not endorse always assigning a link-local address as the second one next to a static or DHCP-provided one, I’m guessing for software compatibility. Thus you really only see 169.254.* in your interface configuration when DHCP is borked, and it’s kind of useless in that case.
I also didn't realize that part of the idea behind these LL things was one of the rounds of wishful networking ideas of the 90s or 2000s, kind of a cousin of UPnP and mDNS in that way (in increasing order of eventual usefulness).
Considered completely in a vacuum, especially ignoring the WAN, I can see how it seemed silly that if you plugged three computers and a printer into a switch, rolling random IP addresses like this could have allowed things to be discoverable and to function locally (I thought mDNS or "Bonjour"/"Rendezvous" as Apple called it came much later, but I know my PCs could "see" each other with NetBIOS or whatever long before mDNS was invented).
> This document completely obsoletes [RFC6874], which implementors of web browsers have determined is impracticable to support [LINK-LOCAL-URI], and replaces it with a generic UI requirement. Note that obsoleting [RFC6874] reverts the change that it made to the URI syntax defined by [RFC3986], so [RFC3986] is no longer updated by [RFC6874]. As far as is known, this change will have no significant impact on non-browser deployments of URIs.
Given that net/url has supported RFC 6874 since before RFC 9844 came along, our choices are:
* Keep supporting the RFC 6874 syntax.
* Drop support for it, require strict RFC 3986, have no support for zone IDs in URLs at all. Breaks existing users, utterly infeasible.
* Stop supporting RFC 6875 and start supporting an unescaped % as the zone ID separator, which conforms to no standard I know of. Also breaks existing users, infeasible.
* Some sort of hybrid where we try to support both %25 and % as a separator? Ugh.
Of these, keeping the existing support as-is until or unless a new standard comes along seems like the best option.
https://github.com/Xe/site/commit/f846b489092412b8c1ef70bebd...
I'm an avid user of IPv6 by the way, I don't share a lot of the criticism. For me personally it's a net positive. But this is a wart where I wish they went a different direction.