Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
260 lines (210 loc) · 20.1 KB

sec-design.md

File metadata and controls

260 lines (210 loc) · 20.1 KB

Project Design Document: libsodium for Threat Modeling (Improved)

Project Name: libsodium Cryptographic Library

Project Repository: https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium

Document Version: 1.1 Date: October 26, 2023 Author: Gemini (AI Language Model)

1. Introduction

This document provides a refined design overview of the libsodium cryptographic library, specifically tailored for threat modeling and security analysis. It aims to be a practical resource for security professionals and developers to understand libsodium's architecture, security features, and potential vulnerabilities. This document will serve as the foundation for conducting effective threat modeling exercises to identify and mitigate security risks associated with applications using libsodium.

Libsodium is a modern, user-friendly cryptographic library, a fork of NaCl, known for its secure defaults and wide range of cryptographic primitives. Its design prioritizes security and ease of use, aiming to prevent common cryptographic missteps by developers. This document focuses on aspects relevant to security analysis and threat identification.

2. Project Overview

Purpose: To offer a robust, modern, and developer-friendly cryptographic library. Libsodium provides a comprehensive suite of cryptographic operations, including encryption (symmetric and asymmetric), hashing, digital signatures, key exchange, and password hashing. Its core principles are security, usability, and performance.

Key Features (Security Focused):

  • Secure Algorithm Selection: Employs modern, vetted algorithms like ChaCha20-Poly1305, Curve25519, Ed25519, BLAKE2b, and Argon2id, considered robust against known attacks.
  • Security by Default API: API design minimizes opportunities for developers to introduce cryptographic vulnerabilities through misuse. Secure defaults are enforced wherever possible.
  • Memory Protection Mechanisms: Includes secure memory management functions (allocation, locking, zeroing) to protect sensitive cryptographic keys and data from unauthorized access and persistence in memory or swap.
  • Cross-Platform and Portable: Wide platform support reduces implementation variations and potential platform-specific vulnerabilities.
  • Simplified API: Abstraction of complex cryptographic details behind a user-friendly API reduces the likelihood of implementation errors.
  • Performance Optimized: Performance considerations are balanced with security to ensure practical usability without compromising security.
  • Open Source and Auditable: ISC licensed, promoting transparency, community scrutiny, and independent security audits.

Target Audience (for this document): Security architects, security engineers, penetration testers, and developers responsible for threat modeling and securing applications that utilize libsodium.

3. Architecture Overview (Security Perspective)

Libsodium is designed as a linked library, exposing a C API. Its internal structure is modular, with each module encapsulating specific cryptographic functionalities. From a security perspective, the layered architecture and clear API boundaries are crucial for analysis and threat identification.

graph LR
    subgraph "Application (Untrusted Domain)"
        A["Application Code"]
    end
    subgraph "libsodium Library (Security Boundary)"
        subgraph "Public API (Attack Surface)"
            B["Public API (C Functions)"]
        end
        subgraph "Core Cryptographic Modules (Sensitive Operations)"
            C["Symmetric Encryption ('crypto_secretbox')"]
            D["Asymmetric Encryption ('crypto_box')"]
            E["Hashing ('crypto_hash')"]
            F["Digital Signatures ('crypto_sign')"]
            G["Key Exchange ('crypto_kx')"]
            H["Password Hashing ('crypto_pwhash')"]
            I["Random Number Generation ('randombytes')"]
            J["Utilities ('sodium_base64_encode')"]
        end
        subgraph "Memory Management (Sensitive Data Handling)"
            K["Secure Memory Allocation ('sodium_malloc', 'sodium_free')"]
            L["Memory Locking ('sodium_mlock', 'sodium_munlock')"]
            M["Memory Zeroing ('sodium_memzero')"]
        end
        B --> C;
        B --> D;
        B --> E;
        B --> F;
        B --> G;
        B --> H;
        B --> I;
        B --> J;
        B --> K;
        B --> L;
        B --> M;
        C --> K;
        D --> K;
        E --> K;
        F --> K;
        G --> K;
        H --> K;
        I --> K;
    end
    A --> B;
    style A fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style B fill:#fcc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:red  <!-- Highlighted API as attack surface -->
    style C fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style D fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style E fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style F fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style G fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style H fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style I fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style J fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style K fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style L fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style M fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    linkStyle 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px;
Loading

Architectural Layers (Security Focus):

  • Application Layer (Untrusted): The application code using libsodium. This is considered the untrusted domain where vulnerabilities in application logic can exist and potentially compromise libsodium usage.
  • API Layer (Attack Surface): The public C API functions represent the primary attack surface of libsodium. Input validation, correct API usage, and understanding potential misuse are critical threat modeling areas.
  • Core Cryptographic Modules (Sensitive Operations): These modules perform the core cryptographic operations. Security here relies on the robustness of the algorithms and their correct implementation. Vulnerabilities in these modules would have severe consequences.
  • Memory Management (Sensitive Data Handling): Secure memory management is crucial for protecting sensitive cryptographic data. Failures in memory management can lead to data leaks and exposure of keys.
  • Random Number Generation (Critical Dependency): The CSPRNG is a foundational security component. Its compromise would undermine the security of all cryptographic operations relying on it.
  • Utilities (Lower Risk, but still relevant): Utility functions, while generally lower risk, should still be considered for potential vulnerabilities, especially if they handle input from untrusted sources.

4. Key Components and Data Flow (Threat Modeling Focus)

This section highlights key components relevant to threat modeling and illustrates data flow for symmetric encryption (crypto_secretbox_easy), emphasizing security-critical steps.

4.1. Key Components (Threat Modeling Perspective):

  • crypto_secretbox & crypto_box (Encryption): Focus threat modeling on:

    • Key Generation and Management: How are keys generated, stored, and exchanged? Are best practices followed?
    • Nonce Handling: Is nonce reuse prevented? Are nonces generated securely and uniquely?
    • Plaintext Exposure: Is plaintext data handled securely before and after encryption?
    • Ciphertext Integrity: Authenticated encryption protects integrity, but are there scenarios where integrity checks could be bypassed or ignored in the application logic?

  • crypto_hash (Hashing): Focus threat modeling on:

    • Collision Resistance: While BLAKE2b is collision-resistant, are there application-specific scenarios where collisions could be exploited (e.g., hash table vulnerabilities)?
    • Salt Usage (for password hashing, though crypto_hash is general purpose): If used for password hashing (incorrectly, crypto_pwhash should be used), is salting implemented correctly?

  • crypto_sign (Digital Signatures): Focus threat modeling on:

    • Private Key Protection: Is the private signing key securely protected? Compromise leads to signature forgery.
    • Signature Verification: Is signature verification always performed before trusting signed data? Are verification processes robust and correctly implemented?
    • Public Key Infrastructure (PKI): How are public keys distributed and trusted? Is there a risk of public key substitution?

  • crypto_kx (Key Exchange): Focus threat modeling on:

    • Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks: Is the key exchange protocol vulnerable to MITM attacks if not used correctly in a higher-level protocol?
    • Endpoint Authentication: Are endpoints properly authenticated before key exchange to prevent key exchange with malicious parties?

  • crypto_pwhash (Password Hashing): Focus threat modeling on:

    • Parameter Selection (Argon2id): Are appropriate parameters (memory, iterations) chosen for Argon2id to balance security and performance? Insufficient parameters can weaken security.
    • Salt Generation and Storage: Are salts generated randomly and stored securely alongside password hashes?
    • Password Storage Security: Is the storage of password hashes itself secure?

  • randombytes (Random Number Generation): Focus threat modeling on:

    • CSPRNG Failure: What happens if the CSPRNG fails or is compromised? Are there fallback mechanisms or error handling in place?
    • Seed Security (if applicable): If seeding is involved, is the seed source secure and unpredictable?

  • Secure Memory Management: Focus threat modeling on:

    • Memory Leaks: Are there potential memory leaks that could expose sensitive data over time?
    • Swap Exposure: Is secure memory allocation and locking effective in preventing sensitive data from being swapped to disk?
    • Memory Corruption: Are there vulnerabilities (e.g., buffer overflows) that could corrupt memory and potentially expose sensitive data or compromise library integrity?

4.2. Data Flow Example: Symmetric Encryption (crypto_secretbox_easy) - Security Critical Path

graph LR
    subgraph "Application (Untrusted)"
        A["Plaintext Data"] --> B["libsodium API Call ('crypto_secretbox_easy')"];
        G["Ciphertext Data"]
    end
    subgraph "libsodium Library (Security Boundary)"
        B --> C["API Input Validation (Crucial Security Check)"];
        C --> D["Key Material Retrieval (Secure Key Storage Access)"];
        D --> E["Encryption Process (ChaCha20-Poly1305 - Core Crypto)"];
        E --> F["Secure Memory Allocation for Ciphertext (Memory Protection)"];
        F --> G["Ciphertext Output to Application"];
        E --> M["Secure Memory Management (Throughout Crypto Operations)"];
        D --> M;
        C --> M;
    end
    style A fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style G fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style B fill:#fcc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style C fill:#fcc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:red <!-- Highlighted Validation -->
    style D fill:#fcc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:red <!-- Highlighted Key Retrieval -->
    style E fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style F fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style M fill:#eee,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    linkStyle 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px;
Loading

Security-Focused Data Flow Steps for crypto_secretbox_easy:

  1. Application Initiates Encryption (Untrusted Input): Application provides plaintext, nonce, and key. Threat: Malicious or malformed input from the application.
  2. API Input Validation (Security Gate): Libsodium validates inputs. Critical Security Control: Robust validation prevents buffer overflows, format string bugs, and other input-related vulnerabilities.
  3. Key Material Retrieval (Secure Access): Libsodium accesses the secret key. Critical Security Control: Secure key storage and access mechanisms are essential. Vulnerabilities here compromise all encryption.
  4. Encryption Process (Core Crypto Operation): ChaCha20-Poly1305 encryption is performed. Security Assumption: Algorithm and implementation are secure against known attacks.
  5. Secure Memory Allocation (Memory Protection): Ciphertext is allocated in secure memory. Security Control: Prevents ciphertext from being easily swapped to disk.
  6. Ciphertext Output (Trusted Output): Ciphertext is returned to the application. Assumption: Application handles ciphertext securely after receiving it.
  7. Secure Memory Management (Ongoing): Secure memory management is used throughout the process. Underlying Security Mechanism: Protects sensitive data during all cryptographic operations.

5. Security Features and Considerations (Expanded)

Libsodium's security features are designed to mitigate common cryptographic vulnerabilities. However, effective security depends on correct usage and understanding of potential limitations.

  • Secure Defaults & Algorithm Choice:

    • Feature: Defaults to strong, modern algorithms.
    • Threat Mitigation: Reduces risk of developers choosing weak or outdated algorithms.
    • Consideration: Algorithm security is not absolute. New attacks can emerge. Stay updated on cryptographic best practices.

  • Memory Protection (malloc, memzero, mlock):

    • Feature: Secure memory management functions.
    • Threat Mitigation: Reduces risk of key and sensitive data exposure in swap, memory dumps, or through memory leaks.
    • Consideration: Memory locking is OS-dependent and might not be foolproof. Memory safety vulnerabilities in libsodium itself could still bypass these protections.

  • Nonce Handling Enforcement:

    • Feature: API design encourages or requires nonce usage for relevant operations.
    • Threat Mitigation: Prevents nonce reuse vulnerabilities in symmetric encryption.
    • Consideration: Application developers must still generate and manage nonces correctly. Libsodium cannot enforce nonce uniqueness across multiple application runs or instances.

  • Authenticated Encryption (AEAD Modes):

    • Feature: Prioritizes AEAD modes like ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-256-GCM.
    • Threat Mitigation: Protects against both confidentiality and integrity attacks in encryption.
    • Consideration: AEAD modes are not a silver bullet. Incorrect usage or failure to verify authentication tags can still lead to vulnerabilities.

  • Side-Channel Resistance (Constant-Time Operations):

    • Feature: Efforts to implement security-critical operations in constant time.
    • Threat Mitigation: Reduces vulnerability to timing attacks.
    • Consideration: Constant-time implementations are complex and can be imperfect. Side-channel resistance is an ongoing challenge, and specific environments might still be vulnerable.

  • API Usability & Misuse Prevention:

    • Feature: Simplified, user-friendly API.
    • Threat Mitigation: Reduces the likelihood of developers making common cryptographic errors due to complexity.
    • Consideration: API usability does not guarantee secure application logic. Developers can still misuse the API or introduce vulnerabilities in surrounding code.

  • Open Source & Community Review:

    • Feature: Open source nature allows for community scrutiny and audits.
    • Threat Mitigation: Increases the chance of identifying and fixing vulnerabilities.
    • Consideration: Open source does not automatically guarantee security. Active community engagement and dedicated security audits are crucial.

6. Deployment Environment (Threat Context)

The deployment environment significantly influences the threat landscape for applications using libsodium.

  • Desktop/Server Applications:

    • Common Threats: Software vulnerabilities, malware, insider threats, network attacks.
    • Libsodium Relevance: Protects data at rest and in transit, secures communication channels, and protects sensitive data within the application.

  • Mobile Applications:

    • Common Threats: Mobile malware, insecure storage, data leakage, physical device compromise, app store vulnerabilities.
    • Libsodium Relevance: Secures local data storage, protects communication with servers, and can be used for secure enclaves or hardware-backed security features.

  • Embedded/IoT Systems:

    • Common Threats: Physical attacks, supply chain attacks, firmware vulnerabilities, limited resources, long deployment lifecycles.
    • Libsodium Relevance: Provides cryptographic primitives for secure boot, secure firmware updates, secure communication, and data protection in resource-constrained environments.

  • Web Browsers (WebAssembly):

    • Common Threats: Cross-site scripting (XSS), cross-site request forgery (CSRF), browser vulnerabilities, JavaScript security issues.
    • Libsodium Relevance: Enables client-side cryptography in web applications, protecting sensitive data within the browser and potentially reducing server-side attack surface.

Threat Modeling Adaptation: Threat models should be tailored to the specific deployment environment. Consider environment-specific threats and how libsodium's features can mitigate or be vulnerable to them in that context.

7. Threat Model Considerations (Actionable Guidance)

This section provides actionable considerations for threat modeling applications using libsodium.

  • Data Flow Analysis (with Crypto Context): Map data flow within the application, specifically highlighting points where libsodium API calls are made and where sensitive data (plaintext, keys, ciphertexts) is handled. Identify potential data exposure points.
  • STRIDE per Component: Apply the STRIDE threat modeling methodology to each component of the architecture diagram (API Layer, Crypto Modules, Memory Management, etc.). Consider threats in each STRIDE category (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege).
  • Abuse Case Analysis: Identify potential abuse cases related to cryptographic operations. For example:
    • Abuse case: "Attacker reuses a nonce to decrypt multiple messages." Mitigation: "Application ensures unique nonce generation for each encryption operation."
    • Abuse case: "Attacker gains access to stored secret keys." Mitigation: "Implement secure key storage using OS key management facilities or hardware security modules."
  • Input Validation Focus (API Boundary): Thoroughly analyze input validation at the libsodium API boundary. Identify potential vulnerabilities if input validation is insufficient or bypassed.
  • Key Management Deep Dive: Dedicate significant threat modeling effort to key management practices in the application. How are keys generated, stored, distributed, rotated, and destroyed? Weak key management is a common source of cryptographic vulnerabilities.
  • Side-Channel Attack Assessment (Environment Dependent): Assess the risk of side-channel attacks based on the deployment environment and sensitivity of the data. If high risk, consider further mitigation strategies beyond libsodium's built-in protections.
  • Dependency Analysis (Supply Chain): Include libsodium itself and its dependencies in supply chain security assessments. Verify the integrity and authenticity of the library and its build process.
  • Security Testing (Penetration Testing & Code Review): Complement threat modeling with security testing activities, including penetration testing focused on cryptographic aspects and code review of application code interacting with libsodium.

This improved design document provides a more focused and actionable resource for threat modeling libsodium-based applications. By understanding the library's architecture, security features, and potential vulnerabilities within the context of the application and its deployment environment, security professionals can conduct more effective threat modeling and build more secure systems.