Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
129 lines (100 loc) · 11.6 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

129 lines (100 loc) · 11.6 KB

Deep Security Analysis of FVM (Flutter Version Management)

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the FVM project, focusing on its key components, identifying potential vulnerabilities, and providing actionable mitigation strategies. The primary goal is to assess the risks associated with FVM's core functionality: downloading, managing, and switching between Flutter SDK versions. We aim to identify weaknesses that could lead to compromised Flutter SDKs, unauthorized file system access, or other security breaches.

Scope:

  • Codebase: The FVM codebase hosted at https://github.com/leoafarias/fvm.
  • Documentation: The project's README and any other available documentation.
  • Dependencies: Third-party packages used by FVM.
  • Deployment: The Dart Pub installation method.
  • Build Process: The GitHub Actions workflow.
  • Key Components:
    • FVM CLI
    • FVM Configuration (.fvm directory)
    • Local Flutter SDKs
    • Project Flutter SDK (symlink)
    • Interaction with Flutter SDK Repository (storage.googleapis.com)

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Data Flow Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and design document to understand the system's architecture, components, and data flow.
  2. Code Review: Examine the FVM codebase on GitHub to identify potential vulnerabilities in the implementation of key components. This will involve searching for:
    • Input validation issues (command injection, path traversal)
    • Improper error handling
    • Insecure file system operations
    • Hardcoded credentials (none expected, but always good to check)
    • Insecure use of third-party libraries
    • Lack of checksum verification
  3. Dependency Analysis: Review the pubspec.yaml and pubspec.lock files to identify third-party dependencies and assess their security posture. Look for known vulnerabilities in used versions.
  4. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the system's architecture, data flow, and identified vulnerabilities.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose specific and actionable mitigation strategies for each identified threat.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

  • FVM CLI:

    • Threats: Command injection, path traversal, denial of service (DoS) due to resource exhaustion, insecure handling of user-supplied arguments.
    • Implications: An attacker could execute arbitrary commands on the user's system, access or modify files outside the intended scope, or crash the FVM process.
    • Mitigation: Robust input validation and sanitization are crucial. Use a well-vetted command-line argument parsing library. Implement resource limits to prevent DoS. Avoid using user input directly in shell commands. Regularly review and update the CLI parsing logic.

  • FVM Configuration (.fvm directory):

    • Threats: Tampering with configuration files, unauthorized modification of settings, information disclosure (if sensitive data is stored).
    • Implications: An attacker could change the configured Flutter SDK version, potentially leading to the execution of a compromised SDK. They might also gain information about the project's structure.
    • Mitigation: Ensure proper file permissions are set on the .fvm directory and its contents (restrictive permissions). Validate the integrity of configuration files before using them. Avoid storing sensitive information in the configuration files. Consider using a checksum or digital signature to detect tampering.

  • Local Flutter SDKs:

    • Threats: Execution of a compromised Flutter SDK, unauthorized access to SDK files.
    • Implications: A compromised SDK could contain malware that could infect the user's system or compromise their projects.
    • Mitigation: Crucially, implement SHA256 checksum verification for downloaded SDKs. Store the expected checksums securely (e.g., in a separate, trusted file or fetched from a trusted source). Regularly update the list of trusted checksums. Ensure proper file permissions on the SDK directories.

  • Project Flutter SDK (symlink):

    • Threats: Symlink manipulation, leading to the execution of an unintended SDK.
    • Implications: An attacker could redirect the symlink to a malicious SDK, potentially compromising the build process.
    • Mitigation: Validate the target of the symlink before using it. Ensure that the symlink creation process is secure and cannot be manipulated by an attacker. Use secure temporary file/directory handling if necessary during symlink creation. Consider using relative paths for symlinks to reduce the attack surface.

  • Interaction with Flutter SDK Repository (storage.googleapis.com):

    • Threats: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, downloading compromised SDKs from a spoofed repository.
    • Implications: An attacker could intercept the download process and provide a malicious SDK.
    • Mitigation: Always use HTTPS to communicate with the repository. Implement SHA256 checksum verification (as mentioned above). Consider pinning the TLS certificate of the repository to further mitigate MITM attacks (although this can make updates more complex).

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow (Inferences)

Based on the provided documentation and C4 diagrams, we can infer the following:

  • Architecture: FVM follows a typical command-line tool architecture. The core logic resides within the FVM CLI, which interacts with the file system and the external Flutter SDK repository.
  • Components: The key components are clearly identified in the C4 Container diagram.
  • Data Flow:
    1. The user interacts with the FVM CLI via commands.
    2. The CLI parses the commands and may read/write to the FVM configuration.
    3. The CLI downloads Flutter SDKs from storage.googleapis.com.
    4. The CLI manages local Flutter SDK installations.
    5. The CLI creates a symlink within the project directory pointing to the selected SDK.

4. Tailored Security Considerations

  • Checksum Verification: This is the most critical security consideration for FVM. Without it, there's no guarantee that the downloaded SDKs are legitimate. This must be implemented before any other security enhancements.
  • Input Validation: Given that FVM is a CLI tool, rigorous input validation is essential to prevent command injection and path traversal vulnerabilities. This should be a high priority.
  • Dependency Security: Regularly audit and update FVM's dependencies. Use tools like dart pub outdated and dependabot (if applicable) to identify and address vulnerable dependencies.
  • File System Permissions: Ensure that FVM adheres to the principle of least privilege. It should only have the necessary permissions to access and modify the required files and directories.
  • Code Signing: While not strictly required for initial security, code signing is strongly recommended to build user trust and prevent tampering with FVM releases.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies

Here's a prioritized list of actionable mitigation strategies:

  1. Implement SHA256 Checksum Verification (High Priority):

    • Action: Modify the FVM code to download a list of SHA256 checksums for each Flutter SDK release from a trusted source (e.g., a file hosted on storage.googleapis.com alongside the SDKs, or a dedicated API endpoint). Before installing an SDK, calculate its SHA256 checksum and compare it to the expected value. If the checksums don't match, abort the installation and display a clear error message to the user.
    • Code Review Focus: Examine the download and installation logic in the FVM codebase. Identify where the checksum verification should be integrated.
    • Testing: Create test cases that simulate downloading corrupted SDKs (with incorrect checksums) to ensure the verification process works correctly.

  2. Enhance Input Validation (High Priority):

    • Action: Review all user-facing commands and arguments. Use a robust command-line argument parsing library (e.g., args package in Dart) to define expected input types and constraints. Sanitize file paths to prevent directory traversal attacks. Reject any input that doesn't conform to the expected format.
    • Code Review Focus: Examine the CLI parsing logic and any functions that handle user-provided file paths.
    • Testing: Create test cases that provide invalid input (e.g., unexpected characters, long strings, directory traversal attempts) to ensure the validation logic works correctly.

  3. Dependency Management (Medium Priority):

    • Action: Regularly run dart pub outdated to identify outdated dependencies. Update dependencies to their latest secure versions. Consider using a tool like Dependabot to automate dependency updates.
    • Code Review Focus: Review the pubspec.yaml and pubspec.lock files.
    • Testing: Ensure that updating dependencies doesn't introduce any regressions or compatibility issues.

  4. Code Signing (Medium Priority):

    • Action: Set up a code signing process for FVM releases. This typically involves obtaining a code signing certificate and using a tool (e.g., dart pub publish with appropriate configuration) to sign the executable.
    • Build Process Modification: Integrate code signing into the GitHub Actions workflow.
    • Documentation: Update the FVM documentation to explain how users can verify the signature of downloaded releases.

  5. Symlink Validation (Medium Priority):

    • Action: Before using the flutter command through symlink, validate that the symlink points to a valid Flutter SDK within the expected FVM directory structure.
    • Code Review Focus: Examine the code that handles symlink creation and usage.
    • Testing: Create test cases to verify symlink validation.

  6. File System Permissions (Low Priority):

    • Action: Review the FVM code to ensure that it doesn't unnecessarily elevate privileges or create files with overly permissive permissions. Use the principle of least privilege.
    • Code Review Focus: Examine file system operations (e.g., creating directories, writing files).
    • Testing: Test FVM on different operating systems with different user accounts to ensure that it works correctly with appropriate permissions.

  7. Sandboxing (Low Priority - If Feasible):

    • Action: Explore sandboxing techniques to limit FVM's access to the file system. This is a more complex mitigation and might not be feasible for a command-line tool. Dart isolates offer some level of sandboxing, but their applicability to this specific use case needs to be investigated.
    • Research: Investigate available sandboxing options for Dart applications.

  8. Regular Security Audits (Ongoing):

    • Action: Conduct periodic security audits and penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities. This can be done internally or by engaging external security experts.
    • Planning: Establish a schedule for regular security audits.

  9. Supply Chain Security (Ongoing):

    • Action: Implement SLSA framework to ensure security of build and supply chain.
    • Planning: Create plan for implementing SLSA framework.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, FVM's security posture can be significantly improved, reducing the risk of compromise and enhancing user trust. The checksum verification and input validation are the most critical and should be addressed immediately.