Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
80 lines (65 loc) · 201 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

80 lines (65 loc) · 201 KB

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

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the uWebSockets library, focusing on its key components, architecture, and data flow. The goal is to identify potential security vulnerabilities, assess their impact, and provide actionable mitigation strategies specific to the uWebSockets context. We aim to go beyond generic recommendations and provide concrete advice tailored to the library's design and intended use.

  • Scope: The analysis will cover the core components of the uWebSockets library as described in the design review and inferred from its GitHub repository (https://github.com/unetworking/uwebsockets). This includes:

    • WebSocket and HTTP protocol handling (parsing, framing, connection management).
    • SSL/TLS implementation (integration with OpenSSL or other libraries).
    • Memory management (given the C/C++ codebase).
    • Dependency management (external libraries like libuv, zlib, OpenSSL).
    • Integration points with application-level code (callbacks, handlers).
    • Build and deployment processes.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Data Flow Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and deployment model to understand the system's structure, components, and how data flows between them. Infer additional details from the GitHub repository's code structure and documentation.
    2. Component Analysis: Break down the security implications of each key component identified in the scope. This will involve examining the code (where feasible) and documentation to understand how each component handles security-relevant aspects.
    3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the architecture, data flow, and component analysis. Consider common web application vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10) and specific threats relevant to WebSocket and HTTP servers.
    4. Vulnerability Assessment: Evaluate the likelihood and impact of each identified threat, considering existing security controls and accepted risks.
    5. Mitigation Recommendations: Provide specific, actionable, and tailored mitigation strategies for each identified vulnerability. These recommendations will be specific to uWebSockets and its implementation.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of the key components, drawing inferences from the codebase and documentation:

  • WebSocket Protocol Handling (uws/src/uws_websocket.c, uws/src/uws_protocol.c):

    • Implication: This is the core of the WebSocket functionality. Vulnerabilities here can lead to DoS, data corruption, or potentially even remote code execution. Parsing WebSocket frames, handling masking, managing connection state, and handling extensions are all critical areas.
    • Threats:
      • DoS via malformed frames: Attackers could send specially crafted frames (e.g., oversized, incomplete, incorrectly masked) to exhaust resources or trigger errors.
      • Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH): If proper origin checks are not enforced, attackers could establish WebSocket connections from malicious websites.
      • Data leakage/manipulation: Errors in handling masked frames could lead to data being misinterpreted or manipulated.
      • Extension negotiation vulnerabilities: If extensions (like permessage-deflate) are not handled securely, they could introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Inferred Architecture: The code likely involves state machines to manage connection states and parsing logic to handle incoming and outgoing frames. There are likely buffers used to store frame data.

  • HTTP Protocol Handling (uws/src/uws_http.c, uws/src/uws_protocol.c):

    • Implication: Similar to WebSocket handling, vulnerabilities in HTTP parsing can lead to various attacks. Handling headers, request bodies, and responses correctly is crucial.
    • Threats:
      • HTTP Request Smuggling: Ambiguities in parsing HTTP requests (especially related to Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers) can allow attackers to bypass security controls or poison caches.
      • Header Injection: If user-supplied data is improperly included in HTTP headers, attackers could inject malicious headers (e.g., for XSS or response splitting).
      • DoS via large requests/headers: Attackers could send oversized requests or headers to consume resources.
      • Slowloris attacks: Holding connections open with slow data transfer rates.
    • Inferred Architecture: The code likely uses a parser to process HTTP requests and responses, with buffers for storing header and body data. There's likely logic for handling different HTTP methods and versions.

  • SSL/TLS Implementation (uws/src/uws_context.c, integration with OpenSSL/BoringSSL):

    • Implication: This is critical for secure communication (wss:// and https://). Correct configuration and usage of the underlying SSL/TLS library (OpenSSL, BoringSSL, etc.) are essential.
    • Threats:
      • Use of weak ciphers/protocols: If outdated or vulnerable ciphers or TLS versions are allowed, connections could be intercepted or decrypted.
      • Improper certificate validation: Failure to properly validate server certificates could lead to man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks.
      • Vulnerabilities in the underlying SSL/TLS library: uWebSockets is dependent on the security of the chosen SSL/TLS library.
      • Side-channel attacks: Timing or other side-channel attacks against the cryptographic operations.
    • Inferred Architecture: uWebSockets likely provides an abstraction layer over the underlying SSL/TLS library, handling context creation, certificate loading, and handshake management.

  • Memory Management (C/C++ codebase):

    • Implication: Given the use of C/C++, memory management is a major concern. Buffer overflows, use-after-free errors, and memory leaks are potential vulnerabilities.
    • Threats:
      • Buffer Overflows: Writing data beyond the allocated size of a buffer, potentially overwriting adjacent memory and leading to code execution.
      • Use-After-Free: Accessing memory that has already been freed, leading to crashes or potentially exploitable behavior.
      • Memory Leaks: Failing to free allocated memory, leading to resource exhaustion and DoS.
      • Double-Free: Freeing the same memory region twice, leading to heap corruption.
    • Inferred Architecture: The codebase likely uses a combination of manual memory management (malloc/free) and potentially some custom memory allocators or pools for performance optimization.

  • Dependency Management (libuv, zlib, OpenSSL/BoringSSL):

    • Implication: Vulnerabilities in these dependencies can directly impact uWebSockets.
    • Threats:
      • Known vulnerabilities in dependencies: Regularly scanning for and updating dependencies is crucial.
      • Supply chain attacks: Compromise of a dependency's build or distribution process.
    • Inferred Architecture: uWebSockets links against these libraries, relying on their functionality for networking, compression, and cryptography.

  • Integration Points (Callbacks, Handlers):

    • Implication: The way uWebSockets interacts with application code is a critical security boundary. Improper handling of user-provided data within callbacks or handlers can introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Threats:
      • Input Validation Issues: If application code doesn't properly validate data received from uWebSockets (e.g., WebSocket messages, HTTP request parameters), it could be vulnerable to various attacks (XSS, SQL injection, command injection, etc.).
      • Authorization Bypass: If authorization checks are not performed correctly within handlers, attackers could access unauthorized resources.
    • Inferred Architecture: uWebSockets likely uses a callback-based or event-driven architecture, where application code registers handlers to be executed when specific events occur (e.g., new connection, message received, HTTP request).

3. Threat Modeling & 4. Vulnerability Assessment

(Combined for brevity, focusing on high-impact threats)

| Threat | Likelihood | Impact | Description