Files
Open_Ultra_SAST/src/openultrasast/model/taint.py
T
Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 0ffa99b5e6 feat(model): one finding per sink site, and WordPress's registration model
contributor-scan 5.4. Both halves, and the second found a frontend blocker.

**One verdict per region was right for a pair and wrong for a file.** A
pair is one labelled function with one bug, so one answer is correct. A
region spanning a PHP file is not: the probe's SQL injection on line 5 and
command injection on line 13 produced ONE injection verdict, `system` won
it on flow length, and the SQL injection went unreported by construction
rather than by any failure of the analysis.

`taint.verdicts()` now returns one verdict per distinct sink site,
strongest first, and its first element is exactly what `verdict()`
returns -- so the pair path and every committed measurement resting on it
are unchanged, and the gates are byte-identical. Both entry points share
`_usable_flows` so neither can drift from the other.

  php probe   2 of 3 -> 3 of 3
  vampi       6 entailed, unchanged, now with lines on access-control
              findings from task 2.7 (users.py:187, books.py:51 -- the two
              documented BOLAs at their exact lines)
  libpng      1 -> 2 entailed; the second was hidden by the collapse.
              Neither is validated and both are in contrib/.

**WordPress registers handlers rather than decorating them, and the hook
name is the declaration.** `wp_ajax_nopriv_*` is WordPress saying
logged-out callers reach this, so it is public; `wp_ajax_*` fires only for
logged-in ones; `permission_callback => __return_true` declares a REST
route open. That is the declared-provenance signal task 2.8 needs,
arriving from a second framework. Plus every top-level PHP function as its
own region, without which a file is one region however many functions it
holds: 1 file-level region became 10 function-scoped ones.

**And a blocker, recorded as 5.5.** php2cpg emits a CPG containing only
ONE PHP file, the last alphabetically. Reproduced twice on independent
samples; both files parse cleanly under `php -l` and under PHP-Parser
directly, and joern-parse reports success either way. php2cpg logs "Found
warning in PHP-Parser JSON output" naming the survivor, and that warning is
PHP-Parser's own `====> File X:` banner appearing in what php2cpg expects
to be pure JSON.

Not isolated yet: this machine has no PHP interpreter, so php2cpg was
driven through a container shim. The banner comes from PHP-Parser rather
than the shim, which makes a shim-only cause unlikely but not excluded, and
rerunning with the native php-cli in the shipped image is the first step.
It blocks WordPress outright -- a plugin is many files, and a scan that
silently covers one of them and reports success is the quiet failure Req
5.6 was approved for.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
2026-09-09 14:30:48 +02:00

262 lines
13 KiB
Python

"""Taint reachability over the CPG: the arbiter for the flow families (Req 6.1).
The verdict is the static analogue of a reproduced crash. An unsanitized source→sink path is `ENTAILED` — the
graph establishes it and the LLM's claim is no longer load-bearing. A path a sanitizer may break is
`CORROBORATED`: the flow is real, but whether the sanitizer is *sufficient* is a semantic judgement the model
cannot make, and that residual is the LLM's — checked against this verdict rather than averaged over runs.
No path at all yields `None`, not a negative verdict: the caller reports `suspicion`. And a query that failed
yields `None` too, because "the engine could not decide" is not "there is no flow" — conflating them is how a
missing engine would silently become a clean bill of health.
"""
from __future__ import annotations
from collections.abc import Mapping, Sequence
from ..cpg.backend import CpgResult
from .ladder import Rung, Verdict
from .specs import TaintSpec
def request_params(
spec: TaintSpec, *, function: str = "", file: str = "", parameter_sources: bool = False, call_depth: int = 0
) -> dict[str, object]:
"""The query parameters this arbiter sends. Shared with the batcher so there is one definition, not two.
Two copies of a parameter dict is precisely the duplication that produced five bugs of one shape in the
predecessor: a change made in one place and not its sibling.
``file`` scopes the answer to one source file. A region with no enclosing function sends ``function=""``,
which without this matches the whole repository and gets that answer attributed to it -- one permissive
literal in `app.py` became eight identical entailed findings in eight files that do not contain it. Empty
means unscoped, which is what the single-region pair path still uses.
"""
return {
"sources": spec.sources,
"sinks": spec.sinks,
"sanitizers": spec.sanitizers,
"function": function,
"file": file,
"parameterSources": "true" if parameter_sources else "false",
"callDepth": str(call_depth),
"boundedSinks": spec.bounded_sinks,
}
def verdict(
cpg: CpgResult, spec: TaintSpec, *, function: str = "", file: str = "", parameter_sources: bool = False, call_depth: int = 0
) -> Verdict | None:
"""The strongest verdict the taint query supports for ``spec`` in ``function``, or ``None`` to stay at suspicion.
``parameter_sources`` additionally treats the labeled function's own parameters as untrusted. That is right
for a function-level pair, where the function boundary *is* the trust boundary, and wrong for a whole
repository, where most parameters carry internal values — so it is off by default and the caller opts in.
An ENTRY POINT is the case where both are true at once: its parameters are attacker input by definition,
which is what the driver uses to decide.
``call_depth`` admits sinks that many call-graph levels below the labeled method. Zero keeps the old
function-local question; above zero is what lets a handler's parameter reach a sink in another module,
which is the shape VAmPI's SQL injection has and the shape a function-scoped question cannot see.
"""
considered = _usable_flows(cpg, spec, function=function, file=file, parameter_sources=parameter_sources, call_depth=call_depth)
if not considered:
return None
# A flow the graph cannot see a discharge for is the finding; a sanitized or BOUNDED one is a question.
# libpng bounds `strcpy(outname+len, ".png")` with `(len = strlen(inname)) > 250` against a char[256],
# and entailing it is a claim the code contradicts. But the bound reaches the sink through an `error`
# flag rather than by dominating it, so the graph has not shown the copy is guarded either -- and a
# bound is no proof of safety in any case, off-by-one being the classic way they fail. Corroborated is
# the honest rung: the model cannot assert this, so the judge is asked instead of the site being
# silenced.
open_flows = [flow for flow in considered if not flow["sanitized"] and not flow["bounded"]]
# Deterministic by construction: a total order, then take the first. Nothing depends on engine ordering.
chosen = min(open_flows or considered, key=lambda flow: _rank(flow, spec))
return _verdict_for(chosen, spec)
def _usable_flows(
cpg: CpgResult,
spec: TaintSpec,
*,
function: str,
file: str,
parameter_sources: bool,
call_depth: int,
) -> list[dict[str, object]]:
"""The flows both entry points reason over, so neither can drift from the other.
A sink whose *shape* is safe is the fix, not the bug: `execute(sql, params)` binds rather than
interpolates and `printf("literal", x)` has a constant format string, so a flow reaching them is not a
vulnerability even though its taint path is identical to the vulnerable twin's. Dropping those is what
lets the model distinguish a pair at all -- measured on the injection slice, taint reachability alone
entailed both sides of the canonical SQL pair and arbitrated nothing.
Parameter sources are then a FALLBACK, never an override. When a modelled source reaches the sink those
flows are the evidence, so a captured `res` parameter also reaching it unsanitized cannot report a fix as
still vulnerable on the strength of a flow that names no attacker input.
"""
rows = cpg.run(
"taint",
request_params(spec, function=function, file=file, parameter_sources=parameter_sources, call_depth=call_depth),
)
flows = [flow for flow in _flows(rows, function=function) if not _has_safe_shape(flow, spec)]
modelled = [flow for flow in flows if _from_modelled_source(flow, spec)]
return modelled or flows
def verdicts(
cpg: CpgResult,
spec: TaintSpec,
*,
function: str = "",
file: str = "",
parameter_sources: bool = False,
call_depth: int = 0,
) -> list[Verdict]:
"""One verdict per distinct SINK SITE, strongest first.
``verdict`` answers "what is the strongest thing to say about this region", which is the right question
for a pair: one labelled function, one bug, one answer. It is the wrong question for a region that spans
a file. A PHP file with an SQL injection on line 6 and a command injection on line 13 got ONE injection
verdict, and `system` won it on flow length -- so the SQL injection went unreported, by construction
rather than by any failure of the analysis.
The first element is exactly what ``verdict`` returns, so the pair path and the committed measurements
that rest on it are unchanged.
"""
flows = _usable_flows(cpg, spec, function=function, file=file, parameter_sources=parameter_sources, call_depth=call_depth)
if not flows:
return []
by_site: dict[str, list[Mapping[str, object]]] = {}
for flow in flows:
by_site.setdefault(_location(flow) or str(flow.get("sink", "")), []).append(flow)
chosen: list[Mapping[str, object]] = []
for site_flows in by_site.values():
open_flows = [flow for flow in site_flows if not flow["sanitized"] and not flow["bounded"]]
chosen.append(min(open_flows or site_flows, key=lambda flow: _rank(flow, spec)))
# Same total order the single-verdict path uses, so `verdicts(...)[0] == verdict(...)`.
chosen.sort(key=lambda flow: (bool(flow["sanitized"]) or bool(flow["bounded"]), _rank(flow, spec)))
return [_verdict_for(flow, spec) for flow in chosen]
def _verdict_for(flow: Mapping[str, object], spec: TaintSpec) -> Verdict:
settled = bool(flow["sanitized"]) or bool(flow["bounded"])
rung = Rung.CORROBORATED if settled else Rung.ENTAILED
return Verdict(rung=rung, family=spec.family, witness=_witness(flow), location=_location(flow))
def _flows(rows: object, *, function: str) -> list[dict[str, object]]:
"""The query's rows, filtered to the labeled function. A non-list (a failure) yields nothing."""
if not isinstance(rows, Sequence) or isinstance(rows, (str, bytes)):
return []
kept: list[dict[str, object]] = []
for row in rows:
if not isinstance(row, Mapping):
continue
if function and not _in_scope(row, function):
continue
kept.append(
{
"sink": str(row.get("sink", "")),
"sinkArity": row.get("sinkArity"),
"sinkArg0Literal": row.get("sinkArg0Literal"),
"inLabeledScope": row.get("inLabeledScope"),
"sinkLine": str(row.get("sinkLine", "")),
"sinkMethod": str(row.get("sinkMethod", "")),
"sinkFile": str(row.get("sinkFile", "")),
"bounded": bool(row.get("bounded", False)),
"bound": str(row.get("bound", "")),
"source": str(row.get("source", "")),
"sanitized": bool(row.get("sanitized", False)),
"length": _as_int(row.get("length")),
}
)
return kept
def _has_safe_shape(flow: Mapping[str, object], spec: TaintSpec) -> bool:
"""Does this flow end at a sink call written in the form the spec declares safe?
Only sinks named in ``safe_shape_sinks`` are subject to the test -- ``os.system(x)`` is not safe merely
because it takes one argument. A row that carries no shape fields (an engine that could not report arity)
is judged on the flow alone: unknown shape must never be read as a safe one.
"""
if not spec.safe_shape_sinks:
return False
sink = str(flow.get("sink", ""))
if not any(name in sink for name in spec.safe_shape_sinks):
return False
arity = flow.get("sinkArity")
literal = flow.get("sinkArg0Literal")
if arity is None and literal is None:
return False # shape unknown -> judge on the flow, never assume safety
bound = isinstance(arity, int | float) and int(arity) >= 2
constant_format = literal is True
return bound or constant_format
def _as_int(value: object) -> int:
return int(value) if isinstance(value, int | float) else 0
def _in_scope(row: Mapping[str, object], function: str) -> bool:
"""Is this sink inside the labeled function, counting closures nested within it?
JavaScript is callback-heavy, so the method containing a sink routinely is not the labeled function --
`fs.readFileSync` inside the callback passed to `fs.stat` has enclosing method `<lambda>0`. The query
decides containment by line range and reports it here; a row that carries no flag falls back to the name
comparison, because an engine that cannot report scope must not have its sinks silently treated as scoped.
"""
flag = row.get("inLabeledScope")
if isinstance(flag, bool):
return flag
return str(row.get("sinkMethod", "")) == function
def _from_modelled_source(flow: Mapping[str, object], spec: TaintSpec) -> bool:
"""Does this flow start at something the source model names, rather than a bare captured parameter?"""
source = str(flow["source"])
return any(pattern in source for pattern in spec.sources)
def _rank(flow: Mapping[str, object], spec: TaintSpec) -> tuple[int, int, str, str]:
"""A flow from a modelled source first, then shortest, then lexicographic — a total order.
Shortest alone picks the wrong witness once closures are in scope: a captured `res` reaches the sink in
three steps while the actual `req.url -> ... -> possibleFilename` path takes eleven, and reporting the
former names no attacker input at all. Naming a real source is what makes a witness evidence rather than
an assertion, so it outranks brevity.
"""
source = str(flow["source"])
rank_modelled = 0 if _from_modelled_source(flow, spec) else 1
return (rank_modelled, _as_int(flow["length"]), source, str(flow["sink"]))
def _witness(flow: Mapping[str, object]) -> str:
line = flow.get("sinkLine") or "?"
where = str(flow.get("sinkFile") or "")
at = f" in {where}" if where else ""
bound = str(flow.get("bound") or "")
governed = f", governed by `{bound}`" if flow.get("bounded") and bound else ""
return f"{flow['source']} -> {flow['sink']}{at} (line {line}, {flow['length']} steps{governed})"
def _location(flow: Mapping[str, object]) -> str:
"""``path:line:function`` of the SINK, when the engine reported a file. Empty leaves the region's own.
All three parts come from the sink, not from the region that asked. A flow that crosses modules ends in
a different file AND a different function, and naming the entry point beside the sink's line describes a
place that does not exist -- `models/user_model.py:73:get_by_username`, where line 73 is inside
`get_user`.
"""
where = str(flow.get("sinkFile") or "")
line = str(flow.get("sinkLine") or "")
if not where or not line.lstrip("-").isdigit() or int(line) < 0:
return ""
return f"{where}:{line}:{flow.get('sinkMethod') or '?'}"
__all__ = ["request_params", "verdict"]