Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
177 lines (131 loc) · 16.3 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

177 lines (131 loc) · 16.3 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of Sway based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep analysis is to thoroughly examine the security posture of the Sway Wayland compositor. This includes identifying potential vulnerabilities, assessing the effectiveness of existing security controls, and recommending improvements to mitigate identified risks. The analysis will focus on key components of Sway, including:

  • Input Handling: How Sway processes input from keyboards, mice, and other input devices.
  • Configuration Management: How Sway handles user configuration files and the security implications.
  • Inter-Process Communication (IPC): The security of Sway's IPC mechanism.
  • Wayland Protocol Implementation (via wlroots): How Sway's reliance on wlroots impacts its security.
  • Rendering and Output: The security considerations related to displaying content on the screen.
  • Dependency Management: How Sway manages its dependencies and addresses vulnerabilities in external libraries.

Scope:

This analysis will focus on the Sway compositor itself, as described in the provided design document and inferred from its GitHub repository (https://github.com/swaywm/sway). It will consider the interactions with closely related components like wlroots, the Linux kernel, and Wayland clients, but will not delve deeply into the security of those components themselves (except where their interaction with Sway creates specific risks). We will not consider physical security or attacks that require physical access to the machine. We will focus on the latest stable release of Sway.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Component Analysis: We will analyze the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions, combined with inferences from the Sway codebase and documentation, to understand the architecture, components, and data flow.
  2. Threat Modeling: Based on the identified components and data flows, we will perform threat modeling, considering potential attackers, attack vectors, and vulnerabilities. We will use the STRIDE model (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) as a framework.
  3. Security Control Review: We will evaluate the existing security controls identified in the design document, assessing their effectiveness against the identified threats.
  4. Vulnerability Analysis: We will analyze the key components identified in the objective for potential vulnerabilities, drawing on common C programming vulnerabilities and Wayland-specific security considerations.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: For each identified vulnerability or weakness, we will provide specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to Sway.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component:

  • 2.1 Input Handling:

    • Threats:

      • Injection Attacks: Malicious input (e.g., crafted keyboard shortcuts, escape sequences) could be injected to execute arbitrary code or manipulate Sway's behavior. This is a critical concern for a window manager.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Flooding Sway with input events could overwhelm it, leading to unresponsiveness or crashes.
      • Information Disclosure: Input events could potentially be intercepted or leaked to unauthorized processes.
      • Tampering: Input events could be modified in transit.

    • Existing Controls: Input sanitization (mentioned in the design document, but details are needed). Wayland protocol (provides some level of client isolation).

    • Vulnerabilities (Inferred/Potential):

      • Insufficient Input Validation: C's lack of memory safety makes input validation crucial. Missing or incorrect bounds checks, format string vulnerabilities, or integer overflows in input handling code could lead to buffer overflows or other memory corruption issues. This is the most likely source of serious vulnerabilities.
      • Trusting Client-Provided Data: Sway must not blindly trust data received from Wayland clients, as clients can be malicious.
      • Race Conditions: Concurrent handling of input events could lead to race conditions if not properly synchronized.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Rigorous Input Validation: Implement extremely thorough input validation for all input sources (keyboard, mouse, touch, IPC). Use a whitelist approach whenever possible (allow only known-good input), rather than a blacklist (trying to block known-bad input). Validate length, format, and content.
      • Fuzzing: Use fuzzing (e.g., with libfuzzer or AFL++) to specifically target input handling routines. This is essential for a C project handling complex input.
      • Memory Safety Practices: Use safe string handling functions (e.g., strlcpy, strlcat, snprintf instead of strcpy, strcat, sprintf). Use static analysis tools (e.g., clang-tidy, Coverity) to detect potential memory errors.
      • Input Event Sanitization: Sanitize input events before processing them. This might involve escaping special characters or rejecting invalid sequences.
      • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting to prevent input flooding attacks.
      • Audit Input Handling Code: Regularly audit the input handling code for potential vulnerabilities. This should be a high priority for code reviews.

  • 2.2 Configuration Management:

    • Threats:

      • Privilege Escalation: A malicious configuration file could be used to elevate privileges or execute arbitrary code.
      • Information Disclosure: Sensitive information (e.g., API keys, passwords) might be stored in configuration files.
      • Denial of Service: A malformed configuration file could cause Sway to crash or become unstable.

    • Existing Controls: File permissions (rely on the underlying OS). Input validation within Sway (mentioned, but details are needed).

    • Vulnerabilities (Inferred/Potential):

      • Command Injection: If Sway executes external commands based on configuration file contents, a malicious configuration file could inject arbitrary commands.
      • Path Traversal: If Sway reads files based on paths specified in the configuration file, a malicious configuration file could use path traversal to access arbitrary files on the system.
      • Insecure Defaults: If Sway has insecure default settings, users might not be aware of the risks and fail to configure it securely.
      • Lack of Configuration Validation: Sway might not properly validate the syntax and semantics of the configuration file, leading to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Strict Configuration Parsing: Use a robust and secure parser for configuration files. Avoid rolling your own parser. Consider using a well-vetted library.
      • Input Validation (Configuration): Validate all values read from the configuration file. Check data types, lengths, and allowed values.
      • Avoid Command Execution: Minimize or eliminate the execution of external commands based on configuration file contents. If absolutely necessary, use a whitelist of allowed commands and sanitize all arguments very carefully.
      • Secure Defaults: Provide secure default settings that minimize the risk of misconfiguration.
      • Documentation: Clearly document secure configuration practices for users. Provide examples of secure configurations.
      • Sandboxing (Configuration): Consider parsing and applying the configuration file in a sandboxed environment to limit the impact of potential vulnerabilities.
      • Least Privilege: Sway should run with the least privileges necessary. Avoid running as root.

  • 2.3 Inter-Process Communication (IPC):

    • Threats:

      • Unauthorized Access: Malicious processes could connect to Sway's IPC interface and issue unauthorized commands.
      • Injection Attacks: Malicious input could be injected through the IPC interface to exploit vulnerabilities in Sway.
      • Denial of Service: Flooding the IPC interface with requests could cause Sway to become unresponsive.
      • Information Disclosure: Sensitive information could be leaked through the IPC interface.

    • Existing Controls: Access control (e.g., Unix socket permissions). Input validation (mentioned, but details are needed).

    • Vulnerabilities (Inferred/Potential):

      • Insufficient Authentication/Authorization: Sway might not properly authenticate or authorize clients connecting to the IPC interface.
      • Input Validation (IPC): Similar to general input handling, vulnerabilities could exist in the parsing and handling of IPC messages.
      • Lack of Encryption: IPC communication might not be encrypted, allowing attackers to eavesdrop on or tamper with messages.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Strong Authentication: Implement strong authentication for IPC clients. Consider using a challenge-response mechanism or other secure authentication protocol.
      • Access Control Lists (ACLs): Use ACLs to restrict access to the IPC interface based on user ID, group ID, or other criteria.
      • Input Validation (IPC): Rigorously validate all input received through the IPC interface. Use a well-defined protocol and schema for IPC messages.
      • Rate Limiting (IPC): Implement rate limiting to prevent IPC flooding attacks.
      • Auditing (IPC): Log all IPC requests and responses for auditing purposes.
      • Consider Encryption: While Unix domain sockets are local, consider using authenticated encryption (e.g., using a library like libsodium) if sensitive data is transmitted over IPC, or if there's a risk of local attackers.

  • 2.4 Wayland Protocol Implementation (via wlroots):

    • Threats:

      • Vulnerabilities in wlroots: Sway's reliance on wlroots means that vulnerabilities in wlroots can directly impact Sway's security.
      • Incorrect Use of wlroots API: Sway might use the wlroots API incorrectly, leading to security vulnerabilities.
      • Wayland Protocol Weaknesses: The Wayland protocol itself might have inherent weaknesses that could be exploited.

    • Existing Controls: Sway benefits from the security features of the Wayland protocol (e.g., client isolation). Sway relies on wlroots's own security posture.

    • Vulnerabilities (Inferred/Potential):

      • wlroots Vulnerabilities: This is a significant risk. Sway must stay up-to-date with wlroots releases and promptly apply security patches.
      • Misinterpretation of Wayland Protocol: Sway might misinterpret or incorrectly implement aspects of the Wayland protocol, leading to security issues.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Dependency Management: Establish a clear process for managing the wlroots dependency. Monitor for security advisories and apply updates promptly. Consider contributing to wlroots security efforts.
      • API Auditing: Carefully audit Sway's use of the wlroots API to ensure it is being used correctly and securely.
      • Wayland Protocol Compliance: Ensure Sway strictly adheres to the Wayland protocol specification.
      • Fuzzing (wlroots Interaction): Fuzz the interaction between Sway and wlroots to identify potential vulnerabilities.

  • 2.5 Rendering and Output:

    • Threats:

      • Information Disclosure: Vulnerabilities in the rendering pipeline could allow attackers to leak information from other clients' surfaces or from Sway's internal state.
      • Denial of Service: Malicious clients could submit complex rendering requests that cause Sway to crash or become unresponsive.

    • Existing Controls: Wayland protocol (client isolation).

    • Vulnerabilities (Inferred/Potential):

      • Buffer Overflows (Rendering): Buffer overflows or other memory corruption issues in the rendering code could lead to vulnerabilities.
      • Incorrect Access Control (Rendering): Sway might incorrectly allow clients to access or modify other clients' surfaces.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Memory Safety (Rendering): Use safe memory management practices in the rendering code.
      • Resource Limits: Enforce resource limits on clients to prevent them from consuming excessive resources and causing denial-of-service attacks.
      • Output Sanitization: Sanitize output to prevent injection of malicious content.
      • Regular Audits of Rendering Code: Regularly audit the rendering code for potential vulnerabilities.

  • 2.6 Dependency Management:

    • Threats: Vulnerabilities in dependencies (wlroots, cairo, pango, etc.)
    • Existing Controls: Dependency management through build system.
    • Vulnerabilities: Outdated dependencies with known vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Automated Dependency Scanning: Use tools like Dependabot (GitHub), Snyk, or OWASP Dependency-Check to automatically scan for vulnerabilities in dependencies.
      • Regular Updates: Keep dependencies up-to-date.
      • Vulnerability Database Monitoring: Monitor vulnerability databases (e.g., CVE, NVD) for vulnerabilities affecting dependencies.
      • Vendor Security Advisories: Subscribe to security advisories from vendors of key dependencies.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary and Prioritization)

The following is a prioritized list of actionable mitigation strategies, combining the recommendations from above:

High Priority (Implement Immediately):

  1. Fuzzing: Implement comprehensive fuzzing of input handling (keyboard, mouse, IPC, configuration files) and the interaction with wlroots. This is critical for a C project and the most likely source of exploitable vulnerabilities.
  2. Rigorous Input Validation: Implement extremely thorough input validation for all input sources, using a whitelist approach whenever possible.
  3. Dependency Management: Establish a robust process for managing dependencies, including automated vulnerability scanning and prompt application of security updates (especially for wlroots).
  4. Static Analysis: Integrate static analysis tools (e.g., clang-tidy, Coverity) into the build process.
  5. Code Audits (Input Handling & IPC): Conduct thorough code audits focusing on input handling, IPC, and configuration parsing.

Medium Priority (Implement Soon):

  1. Secure Configuration Defaults: Ensure Sway ships with secure default settings.
  2. Documentation (Secure Configuration): Provide clear and comprehensive documentation on secure configuration practices.
  3. Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting for input events and IPC requests.
  4. Strong Authentication (IPC): Implement strong authentication for IPC clients.
  5. Resource Limits (Rendering): Enforce resource limits on clients to prevent denial-of-service attacks related to rendering.

Low Priority (Consider for Future Development):

  1. Sandboxing: Explore options for sandboxing or isolating components of Sway (e.g., configuration parsing, parts of the rendering pipeline).
  2. Reproducible Builds: Aim for reproducible builds to improve build process integrity.
  3. Formal Security Audits: Consider periodic formal security audits, if resources allow.

4. Conclusion

Sway, as a Wayland compositor, has a significant responsibility for system security. The design review highlights some existing security controls, but also reveals potential weaknesses, particularly related to input handling, configuration management, and the reliance on external libraries like wlroots. By prioritizing the implementation of the recommended mitigation strategies, especially fuzzing, rigorous input validation, and robust dependency management, the Sway project can significantly improve its security posture and protect users from potential threats. The use of C necessitates a very proactive approach to security, with continuous testing and auditing being essential.