If we get a repo path like "-repo.git", we may try to invoke
"git-upload-pack -repo.git". This is going to fail, since
upload-pack will interpret it as a set of bogus options. But
let's reject this before we even run the sub-program, since
we would not want to allow any mischief with repo names that
actually are real command-line options.
You can still ask for such a path via git-daemon, but there's no
security problem there, because git-daemon enters the repo itself
and then passes "." on the command line.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Per the explanation in the previous patch, this should be
(and is) rejected.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When passed an ssh:// url, git strips ssh://host from the url but does
not remove leading slashes from the path. So when this test used
ssh://remote//path/to/pwd, the path accessed by our fake SSH is
//path/to/pwd, which cygwin interprets as a UNC path, causing the test
to fail.
We may want to actually fix this in git itself, making it remove extra
slashes from urls before feeding them to transports or helpers, but
that's for another topic as it could cause regressions.
Signed-off-by: Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
If we are cloning an untrusted remote repository into a
sandbox, we may also want to fetch remote submodules in
order to get the complete view as intended by the other
side. However, that opens us up to attacks where a malicious
user gets us to clone something they would not otherwise
have access to (this is not necessarily a problem by itself,
but we may then act on the cloned contents in a way that
exposes them to the attacker).
Ideally such a setup would sandbox git entirely away from
high-value items, but this is not always practical or easy
to set up (e.g., OS network controls may block multiple
protocols, and we would want to enable some but not others).
We can help this case by providing a way to restrict
particular protocols. We use a whitelist in the environment.
This is more annoying to set up than a blacklist, but
defaults to safety if the set of protocols git supports
grows). If no whitelist is specified, we continue to default
to allowing all protocols (this is an "unsafe" default, but
since the minority of users will want this sandboxing
effect, it is the only sensible one).
A note on the tests: ideally these would all be in a single
test file, but the git-daemon and httpd test infrastructure
is an all-or-nothing proposition rather than a test-by-test
prerequisite. By putting them all together, we would be
unable to test the file-local code on machines without
apache.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
