Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
113 lines (70 loc) · 7.42 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

113 lines (70 loc) · 7.42 KB

Threat Model Analysis for identityserver/identityserver4

Threat: Default Signing Keys and Secrets

Description: An attacker could discover or guess default signing keys or weak client secrets if they are not changed from default configurations. Using these compromised keys, they can forge JWT tokens, impersonate legitimate users or clients, and bypass authentication and authorization mechanisms.

Impact: Full compromise of the IdentityServer4 instance and all applications relying on it. Unauthorized access to protected resources and data. Potential data breaches and reputational damage.

Affected Component: Token Service (JWT signing), Client Configuration

Risk Severity: Critical

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Generate strong, unique, and cryptographically secure signing keys and client secrets.
  • Rotate signing keys and client secrets regularly.
  • Securely store and manage keys and secrets using dedicated secret management solutions (e.g., Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault).
  • Avoid storing secrets in code or configuration files directly.

Threat: Insecure Transport (HTTP)

Description: If IdentityServer4 is deployed over HTTP instead of HTTPS, all communication, including sensitive data like user credentials, authorization codes, and access tokens, is transmitted in plaintext. An attacker performing a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack can eavesdrop on this traffic and steal sensitive information.

Impact: Exposure of user credentials, access tokens, and other sensitive data. Account takeover, unauthorized access to protected resources, and potential data breaches.

Affected Component: All IdentityServer4 Endpoints (e.g., Authorize, Token, UserInfo, Discovery)

Risk Severity: Critical

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Enforce HTTPS for all IdentityServer4 endpoints.
  • Configure web server to redirect HTTP requests to HTTPS.
  • Implement HSTS (HTTP Strict Transport Security) headers to force browsers to always use HTTPS.
  • Ensure TLS/SSL certificates are valid and properly configured.

Threat: Redirect URI Manipulation and Open Redirects

Description: If redirect URIs are not properly validated and sanitized, attackers can manipulate them during authorization flows. This can lead to open redirect vulnerabilities where users are redirected to attacker-controlled sites after successful authentication at IdentityServer4. Attackers can use this to steal authorization codes or tokens, or to conduct phishing attacks.

Impact: Redirection of users to malicious sites, potential token theft, phishing attacks, and compromise of user accounts.

Affected Component: Authorize Endpoint, Redirect URI Validation

Risk Severity: High

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Strictly validate and sanitize redirect URIs on both client and IdentityServer4 sides.
  • Use allowlists (whitelists) for valid redirect URIs.
  • Avoid dynamic redirect URI construction based on user input.
  • Implement robust redirect URI validation logic in IdentityServer4.

Threat: Authorization Code Grant Flow Vulnerabilities (misimplementation)

Description: Misimplementation of the authorization code grant flow, such as insecure code exchange or lack of proper state parameter handling, can introduce vulnerabilities. For example, without PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange), authorization codes can be intercepted and exchanged by attackers. Without proper state parameter handling, CSRF-like attacks might be possible.

Impact: Authorization code interception, token theft, CSRF-like attacks, and unauthorized access.

Affected Component: Authorize Endpoint, Token Endpoint, Authorization Code Handling

Risk Severity: High

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Ensure proper implementation of the authorization code grant flow according to OAuth 2.0 best practices.
  • Implement PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange) to protect against authorization code interception.
  • Use robust state parameter handling to prevent CSRF attacks during the authorization flow.
  • Validate authorization codes securely during token exchange.

Threat: Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant (use discouraged)

Description: Using the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant requires clients to collect user credentials (username and password) and send them directly to IdentityServer4. This increases the risk of credential compromise if clients are compromised or if communication is not properly secured. It also violates the principle of least privilege for clients and makes it harder to implement multi-factor authentication. This grant type is generally discouraged.

Impact: Increased risk of credential compromise, potential unauthorized access, and security vulnerabilities.

Affected Component: Token Endpoint (Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant Handler)

Risk Severity: High

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Avoid using the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant if possible.
  • Prefer more secure flows like authorization code grant.
  • If absolutely necessary, understand the risks and implement strong compensating controls, such as strict client application security, short token lifetimes, and strong authentication policies.

Threat: Refresh Token Abuse and Management

Description: If refresh tokens are stolen or compromised, attackers can use them to obtain new access tokens indefinitely, maintaining persistent access to resources even after user sessions expire or credentials change. Insufficient refresh token management (e.g., long lifetimes, no rotation) exacerbates this risk.

Impact: Persistent unauthorized access to resources, even after user credentials are changed or sessions are terminated.

Affected Component: Token Endpoint (Refresh Token Grant), Refresh Token Storage

Risk Severity: High

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Implement refresh token rotation to limit the lifespan of refresh tokens and invalidate old ones upon new token issuance.
  • Use short refresh token lifetimes to reduce the window of opportunity for abuse.
  • Implement mechanisms to detect and revoke compromised refresh tokens (e.g., based on usage patterns or suspicious activity).
  • Securely store and manage refresh tokens, ideally encrypted at rest.

Threat: Vulnerabilities in IdentityServer4 Dependencies

Description: IdentityServer4 relies on various dependencies (e.g., .NET framework, NuGet packages). Vulnerabilities in these dependencies can be exploited to compromise IdentityServer4 itself. Attackers can target known vulnerabilities in outdated or unpatched dependencies.

Impact: Compromise of IdentityServer4 and applications relying on it, potential data breaches, and system instability.

Affected Component: Underlying Framework, NuGet Packages, Dependency Management

Risk Severity: High

Mitigation Strategies:

  • Regularly update IdentityServer4 and its dependencies to the latest secure versions.
  • Implement vulnerability scanning to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
  • Establish a patching process to promptly apply security updates.
  • Subscribe to security advisories for IdentityServer4 and its dependencies.