Mark MASTG-TEST-0016 as covered by v2 (by @guardsquare) #3026
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cpholguera
requested changes
Nov 4, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please double check:
- Do we have a new test that tests for "Identify all instances of
SecureRandomthat are not created using the default constructor. Specifying the seed value may reduce randomness." (paragraph 2). If not, we should add one. - Are we using all the links from this test in the new ones?
- https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/java/MSC02-J.+Generate+strong+random+numbers "Generation of Strong Random Numbers"
- https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/java/MSC63-J.+Ensure+that+SecureRandom+is+properly+seeded "Proper seeding of SecureRandom"
- https://franklinta.com/2014/08/31/predicting-the-next-math-random-in-java/ "Predicting the next Math.random() in Java"
- Do we have some indication about "You can use @MASTG-TECH-0033 on the mentioned classes and methods to determine input / output values being used.". This may be useful to determine if it's a security-relevant context. Otherwise, we should reverse engineer the code surrounding the found methods to determine if they seem to be used in a security-relevant context. (adding this could be as simple as adding a short paragraph in the Evaluation section of MASTG-TEST-0204)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- The suggestion does not apply anymore. The recent documentation about SecureRandom explains that the provided seed supplements the seed, does not replace it. I was not sure where to document this.
- Will add the missing ones.
- Will adjust
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After checking, both CMU links (which I did not include) are currently very outdated, and their recommendations do not apply anymore. I am mentioning one of them in the mitigations, but tbh even there some of the recommendations are slightly incorrect.
Reviewer suggestions Co-authored-by: Carlos Holguera <[email protected]>
nmsa
commented
Nov 6, 2024
| The default [no-argument constructor of `SecureRandom`](https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/java/MSC02-J.+Generate+strong+random+numbers "Generation of Strong Random Numbers") is usually recommended for generating secure random values, as it uses the system-specified seed value to generate a 128-byte-long random number. | ||
|
|
||
| Providing an hard coded seed to the constructor of `SecureRandom` is [discouraged in Android Documentation](https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/risks/weak-prng?source=studio#weak-prng-java-security-securerandom), as it may lead to introducing deterministic behavior of `SecureRandom` in some implementations. | ||
| `SecureRandom` documentation explains that [the provided seed supplements, rather than replacing the existing seed](https://developer.android.com/reference/java/security/SecureRandom?hl=en#setSeed(byte[])), but this may not apply if an [old security provider](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/security-crypto-provider-deprecated-in.html) is being used. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I included this to cover for this weird corner case, so that the mitigation explains all the relevant points.
Co-authored-by: Jeroen Beckers <[email protected]>
…or cryptographic security
…NGs in Android apps
…r security-relevant contexts
cpholguera
approved these changes
Jan 10, 2025
titze
pushed a commit
to titze/owasp-mastg
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2025
* Mark MASTG-TEST-0016 as covered by v2 * Add documentation refs * Apply suggestions from code review Reviewer suggestions Co-authored-by: Carlos Holguera <[email protected]> * Complemented analysis and mitigations * Add links to mitigations * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Jeroen Beckers <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Carlos Holguera <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jeroen Beckers <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request to the OWASP MASTG. Please make sure that:
This PR closes #2947 closes #3108