fix: use random nonce per call in AES-GCM onboarding signature (ISS-2528895)

[rzp-slash]

Summary

Fixes a critical AES-GCM nonce reuse vulnerability in generateOnboardingSignature (ISS-2528895, HackerOne #3754503).

• Root cause: $iv = substr($key, 0, 12) — the IV was always derived from the first 12 bytes of the AES key, meaning every encryption call for a given partner reused the exact same key-nonce pair. AES-GCM forbids this (NIST SP 800-38D §8.3).
• Impact: An attacker observing any two onboarding_signature values from partner authorize URLs (exposed via browser history, Referer headers, server logs, Sentry, etc.) could recover the GHASH key and forge a cryptographically valid signature for any submerchant_id — without knowing the client_secret.
• Fix: Replace the static IV with random_bytes(12) (CSPRNG). The random IV is prepended to the output so receivers can extract it: output format is now hex(iv || ciphertext || tag) where the first 24 hex chars are the IV.

Changes

• src/Utility.php — generate fresh 12-byte IV per encryption call; prepend IV to ciphertext output
• tests/OAuthTokenClientTest.php — replace hardcoded deterministic assertion (which relied on the broken static IV) with behavioral assertions: valid hex output, minimum length, and uniqueness across calls

⚠️ Action Required

1. Server-side (auth.razorpay.com): Update signature decryption to read the first 24 hex chars as the IV before decrypting. Previously the IV was re-derived from the key; now it is transmitted in the payload.
2. Partner client_secret rotation: Signatures captured before this fix remain exploitable under the old key material via the Forbidden Attack. Guidance should be issued to all affected partners to rotate their client_secret.
3. Other SDKs: Apply the equivalent fix to razorpay-java, razorpay-node, and razorpay-ruby (same nonce derivation flaw exists in all four).

Test plan

• $iv = random_bytes(12) generates a unique nonce on every call
• Output hex string is at least 56 chars (24 IV + ciphertext + 32 tag)
• Two calls with identical inputs produce different signatures
• Existing integration tests pass with updated assertions

Related: ISS-2528895 | HackerOne #3754503

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[ankitdas13]

LGTM