Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
28 lines (23 loc) · 4.01 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

28 lines (23 loc) · 4.01 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for bchavez/bogus

Attack Surface: Data Injection/Manipulation via Customization Features

  • Description: Attackers can inject or manipulate data if the application exposes Bogus customization features (like RuleFor, CustomInstantiator, Factory) to untrusted input or external configurations without proper validation.
  • How Bogus Contributes: Bogus's core design allows for extensive customization through rules and factories. This flexibility becomes a direct attack vector when these customization mechanisms are exposed to untrusted sources without proper security measures. The library itself provides the means for this customization, which if misused, leads to the vulnerability.
  • Example: An application allows administrators to upload a JSON configuration file to define data generation rules for testing. A malicious administrator uploads a file with rules that inject malicious scripts into generated string fields. When this "fake" data is used in the application, it triggers Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
  • Impact: Data corruption, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), SQL Injection (if generated data is used in database queries), business logic bypass, and potentially Remote Code Execution (depending on how the application processes the generated data).
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical, depending on the application's context and how the generated data is used. If it directly impacts security-sensitive areas, it can be critical.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Restrict access to Bogus customization features to only trusted administrators or internal processes.
    • Input Validation and Sanitization: Thoroughly validate and sanitize any user-provided input used to define data generation rules or factories. Use whitelisting and input type validation.
    • Secure Configuration Management: Store and manage configuration files securely. Implement access controls and integrity checks for configuration files.
    • Code Review: Review custom data generation logic and configuration handling for potential injection vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Dependency Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Vulnerabilities in Bogus's dependencies can indirectly affect applications using Bogus.
  • How Bogus Contributes: Bogus, like any library, relies on external dependencies. By including Bogus, the application inherits the attack surface of these dependencies. While not a flaw in Bogus's code, the use of Bogus brings in these dependencies and their potential vulnerabilities.
  • Example: Bogus depends on a library that has a known critical security vulnerability allowing Remote Code Execution. An attacker exploits this vulnerability in the dependency, indirectly compromising the application using Bogus.
  • Impact: Wide range of impacts depending on the specific vulnerability in the dependency, potentially including Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service, or Information Disclosure.
  • Risk Severity: Medium to Critical, depending on the severity of the dependency vulnerability and the application's exposure. Can be critical if a dependency has a severe, easily exploitable vulnerability.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Regular Updates: Regularly update Bogus to the latest version to benefit from dependency updates and security patches.
    • Dependency Scanning: Use dependency scanning tools (e.g., OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk) to identify and manage vulnerabilities in Bogus's dependencies.
    • Vulnerability Monitoring: Monitor security advisories for Bogus and its dependencies to stay informed about potential vulnerabilities.
    • Dependency Pinning (with caution): Consider pinning dependency versions to manage and control updates, but ensure regular reviews and updates to pinned versions to address security issues.