Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
129 lines (92 loc) · 12.6 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

129 lines (92 loc) · 12.6 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for swaywm/sway

Mitigation Strategy: Validate and Sanitize IPC Messages

  • Description:

    1. Identify Sway IPC Message Handlers: Developers should pinpoint all code sections that receive and process messages specifically from Sway via Wayland or Sway-specific IPC.
    2. Define Expected Sway Message Structure: For each Sway IPC message type, clearly define the expected data format, data types, and allowed values.
    3. Implement Input Validation for Sway IPC: Within each Sway IPC message handler, add validation steps:
      • Type Checking: Verify that received data types from Sway IPC match the expected types.
      • Range Checks: Ensure numerical values from Sway IPC are within acceptable ranges.
      • Format Validation: For strings from Sway IPC, validate encoding (UTF-8), length limits, and potentially use regular expressions to enforce specific formats if needed.
      • Sanitization: Escape or sanitize string inputs from Sway IPC to prevent injection attacks.
    4. Error Handling for Sway IPC: Implement robust error handling for invalid Sway IPC messages. Log errors and potentially terminate functionality gracefully if critical Sway IPC messages are malformed.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • IPC Injection Attacks via Sway (Severity: High): Malicious Sway processes or compromised Sway components could send crafted IPC messages to inject commands or manipulate application behavior through the Sway IPC channel.
      • Denial of Service (DoS) via Malformed Sway IPC Messages (Severity: Medium): Sending a flood of malformed Sway IPC messages could crash the application or consume excessive resources through the Sway IPC interface.
      • Information Disclosure via Sway IPC Manipulation (Severity: Medium): Exploiting vulnerabilities in Sway IPC handling could allow unauthorized access to application data or internal state via the Sway IPC channel.

    • Impact:

      • IPC Injection Attacks via Sway: High reduction - effectively prevents exploitation of Sway IPC channels for malicious command execution or control flow manipulation.
      • Denial of Service (DoS) via Malformed Sway IPC Messages: Medium reduction - significantly reduces crashes due to unexpected Sway IPC data.
      • Information Disclosure via Sway IPC Manipulation: Medium reduction - limits attackers' ability to extract information by manipulating Sway IPC interactions.

    • Currently Implemented: Yes, partially implemented in the core IPC communication module of the application. Input validation is present for some critical Sway IPC message types.

    • Missing Implementation: Missing comprehensive validation for all Sway IPC message types, especially for less frequently used or newly added Sway IPC interactions. Sanitization of string inputs from Sway IPC needs review. Error handling for invalid Sway IPC messages could be more robust.

Mitigation Strategy: Principle of Least Privilege for IPC Requests

  • Description:

    1. Review Required Sway IPC Permissions: Analyze the application's functionality and identify the minimum set of Wayland protocols and Sway-specific extensions required for operation.
    2. Limit Sway IPC Requests: Refactor code to only request necessary information and permissions from Sway via IPC. Avoid requesting data or capabilities that are not directly used by the application from Sway.
    3. Granular Permission Management (Sway/Wayland): If Sway or Wayland offers granular permission controls, utilize them to further restrict the application's access to Sway functionalities.
    4. Regularly Re-evaluate Sway IPC Permissions: Periodically review the application's Sway IPC permission requests to ensure they remain minimal and justified.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Privilege Escalation via Sway IPC (Severity: Medium): If an application requests excessive permissions from Sway, a vulnerability in Sway or the application could be exploited to gain unintended access to system resources or Sway functionalities.
      • Reduced Attack Surface (Sway IPC) (Severity: Low to Medium): Limiting requested permissions from Sway reduces the potential attack surface by minimizing the capabilities an attacker could leverage if the application or Sway were compromised.

    • Impact:

      • Privilege Escalation via Sway IPC: Medium reduction - reduces privilege escalation by limiting initial permissions granted by Sway.
      • Reduced Attack Surface (Sway IPC): Medium reduction - harder for attackers to exploit vulnerabilities by limiting attack vectors through Sway IPC.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. The application generally requests only necessary Wayland protocols, but Sway-specific extension usage and permissions haven't been thoroughly reviewed for minimal requirements.

    • Missing Implementation: A detailed audit of Sway-specific extension requests is needed to eliminate unnecessary permissions. Documentation should outline the rationale behind each Sway IPC permission request.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Default Configuration and User Guidance (Sway Context)

  • Description:

    1. Establish Secure Defaults (Sway Interaction): For application configuration options that interact with Sway or the system environment via Sway, set secure default values.
    2. Document Secure Configuration Practices (Sway): Create documentation for users on how to securely configure the application when used with Sway.
    3. Highlight Sway-Specific Security Considerations: Specifically address any Sway configuration settings or behaviors that users should be aware of from a security perspective.
    4. Provide Configuration Examples (Sway): Offer example configurations that demonstrate secure setups for common use cases within a Sway environment.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Misconfiguration Vulnerabilities (Sway-Related) (Severity: Medium): Users might unknowingly choose insecure configuration options that create vulnerabilities in the application's interaction with Sway.

    • Impact:

      • Misconfiguration Vulnerabilities (Sway-Related): Medium reduction - reduces user-introduced vulnerabilities in Sway interaction through secure defaults and guidance.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. The application has some default configurations, but they haven't been explicitly reviewed from a Sway-specific security perspective. User documentation exists but lacks detailed guidance on secure Sway integration.

    • Missing Implementation: A dedicated security review of default configurations is needed, focusing on Sway-related aspects. User documentation needs expansion with a section on secure Sway configuration practices and examples.

Mitigation Strategy: Configuration Validation and Auditing (Sway Environment)

  • Description:

    1. Define Secure Sway Configuration Baselines: Establish secure configuration baselines for Sway and related components relevant to the application's security.
    2. Implement Sway Configuration Validation Checks: Develop mechanisms to validate the current Sway environment configuration against the defined baselines.
    3. Automated Sway Configuration Auditing: Explore options for automated auditing of Sway configurations.
    4. Alerting and Remediation Guidance (Sway Configuration): If Sway configuration deviations are detected, provide alerts and remediation guidance.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Environment Drift and Sway Configuration Degradation (Severity: Low to Medium): Sway configurations can drift from secure baselines, introducing vulnerabilities.
      • Unauthorized Sway Configuration Changes (Severity: Medium): Malicious actors could alter Sway configurations to weaken security.

    • Impact:

      • Environment Drift and Sway Configuration Degradation: Medium reduction - helps maintain secure Sway configuration by detecting deviations.
      • Unauthorized Sway Configuration Changes: Medium reduction - increases detection of unauthorized Sway configuration changes.

    • Currently Implemented: No. No automated Sway configuration validation or auditing mechanisms.

    • Missing Implementation: Implementation of Sway configuration validation checks is needed. Start with validating key Sway settings. Consider scripts/tools for automated auditing and alerting.

Mitigation Strategy: Validate and Sanitize Input Received via Sway

  • Description:

    1. Identify Sway Input Handling Points: Locate code sections that process user input events received indirectly through Sway's input handling.
    2. Define Expected Input Formats (Sway Input): For each input type handled by Sway, define expected data format, types, and allowed values.
    3. Implement Input Validation and Sanitization (Sway Input): Within input handlers:
      • Type Checking: Verify input data types from Sway (e.g., key codes, mouse coordinates).
      • Range Checks: Ensure input values from Sway are within valid ranges.
      • Sanitization: Sanitize string inputs or commands derived from Sway input events.
    4. Error Handling (Sway Input): Implement error handling for invalid or unexpected Sway input events.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Input Injection Attacks via Sway Input (Severity: High): Malicious input events crafted through Sway could inject commands or manipulate application behavior.
      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via Sway Input Manipulation (Severity: Medium): Insufficient input sanitization of Sway-derived input could lead to XSS.
      • Denial of Service (DoS) via Sway Input Flooding (Severity: Medium): A flood of malicious Sway input events could overwhelm the application.

    • Impact:

      • Input Injection Attacks via Sway Input: High reduction - prevents exploitation of Sway input channels.
      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via Sway Input Manipulation: Medium reduction - reduces XSS risk from unsanitized Sway input.
      • Denial of Service (DoS) via Sway Input Flooding: Medium reduction - mitigates DoS from malicious Sway input events.

    • Currently Implemented: Yes, partially implemented. Basic input validation exists for some input types, but comprehensive validation and sanitization are lacking for all Sway-handled input.

    • Missing Implementation: Review all input handling code for robust validation and sanitization of all Sway input types. Focus on sanitizing input used to construct commands or displayed as user content.

Mitigation Strategy: Maintain Updated Sway and Dependency Environment

  • Description:

    1. Dependency Tracking (Sway Ecosystem): Maintain a list of Sway dependencies used by the application.
    2. Regular Sway Updates: Advise users to regularly update their Sway installation and related dependencies.
    3. Security Patch Monitoring (Sway Ecosystem): Monitor security advisories for Sway and its dependencies.
    4. Provide Sway Update Guidance: Offer instructions to users on how to update Sway and its dependencies.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Sway/Dependencies (Severity: High): Outdated Sway and dependencies may contain known vulnerabilities.

    • Impact:

      • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Sway/Dependencies: High reduction - reduces risk by ensuring Sway and dependencies are patched.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Documentation mentions Sway dependency but doesn't emphasize security importance of Sway and dependency updates.

    • Missing Implementation: Enhance documentation to strongly recommend regular updates of Sway and dependencies, explicitly mentioning security benefits. Add update instructions for different Linux distributions.