Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
53 lines (44 loc) · 8.98 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

53 lines (44 loc) · 8.98 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for jedisct1/libsodium

Attack Surface: 1. Input Validation Failures

Description: Insufficient or incorrect validation of input data specifically provided to libsodium functions.

  • Libsodium Contribution: Libsodium functions expect specific input formats, sizes, and types. Incorrect inputs directly passed to libsodium functions can lead to unexpected and potentially dangerous behavior within the library itself, bypassing security assumptions.
  • Example: An application uses crypto_sign_verify_detached() to verify a signature. If the application doesn't validate the length of the signature buffer before passing it to crypto_sign_verify_detached(), and provides a buffer that is too short, it could lead to a buffer under-read within libsodium, potentially causing a crash or unpredictable behavior.
  • Impact: Memory corruption, denial of service, cryptographic failures, potential information disclosure or unauthorized access depending on the specific vulnerability triggered within libsodium.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Input Validation for Libsodium APIs: Always rigorously validate all inputs intended for libsodium functions against the documented requirements for data type, size, and format before calling the libsodium function.
    • Utilize Libsodium's Size Constants: Use constants provided by libsodium (e.g., crypto_secretbox_KEYBYTES, crypto_sign_BYTES) to ensure correct input sizes are used in validation checks.
    • Error Handling and Defensive Programming: Implement robust error handling to catch potential issues early. Even if libsodium is designed to be robust, defensive programming practices are crucial when interacting with any external library, especially cryptographic ones.

Attack Surface: 2. Incorrect Algorithm Choice or Usage

Description: Selecting an inappropriate cryptographic algorithm from libsodium's offerings or using a correct algorithm in a fundamentally flawed manner due to misunderstanding libsodium's API or cryptographic principles.

  • Libsodium Contribution: Libsodium provides a powerful but diverse set of cryptographic primitives. Misunderstanding the security properties and appropriate use cases of each libsodium algorithm can lead to critical vulnerabilities if the wrong algorithm is chosen or implemented incorrectly within the application's libsodium integration.
  • Example: An application needs to encrypt data and ensure its integrity. A developer, misunderstanding the need for authenticated encryption, might choose to use crypto_stream_xor() for encryption and then separately calculate a simple checksum (like CRC32) for integrity. This approach is cryptographically weak and vulnerable to attacks that libsodium's authenticated encryption functions (like crypto_secretbox_easy() or crypto_aead_chacha20poly1305_ietf_encrypt()) are designed to prevent.
  • Impact: Complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity of data. Potential for data manipulation, forgery, or information disclosure due to fundamental cryptographic weaknesses introduced by incorrect algorithm selection or usage within the libsodium context.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Deep Understanding of Libsodium's Cryptographic Primitives: Invest time in thoroughly understanding the cryptographic algorithms offered by libsodium, their security properties, and their intended use cases as documented by libsodium.
    • Prioritize Authenticated Encryption: For encryption needs, strongly prefer using libsodium's authenticated encryption functions which combine confidentiality and integrity in a secure manner.
    • Follow Libsodium's Recommendations and Examples: Adhere to the usage patterns and examples provided in the official libsodium documentation and reputable cryptographic guides when implementing cryptographic operations using libsodium.
    • Cryptographic Review by Experts: For critical applications, seek review of the cryptographic design and libsodium integration by experienced security or cryptography experts to catch potential flaws in algorithm choice or implementation.

Attack Surface: 3. Nonce/IV Reuse

Description: Critically flawed reuse of nonces (Number used ONCE) or Initialization Vectors (IVs) with the same key in libsodium's symmetric encryption algorithms.

  • Libsodium Contribution: Libsodium's symmetric encryption algorithms, like crypto_secretbox_easy() and stream ciphers, rely on the fundamental cryptographic principle that nonces/IVs must be unique for each encryption operation with the same key. Libsodium's security guarantees are directly broken if this principle is violated.
  • Example: An application uses crypto_secretbox_easy() to encrypt multiple messages with the same key but mistakenly uses a fixed, hardcoded nonce for every encryption. This nonce reuse directly undermines the security of crypto_secretbox_easy(), allowing an attacker to potentially recover the keystream and decrypt all messages encrypted with that key and nonce combination.
  • Impact: Catastrophic compromise of confidentiality and potentially integrity of all encrypted data. Attackers can decrypt past, present, and future messages encrypted with the compromised key and nonce combination. This is a fundamental cryptographic break.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Enforce Unique Nonce/IV Generation for Every Encryption: Implement a robust mechanism to guarantee that nonces or IVs are cryptographically unique for every single encryption operation performed with a given key when using libsodium's symmetric encryption.
    • Utilize Libsodium's Random Nonce Generation: Prefer using randombytes_buf() to generate truly random nonces for each encryption.
    • Deterministic Unique Nonce Generation (with extreme care): If deterministic nonce generation is absolutely necessary, use a properly implemented counter-based approach, ensuring the counter never repeats and is securely managed. This is complex and error-prone; random nonces are generally safer and recommended by libsodium.
    • Never Hardcode or Reuse Nonces: Absolutely avoid hardcoding nonces or reusing them across multiple encryption operations with the same key. This is a critical security error when using libsodium's symmetric encryption.

Attack Surface: 4. API Misuse Leading to Cryptographic Weakness

Description: Incorrectly using libsodium's API in a way that, while not causing immediate crashes, introduces subtle but critical cryptographic weaknesses or bypasses intended security mechanisms within libsodium.

  • Libsodium Contribution: Libsodium's API, while designed to be user-friendly, still requires careful and correct usage to maintain cryptographic security. Misunderstanding subtle aspects of the API or making incorrect assumptions about how libsodium functions operate can lead to exploitable vulnerabilities.
  • Example: An application intends to use detached signatures with crypto_sign_detached() and crypto_sign_verify_detached(). However, due to API misuse, the application might incorrectly pass the message as the signature and vice-versa to crypto_sign_verify_detached(). While the function might not immediately error out, the verification will be fundamentally flawed, allowing any signature (even invalid ones) to be accepted as valid, completely bypassing signature verification.
  • Impact: Bypass of intended security mechanisms (like signature verification), leading to potential forgery, unauthorized actions, or data manipulation. Cryptographic weakness introduced due to incorrect interaction with libsodium's API.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Meticulous API Documentation Review: Thoroughly and repeatedly review the libsodium API documentation for every function used, paying close attention to parameter order, data types, return values, and security considerations.
    • Unit and Integration Testing Focused on Security: Implement comprehensive unit and integration tests specifically designed to verify the correct cryptographic behavior of the application's libsodium integration. Test both positive (valid inputs) and negative (invalid inputs, error conditions) scenarios, focusing on security-critical paths.
    • Code Reviews with Security Focus: Conduct code reviews by developers with a strong understanding of cryptography and libsodium's API to specifically look for potential API misuse and cryptographic weaknesses.
    • Static Analysis Tools: Utilize static analysis tools that can help detect potential API misuse patterns or common cryptographic errors in the code interacting with libsodium.