egutierrez
ef3af6dfd1
client.processFrame verified a frame's signature only when one was present
(`info.Policy.SignMsgs && f.Sig != nil`). In a room whose policy REQUIRES
per-message signatures, an attacker with data-plane access could publish a raw
frame with Sig==nil and a forged Sender, and the receiver accepted it as
authentic because the verification block was skipped (audit N3, report 0006).
On a signed-but-cleartext room any peer that knows the subject could thus
impersonate any sender.
Fix: in a SignMsgs room a missing signature is itself a rejection. processFrame
now drops any frame with Sig==nil before attempting verification:
if info.Policy.SignMsgs {
if f.Sig == nil { return } // signature required but absent: drop
// verify ...
}
Non-signed rooms (ModeNATS) are unaffected: unsigned frames there are still
delivered, so the plain-NATS path is unchanged.
Verification (pkg/client/sig_nil_spoof_test.go, TestReaudit_SigNilSpoof):
- golden: a properly signed frame from a member is delivered.
- error : an unsigned frame with a forged Sender in a SignMsgs room is dropped
(the test fails with "SIG-NIL SPOOF: receiver accepted ..." when the fix is
reverted, confirming it is a real regression guard).
- edge : a non-signed room still delivers an unsigned frame.
- CGO_ENABLED=0 go build ./... && go vet ./... && go test -count=1 ./... green.
Refs: report 0006 N3, issue 0005b.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>