Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
57 lines (48 loc) · 5.88 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

57 lines (48 loc) · 5.88 KB

Threat Model Analysis for sixlabors/imagesharp

Threat: Image Bomb (Decompression Bomb)

  • Description: An attacker uploads a maliciously crafted, highly compressed image file (e.g., a "pixel flood" image) that appears small but expands to an extremely large size in memory when ImageSharp attempts to decode it. The attacker aims to exhaust server resources (memory, CPU).
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS). The application becomes unresponsive or crashes due to excessive memory consumption or CPU utilization. Other users are unable to access the service.
  • ImageSharp Component Affected: Image decoders (format-specific). For example, JpegDecoder, PngDecoder, GifDecoder, etc. The core image loading and processing pipeline (Image.Load, Image.Identify).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Input Validation:
      • Enforce strict limits on maximum image dimensions (width and height) before decoding. Reject images exceeding these limits.
      • Enforce a reasonable maximum file size limit before decoding.
    • Resource Limits:
      • Configure ImageSharp (or the environment it runs in) to have a maximum memory allocation limit.
      • Implement timeouts for image processing operations.
    • Progressive Loading (if feasible): If the application's use case allows, consider using progressive image loading techniques (if supported by the format and ImageSharp) to detect excessively large images early in the decoding process.

Threat: Malformed Image Format Exploit

  • Description: An attacker uploads an image file that is intentionally malformed or contains crafted data that exploits a vulnerability in ImageSharp's parsing logic for a specific image format (e.g., a buffer overflow in the JPEG decoder). The attacker aims to execute arbitrary code or cause a crash.
  • Impact: Could range from Denial of Service (DoS) to Remote Code Execution (RCE), depending on the vulnerability. RCE would lead to complete system compromise.
  • ImageSharp Component Affected: Specific image format decoders (e.g., JpegDecoder, PngDecoder, GifDecoder, TiffDecoder, WebpDecoder, etc.). The vulnerability could be within the decoder itself or in a lower-level library that ImageSharp uses for format parsing (but directly used by ImageSharp).
  • Risk Severity: Critical (if RCE is possible), High (if only DoS is possible)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep ImageSharp Updated: This is the most crucial mitigation. Regularly update to the latest version of ImageSharp to receive security patches that address known vulnerabilities.
    • Limit Accepted Formats: Only allow the specific image formats that are absolutely necessary for the application. Disable support for less common or older formats that may have a higher risk of vulnerabilities.
    • Input Sanitization/Validation: While not a complete solution, perform basic checks on the image data before passing it to ImageSharp's decoders. This might involve checking for known "magic numbers" or header structures to ensure the file is likely to be of the claimed format.
    • Sandboxing: Run ImageSharp processing in a sandboxed or containerized environment with restricted privileges and resource limits. This limits the impact of a successful exploit.

Threat: Resource Exhaustion via Complex Images

  • Description: Similar to the Image Bomb, but instead of relying on compression, the attacker uploads an image with extremely complex features (e.g., a very large number of layers, intricate vector graphics, or computationally expensive filters). The goal is to consume excessive CPU or memory during processing.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS).
  • ImageSharp Component Affected: Image processing algorithms (resizing, filtering, color conversion, etc.). Specific components depend on the type of complexity exploited. For example, the Resize operation, various filter implementations, or complex blending modes.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Input Validation:
      • Limit image dimensions.
      • Limit the number of layers (if applicable to the supported formats).
      • Restrict the use of computationally expensive filters or features.
    • Resource Limits:
      • Set memory limits for ImageSharp.
      • Implement processing timeouts.
    • Complexity Analysis (Advanced): Potentially analyze the image before full processing to estimate its complexity and reject images that are deemed too complex. This is a more advanced technique.

Threat: Null Pointer Dereference / Exception Handling

  • Description: An attacker provides a malformed or unexpected input image that causes ImageSharp to encounter an unhandled exception or attempt to dereference a null pointer, leading to a crash.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS).
  • ImageSharp Component Affected: Potentially any component, depending on where the error handling is insufficient.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Robust Error Handling: Ensure that ImageSharp's error handling is robust and that all potential exceptions are caught and handled gracefully. Avoid exposing raw exception details to the user.
    • Fuzz Testing: Use fuzz testing techniques to provide ImageSharp with a wide range of invalid or unexpected inputs to identify potential error handling issues.
    • Code Reviews: Conduct thorough code reviews of the ImageSharp integration, paying close attention to error handling and null pointer checks.
    • Update ImageSharp: Newer versions of ImageSharp are more likely to have addressed such issues.