Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
156 lines (133 loc) · 21.4 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

156 lines (133 loc) · 21.4 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for jedisct1/libsodium

Mitigation Strategy: Regularly Update Libsodium

  • Description:
    1. Monitor Libsodium Releases: Subscribe to the libsodium project's release notifications (e.g., GitHub releases, mailing lists, security advisories).
    2. Review Changelogs: When a new version is released, carefully review the changelog and security advisories to identify security fixes and improvements specifically for libsodium.
    3. Update Dependency: Update the libsodium dependency in your project's dependency management configuration to the latest stable version.
    4. Test Thoroughly: After updating libsodium, conduct comprehensive testing, including unit tests, integration tests, and security tests, to ensure compatibility and identify any regressions introduced by the libsodium update.
    5. Deploy Updated Application: Deploy the updated application with the latest libsodium version to all environments (development, staging, production).
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Known Vulnerabilities in Libsodium (High Severity): Exploitation of publicly disclosed security flaws in older versions of libsodium, potentially leading to data breaches, authentication bypass, or denial of service.
  • Impact: Significantly Reduces risk of exploitation of known libsodium vulnerabilities.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, using automated dependency checks in CI/CD pipeline and monthly dependency update reviews.
  • Missing Implementation: N/A - Currently implemented for all application components using libsodium.

Mitigation Strategy: Verify Libsodium Integrity

  • Description:
    1. Download from Official Source: Obtain libsodium binaries or source code only from the official libsodium GitHub repository or trusted distribution channels.
    2. Verify Checksums/Signatures: Download and verify checksums (e.g., SHA-256) or digital signatures provided by the libsodium project for the downloaded libsodium files. Use a reliable tool to calculate checksums and compare them.
    3. Integrate Verification in Build Process: Automate the integrity verification process within your build pipeline to ensure that every build uses a verified copy of libsodium. Fail the build if verification fails.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Supply Chain Attacks Targeting Libsodium (High Severity): Compromise of libsodium binaries or source code during download or distribution, potentially injecting malware or backdoors into your application specifically through libsodium.
    • Man-in-the-Middle Attacks on Libsodium Downloads (Medium Severity): Tampering with libsodium downloads during transit, leading to the use of a compromised libsodium library.
  • Impact: Significantly Reduces risk of supply chain attacks and man-in-the-middle attacks specifically targeting libsodium.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, checksum verification is part of the automated build script for backend services.
  • Missing Implementation: Integrity verification is not fully automated for client-side JavaScript bundles delivered via CDN. SRI implementation is pending.

Mitigation Strategy: Adhere to Libsodium's Best Practices

  • Description:
    1. Study Documentation: Thoroughly read and understand the official libsodium documentation, including API descriptions, usage examples, and security recommendations specific to libsodium.
    2. Follow Recommended Usage Patterns: Adhere to the recommended usage patterns and best practices outlined in the documentation for each libsodium function and cryptographic operation.
    3. Review Examples: Study the provided code examples in the libsodium documentation and official repositories to understand correct and secure usage of libsodium APIs.
    4. Stay Updated: Keep up-to-date with the latest libsodium documentation and best practices as libsodium evolves and new recommendations are published.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Cryptographic Misuse of Libsodium APIs (High Severity): Incorrect or insecure usage of libsodium APIs due to lack of understanding or negligence, leading to vulnerabilities like weak encryption, insecure key management, or implementation flaws specifically related to libsodium.
    • Logic Errors in Cryptographic Implementation Using Libsodium (High Severity): Introducing vulnerabilities through incorrect cryptographic logic when combining or extending libsodium functionalities.
  • Impact: Significantly Reduces risk of cryptographic misuse and implementation errors by promoting correct and secure usage of libsodium.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented through developer training and code review guidelines emphasizing documentation review.
  • Missing Implementation: Formalized security training specifically focused on libsodium best practices and secure cryptographic development is needed.

Mitigation Strategy: Favor High-Level APIs

  • Description:
    1. Identify High-Level Libsodium APIs: Recognize and prioritize the use of libsodium's high-level, "easy" APIs (e.g., crypto_box_easy, crypto_secretbox_easy, crypto_sign_detached).
    2. Use High-Level APIs When Possible: Whenever possible, choose high-level libsodium APIs over low-level APIs for common cryptographic tasks. These APIs handle many security details automatically within libsodium.
    3. Understand Trade-offs: Be aware of the trade-offs when using high-level libsodium APIs (e.g., less flexibility, opinionated choices). Ensure they meet your application's security and functional requirements when using libsodium.
    4. Document API Choices: Document the rationale for choosing specific libsodium APIs (high-level or low-level) in your code and design documentation.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Cryptographic Misconfiguration of Libsodium (Medium Severity): Incorrect configuration of cryptographic parameters or algorithms when using low-level libsodium APIs, leading to weakened security.
    • Implementation Errors with Libsodium (Medium Severity): Increased risk of making mistakes when manually handling cryptographic details in low-level libsodium APIs.
  • Impact: Moderately Reduces risk of cryptographic misconfiguration and implementation errors by simplifying cryptographic operations within libsodium and reducing manual configuration.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, high-level libsodium APIs are generally preferred in the codebase, especially for common encryption and signing tasks.
  • Missing Implementation: Code review process should explicitly check for opportunities to replace low-level libsodium API usage with high-level alternatives where appropriate.

Mitigation Strategy: Handle Error Conditions Properly

  • Description:
    1. Check Return Values of Libsodium Functions: Always check the return values of libsodium functions. Many functions return -1, NULL, or specific error codes on failure.
    2. Implement Error Handling for Libsodium: Implement robust error handling logic to detect and respond appropriately to cryptographic failures reported by libsodium functions. This may include logging errors, retrying operations, or gracefully failing and informing the user.
    3. Avoid Ignoring Libsodium Errors: Never ignore return values from libsodium functions. Assuming success without verification can lead to security vulnerabilities or unexpected behavior when using libsodium.
    4. Document Error Handling: Document the error handling strategy for cryptographic operations using libsodium in your application's design and code documentation.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Cryptographic Failures in Libsodium Leading to Data Exposure (High Severity): Ignoring errors in encryption or decryption operations performed by libsodium could result in unencrypted data being processed or stored.
    • Authentication Bypass due to Libsodium Errors (Medium Severity): Errors in signature verification or key exchange using libsodium could lead to authentication bypass or unauthorized access.
    • Denial of Service due to Unhandled Libsodium Errors (Low Severity): Unhandled errors from libsodium could potentially lead to application crashes or denial of service.
  • Impact: Moderately Reduces risk of data exposure and authentication bypass by ensuring cryptographic failures within libsodium are detected and handled correctly.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented, error handling is present in most critical cryptographic operations involving libsodium, but consistency needs improvement.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to conduct a systematic review of all libsodium API calls to ensure comprehensive error handling is implemented and standardized across the codebase.

Mitigation Strategy: Avoid Deprecated or Discouraged Functions

  • Description:
    1. Monitor Deprecation Notices in Libsodium: Pay attention to deprecation warnings and notices in libsodium documentation and release notes.
    2. Identify Deprecated Libsodium Functions: Identify any deprecated or discouraged libsodium functions currently used in your codebase.
    3. Migrate to Recommended Libsodium Alternatives: Replace deprecated libsodium functions with the recommended alternatives as suggested by the libsodium project. Follow migration guides if provided by libsodium.
    4. Regularly Review Libsodium Usage: Periodically review your codebase to ensure no new deprecated libsodium functions are introduced and to proactively address any future deprecations in libsodium.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Use of Weak or Vulnerable Algorithms in Libsodium (Medium Severity): Deprecated libsodium functions may be based on outdated or weakened cryptographic algorithms that are no longer considered secure by libsodium.
    • Security Vulnerabilities in Older Libsodium Implementations (Medium Severity): Deprecated libsodium functions might have known security vulnerabilities that are fixed in newer, recommended alternatives within libsodium.
    • Lack of Future Support for Deprecated Libsodium Functions (Low Severity): Deprecated libsodium functions may not receive future security updates or bug fixes from the libsodium project.
  • Impact: Moderately Reduces risk of using weak or vulnerable cryptographic algorithms and functions within libsodium by encouraging the use of up-to-date and secure alternatives provided by libsodium.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented, developers are generally aware of deprecation warnings, but a systematic review process is missing.
  • Missing Implementation: Implement a process to regularly scan the codebase for deprecated libsodium functions and track migration efforts.

Mitigation Strategy: Initialize Libsodium Properly

  • Description:
    1. Call sodium_init() Early: Ensure that the sodium_init() function is called at the very beginning of your application's execution, before any other libsodium functions are used.
    2. Check Initialization Success of Libsodium: Check the return value of sodium_init(). It returns -1 on failure. Implement error handling to gracefully handle initialization failures (e.g., log an error and terminate the application if libsodium fails to initialize).
    3. Single Initialization of Libsodium: Call sodium_init() only once per application lifecycle. Avoid calling it multiple times unless explicitly required by specific use cases (which is rare for libsodium).
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Unpredictable Behavior Due to Uninitialized Libsodium (Medium Severity): Failure to initialize libsodium can lead to unpredictable behavior, crashes, or incorrect cryptographic operations due to uninitialized libsodium state.
    • Security Vulnerabilities due to Uninitialized Libsodium State (Medium Severity): Uninitialized libsodium state might lead to security vulnerabilities if cryptographic operations rely on properly initialized random number generators or other internal components within libsodium.
  • Impact: Moderately Reduces risk of unpredictable behavior and potential security issues caused by uninitialized libsodium state.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, sodium_init() is called at the application startup in both frontend and backend components.
  • Missing Implementation: N/A - Initialization is consistently implemented at application startup.

Mitigation Strategy: Use Constant-Time Operations Where Necessary

  • Description:
    1. Understand Timing Attack Risks in Cryptography: Be aware of timing attacks and the scenarios where they are relevant in cryptographic operations (e.g., operations involving secret keys, passwords, or sensitive data).
    2. Utilize Libsodium's Constant-Time Functions: Libsodium is designed to be constant-time for many operations by default. When using libsodium APIs, rely on its built-in constant-time implementations.
    3. Review Custom Cryptographic Logic with Libsodium: If you implement custom cryptographic logic or use lower-level libsodium APIs, carefully review and ensure that these operations are also constant-time to prevent timing attacks. Use constant-time comparison functions provided by libsodium (e.g., sodium_memcmp) when comparing sensitive data.
    4. Test for Timing Variations in Libsodium Usage: If necessary, perform timing analysis to verify that your cryptographic operations using libsodium are indeed constant-time and do not leak information through timing variations.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Timing Attacks Against Libsodium Usage (Medium to High Severity): Information leakage through timing variations in cryptographic operations performed by libsodium, potentially allowing attackers to recover secret keys or sensitive data by observing execution times.
  • Impact: Moderately Reduces risk of timing attacks by ensuring constant-time execution for sensitive cryptographic operations using libsodium. Libsodium already provides good default protection.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented, developers are generally aware of timing attack risks, but explicit constant-time checks are not routinely performed for custom logic involving libsodium.
  • Missing Implementation: Incorporate timing attack awareness into security training and code review guidelines, specifically in the context of libsodium usage. Conduct targeted timing analysis for critical cryptographic paths involving libsodium.

Mitigation Strategy: Utilize Libsodium's Key Generation Functions

  • Description:
    1. Identify Key Generation Needs for Libsodium: Determine where cryptographic keys are needed in your application for operations performed by libsodium (e.g., for encryption, signing, authentication).
    2. Use Libsodium Keygen Functions: Use libsodium's dedicated key generation functions (e.g., crypto_secretbox_keygen, crypto_box_keypair, crypto_sign_keypair) to generate cryptographic keys for use with libsodium.
    3. Avoid Custom or Weak Key Generation for Libsodium: Do not use custom or weak methods for key generation when working with libsodium, such as predictable random number generators or insufficient entropy sources.
    4. Seed Random Number Generator (If Necessary for Libsodium): While libsodium handles seeding internally, ensure your system's random number generator is properly seeded by the operating system or environment to provide sufficient entropy for libsodium's key generation.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Weak Key Generation for Libsodium (High Severity): Using weak or predictable key generation methods when creating keys for libsodium, leading to easily guessable or crackable keys, compromising the security of cryptographic operations performed by libsodium.
    • Insufficient Entropy for Libsodium Keys (Medium Severity): Generating keys for libsodium with insufficient randomness due to a poorly seeded random number generator, making keys more vulnerable to attacks against libsodium-based cryptography.
  • Impact: Significantly Reduces risk of weak key generation by ensuring the use of cryptographically strong random key generation functions provided by libsodium.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, libsodium key generation functions are used throughout the application for key creation intended for use with libsodium.
  • Missing Implementation: N/A - Key generation consistently uses libsodium's recommended functions.

Mitigation Strategy: Use Key Derivation Functions (KDFs) Appropriately

  • Description:
    1. Identify Password-Based Key Derivation for Libsodium: Identify scenarios where cryptographic keys for use with libsodium need to be derived from passwords or other user-provided secrets.
    2. Use Strong KDFs Provided by Libsodium: Use strong Key Derivation Functions (KDFs) like Argon2id (provided by libsodium through crypto_pwhash_argon2id_* functions) for password-based key derivation when working with libsodium.
    3. Use Salts with Libsodium KDFs: Always use unique, randomly generated salts for each password when using KDFs provided by libsodium. Store salts securely alongside the derived keys or password hashes.
    4. Tune KDF Parameters for Libsodium: Properly tune KDF parameters (e.g., memory cost, iterations) for libsodium's KDFs to balance security and performance. Choose parameters that are computationally expensive enough to resist brute-force attacks but still practical for your application's performance requirements when using libsodium.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Password Brute-Force Attacks Against Libsodium-Derived Keys (High Severity): Weak or no KDF usage makes it easier for attackers to brute-force passwords and derive cryptographic keys or authentication credentials intended for use with libsodium.
    • Rainbow Table Attacks Against Libsodium-Derived Keys (Medium Severity): Lack of salts or weak KDFs makes applications vulnerable to rainbow table attacks when deriving keys for libsodium, where precomputed tables are used to quickly crack passwords.
  • Impact: Significantly Reduces risk of password brute-force and rainbow table attacks by making password cracking computationally expensive and requiring per-password effort when deriving keys for libsodium.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, Argon2id (from libsodium) is used for password hashing and key derivation in user authentication and key wrapping processes that involve libsodium.
  • Missing Implementation: N/A - Strong KDFs from libsodium are consistently used for password-based key derivation.

Mitigation Strategy: Validate Inputs to Libsodium Functions

  • Description:
    1. Identify Input Parameters for Libsodium Functions: For each libsodium function call, identify all input parameters, including data buffers, lengths, and flags.
    2. Implement Input Validation for Libsodium: Implement validation checks for all input parameters before passing them to libsodium functions. Validate data lengths, formats, ranges, and types to ensure they are within expected and safe bounds for libsodium APIs.
    3. Handle Invalid Inputs to Libsodium: Implement error handling for invalid inputs to libsodium functions. Reject invalid inputs, log errors, and prevent further processing with invalid data when using libsodium.
    4. Sanitize Inputs (If Necessary) Before Libsodium Operations: If inputs are from untrusted sources, sanitize or normalize them before validation and cryptographic operations using libsodium to prevent injection attacks or unexpected behavior within libsodium.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Buffer Overflow Attacks in Libsodium (High Severity): Passing excessively large or malformed input buffers to libsodium functions could potentially lead to buffer overflows and memory corruption within libsodium.
    • Denial of Service Attacks Against Libsodium (Medium Severity): Maliciously crafted inputs could cause libsodium functions to crash or consume excessive resources, leading to denial of service affecting libsodium-based functionality.
    • Unexpected Behavior in Libsodium (Medium Severity): Invalid inputs could lead to unexpected or incorrect cryptographic operations within libsodium, potentially compromising security.
  • Impact: Moderately Reduces risk of buffer overflows, denial of service, and unexpected behavior caused by invalid inputs to libsodium functions.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented, input validation is performed for some critical libsodium functions, but not consistently across all libsodium API calls.
  • Missing Implementation: Systematically review all libsodium API calls and implement comprehensive input validation for all relevant parameters.