Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
149 lines (119 loc) · 16.7 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

149 lines (119 loc) · 16.7 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Hermes JavaScript Engine

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep analysis is to conduct a thorough security assessment of the Hermes JavaScript Engine, focusing on its key components, architecture, and data flow. The analysis aims to identify potential security vulnerabilities, assess existing security controls, and provide actionable recommendations to enhance the engine's security posture. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of exploitable vulnerabilities that could compromise the security of React Native applications running on Android.

Scope:

This analysis covers the following aspects of the Hermes JavaScript Engine:

  • Bytecode Compiler: Analysis of the parsing, syntax analysis, optimization, and bytecode generation processes.
  • Runtime: Examination of bytecode interpretation, JIT compilation (if applicable), interaction with the garbage collector, and native interfaces.
  • Garbage Collector: Assessment of memory management algorithms and their resilience to memory corruption vulnerabilities.
  • Native Interface: Review of the interaction between the JavaScript engine and native Android APIs, focusing on data validation and secure communication.
  • Build Process: Evaluation of the security controls implemented in the build pipeline.
  • Dependencies: High-level consideration of the risks associated with external libraries (though a full dependency analysis is outside the scope of this document, it is addressed in recommendations).

Methodology:

This analysis is based on the following:

  1. Code Review (Inferred): While a direct line-by-line code review is not performed, the analysis infers security considerations based on the provided documentation, the project's structure on GitHub, and common security best practices for JavaScript engines.
  2. Architecture and Data Flow Analysis: The C4 diagrams and descriptions provided in the security design review are used to understand the engine's architecture, components, and data flow.
  3. Threat Modeling: Potential threats are identified based on the engine's functionality, interactions with the Android OS, and known attack vectors against JavaScript engines.
  4. Security Control Assessment: Existing security controls (fuzzing, CI, etc.) are evaluated for their effectiveness.
  5. Best Practice Comparison: The engine's design and security controls are compared against industry best practices for secure software development and JavaScript engine security.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

2.1 Bytecode Compiler

  • Functionality: Transforms JavaScript source code into Hermes bytecode. This involves parsing the source code, performing syntax and semantic analysis, optimizing the code, and generating the bytecode.
  • Security Implications:
    • Input Validation Vulnerabilities: If the parser doesn't correctly handle malformed or malicious JavaScript input, it could lead to crashes, denial-of-service, or potentially code execution vulnerabilities. This is a primary target for fuzzing.
    • Optimization Errors: Bugs in the optimization phase could introduce subtle vulnerabilities that are difficult to detect. For example, an incorrect optimization might lead to a buffer overflow or type confusion.
    • Code Injection: If an attacker can inject malicious code into the JavaScript source (e.g., through a compromised dependency or a vulnerability in the application using Hermes), the compiler will process it, potentially leading to the execution of malicious bytecode.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Robust Parsing: Use a well-tested and secure parser that is resistant to common parsing vulnerabilities. Consider using a parser generator with built-in security features.
    • Extensive Fuzzing: Continue and expand the existing fuzzing efforts, focusing on edge cases and complex JavaScript constructs. Target the parser and the bytecode generation process specifically.
    • Static Analysis: Employ static analysis tools that can detect potential vulnerabilities in the compiler's code, such as buffer overflows, integer overflows, and type confusion errors.
    • Input Sanitization (Indirect): While Hermes itself doesn't handle user input directly, encourage React Native developers to sanitize any user-provided input that might be included in JavaScript code (e.g., through string interpolation).

2.2 Runtime

  • Functionality: Executes the Hermes bytecode. This includes interpreting the bytecode, potentially performing JIT compilation, managing memory, and interacting with the garbage collector and native interfaces.
  • Security Implications:
    • Bytecode Interpreter Vulnerabilities: Bugs in the interpreter could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code by crafting malicious bytecode. This is a critical area for security.
    • JIT Compiler Vulnerabilities (if present): JIT compilers are complex and can be a source of vulnerabilities. If Hermes uses JIT compilation, it needs rigorous security testing. Bugs in the JIT compiler could allow attackers to bypass security checks and execute native code.
    • Type Confusion: If the runtime doesn't correctly track the types of JavaScript values, it could lead to type confusion vulnerabilities, where a value of one type is treated as another, potentially leading to memory corruption or arbitrary code execution.
    • Bounds Checking Issues: Failure to properly check array bounds or other memory access boundaries could lead to buffer overflows or out-of-bounds reads/writes.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Memory Safety: Use memory-safe programming practices and languages (e.g., Rust, if feasible) to minimize the risk of memory corruption vulnerabilities. If using C++, use modern C++ features and techniques to enhance memory safety.
    • Bounds Checking: Implement rigorous bounds checking for all array and buffer accesses.
    • Type Safety: Enforce strong type checking at runtime to prevent type confusion vulnerabilities.
    • Sandboxing (Consideration): Explore the possibility of sandboxing the runtime environment to limit the impact of potential vulnerabilities. This could involve using Android's sandboxing features or implementing a custom sandboxing mechanism.
    • Fuzzing (Bytecode Level): Develop fuzzers that generate and execute random Hermes bytecode to test the interpreter and JIT compiler (if applicable).
    • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the runtime code, focusing on the interpreter, JIT compiler (if present), and memory management.

2.3 Garbage Collector

  • Functionality: Automatically reclaims memory that is no longer in use by the JavaScript program.
  • Security Implications:
    • Use-After-Free Vulnerabilities: If the garbage collector incorrectly identifies an object as unused and frees its memory while it's still being referenced, it can lead to a use-after-free vulnerability, which can be exploited to execute arbitrary code.
    • Double-Free Vulnerabilities: If the garbage collector frees the same memory region twice, it can lead to memory corruption and potentially arbitrary code execution.
    • Memory Leaks (Denial of Service): While not directly exploitable for code execution, significant memory leaks can lead to denial-of-service by exhausting available memory.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Robust GC Algorithm: Use a well-tested and secure garbage collection algorithm that is known to be resistant to use-after-free and double-free vulnerabilities. Consider algorithms like mark-and-sweep, generational garbage collection, or reference counting with cycle detection.
    • Extensive Testing: Thoroughly test the garbage collector with a variety of JavaScript programs, including those designed to stress the GC (e.g., programs that create and destroy large numbers of objects).
    • Memory Analysis Tools: Use memory analysis tools (e.g., Valgrind, AddressSanitizer) to detect memory leaks, use-after-free errors, and other memory-related issues during development and testing.

2.4 Native Interface

  • Functionality: Provides a bridge between the JavaScript engine and native Android APIs, allowing JavaScript code to interact with the device's hardware and software features.
  • Security Implications:
    • Data Validation Issues: If data passed between JavaScript and native code is not properly validated, it could lead to vulnerabilities in either the JavaScript engine or the native code. For example, a malicious JavaScript program could pass an overly large string to a native function, causing a buffer overflow.
    • Privilege Escalation: If the native interface allows JavaScript code to access privileged APIs without proper authorization, it could lead to privilege escalation attacks.
    • Injection Attacks: If the native interface uses string formatting or other techniques that are vulnerable to injection attacks, a malicious JavaScript program could inject code into the native environment.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Data Validation: Implement strict data validation on both sides of the native interface. Validate the type, size, and content of all data passed between JavaScript and native code.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Ensure that JavaScript code only has access to the native APIs that it absolutely needs. Avoid granting unnecessary permissions.
    • Secure Communication: Use secure communication channels between JavaScript and native code. Avoid passing sensitive data in plain text.
    • Input Sanitization: Sanitize any user-provided input that is passed to native APIs.
    • API Review: Carefully review the security of all native APIs exposed to JavaScript code.

2.5 Build Process

  • Functionality: Compiles the Hermes source code, runs tests, and produces the final build artifacts.
  • Security Implications:
    • Compromised Build Tools: If the build tools (compiler, linker, etc.) are compromised, they could inject malicious code into the Hermes engine.
    • Dependency Vulnerabilities: Vulnerabilities in third-party libraries used by Hermes could be exploited.
    • Insufficient Testing: If the build process doesn't include adequate security testing, vulnerabilities could slip through.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Build Environment: Use a secure and trusted build environment. Keep the build tools up-to-date and patched.
    • Software Composition Analysis (SCA): Implement SCA tooling to identify and track known vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies. Regularly update dependencies to address known vulnerabilities.
    • Static Application Security Testing (SAST): Integrate a SAST tool into the CI pipeline to automatically scan for potential security flaws in the Hermes codebase.
    • Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST): Continue and expand fuzzing efforts. Consider adding more targeted DAST scans that simulate real-world attacks.
    • Reproducible Builds: Aim for reproducible builds to ensure that the build process is deterministic and that the same source code always produces the same binary. This helps to verify the integrity of the build artifacts.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to Hermes)

The following are specific, actionable mitigation strategies, building upon the general recommendations above and tailored to the Hermes project:

  1. Enhance Fuzzing Coverage:

    • Targeted Fuzzers: Create specific fuzzers for:
      • The hermes::parser::HermesParser class (and related parsing functions).
      • The bytecode emitter (hermes/BCGen/HBC/BytecodeGenerator.cpp and related).
      • The bytecode interpreter (hermes/VM/Interpreter.cpp and related).
      • The JIT compiler (if/when implemented). This should include fuzzing of generated machine code.
      • The native interface functions, focusing on data marshalling and validation.
    • Bytecode Fuzzing: Develop a fuzzer that generates valid and invalid Hermes bytecode directly, bypassing the JavaScript parser. This can help to identify vulnerabilities in the interpreter and JIT compiler that might not be reachable through JavaScript source code. Use the hermes/IR/IR.h and related files as a guide to bytecode structure.
    • Corpus Management: Implement a robust corpus management system for the fuzzers to ensure that they are exploring a diverse range of inputs. Use coverage-guided fuzzing techniques to maximize code coverage.
    • Continuous Fuzzing: Integrate fuzzing into the CI pipeline so that it runs continuously on every code change.

  2. Integrate SAST:

    • Tool Selection: Choose a SAST tool that supports C++ and is specifically designed to identify security vulnerabilities. Consider tools like:
      • Clang Static Analyzer (can be integrated with the existing build system).
      • Coverity Scan.
      • SonarQube.
    • Configuration: Configure the SAST tool to focus on security-relevant checks, such as buffer overflows, integer overflows, use-after-free errors, type confusion, and injection vulnerabilities.
    • CI Integration: Integrate the SAST tool into the GitHub Actions workflow so that it runs automatically on every code change. Fail the build if any high-severity vulnerabilities are detected.

  3. Implement SCA:

    • Tool Selection: Choose an SCA tool that can identify known vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies. Consider tools like:
      • OWASP Dependency-Check.
      • Snyk.
      • GitHub Dependabot (built-in).
    • Dependency Tracking: Maintain a clear and up-to-date list of all third-party dependencies, including their versions.
    • Automated Scanning: Integrate the SCA tool into the CI pipeline to automatically scan for vulnerabilities in dependencies on every code change.
    • Alerting and Remediation: Configure the SCA tool to send alerts when new vulnerabilities are discovered. Establish a process for promptly updating dependencies to address known vulnerabilities.

  4. Strengthen Native Interface Security:

    • Data Marshalling: Use a well-defined and secure data marshalling mechanism for passing data between JavaScript and native code. Avoid using raw pointers or manual memory management. Consider using a structured data format like JSON or Protocol Buffers.
    • API Auditing: Conduct a thorough security audit of all native APIs exposed to JavaScript code. Identify any potential security risks and implement appropriate mitigations. Document the security considerations for each API.
    • Wrapper Functions: Create wrapper functions around native APIs to provide a more secure and controlled interface for JavaScript code. These wrappers can perform additional validation and sanitization of input data.

  5. Address Questions and Assumptions:

    • Specific Static Analysis Tools: The development team should document which static analysis tools are currently used (if any) and how they are configured.
    • Bug Bounty Program: Strongly recommend establishing a bug bounty program to incentivize external security researchers to find and report vulnerabilities.
    • Security Vulnerability Handling Process: Document a clear and well-defined process for handling security vulnerabilities reported by external researchers or discovered internally. This process should include steps for triage, remediation, disclosure, and communication.
    • Security Certifications: Determine if there are any relevant security certifications or compliance requirements (e.g., related to data privacy) that Hermes should aim to meet.

  6. Memory Safety Improvements (Long-Term):

    • Consider Rust: Evaluate the feasibility of rewriting parts of Hermes in Rust, particularly the most security-critical components like the runtime and garbage collector. Rust's strong memory safety guarantees can significantly reduce the risk of memory corruption vulnerabilities. This is a long-term, strategic recommendation.
    • Modern C++: If remaining in C++, consistently use modern C++ features (smart pointers, containers, etc.) to minimize manual memory management and reduce the risk of errors. Enforce coding standards that promote memory safety.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the Hermes project can significantly enhance its security posture and reduce the risk of exploitable vulnerabilities. Continuous security testing, monitoring, and improvement are essential for maintaining a secure JavaScript engine.