Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
147 lines (110 loc) · 8.53 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

147 lines (110 loc) · 8.53 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for gin-gonic/gin

Mitigation Strategy: Explicit Data Binding and Validation (Gin-Specific)

Description:

  1. Define Structs: For every endpoint that accepts data, define a Go struct.
  2. Use Gin's Struct Tags: Use Gin's supported struct tags (json:"fieldname", form:"fieldname", xml:"fieldname", uri:"fieldname", header:"fieldname") to explicitly map struct fields to request data. Do not omit these tags.
  3. Use ShouldBind... Methods: Use the appropriate ShouldBind... method (e.g., c.ShouldBindJSON(&userInput), c.ShouldBind(&userInput), c.ShouldBindBodyWith(&userInput, binding.JSON)) to bind request data to the struct.
  4. Leverage Gin's Built-in Validators: Use Gin's built-in validation tags (e.g., binding:"required,email,min=6") within your struct definitions.
  5. Custom Validators (with Gin Integration): Create custom validators using the validator package and register them with Gin using binding.Validator.Engine().(*validator.Validate).RegisterValidation(...).
  6. Handle Binding Errors: Always check for errors returned by ShouldBind... methods and return appropriate HTTP error responses (e.g., 400 Bad Request).
  7. Use ShouldBindBodyWith: When you need to read request body multiple times, use ShouldBindBodyWith.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Mass Assignment (High Severity): Gin's struct tags and binding methods, when used correctly, prevent injection of unexpected fields.
  • Type Mismatch Attacks (Medium Severity): Gin's binding and validation enforce type constraints.
  • Code Injection (Critical Severity - indirect mitigation): Strict validation reduces the risk of injecting malicious code through input.

Impact:

  • Mass Assignment: Risk reduced to near zero.
  • Type Mismatch Attacks: Risk significantly reduced.
  • Code Injection: Risk indirectly reduced.

Currently Implemented:

  • Structs and tags are used in /users (handlers/users.go).
  • ShouldBindJSON is used in /users (handlers/users.go).
  • Basic built-in validators are used.

Missing Implementation:

  • Custom validators are not implemented.
  • Error handling for binding errors could be improved.
  • ShouldBindBodyWith is not used consistently.

Mitigation Strategy: Controlled Redirects (Gin-Specific)

Description:

  1. Identify c.Redirect() Usage: Find all instances of c.Redirect() in your code.
  2. Whitelist (if user input is involved): If redirect URLs are based on user input, create a whitelist of allowed URLs.
  3. Validate Against Whitelist: Before calling c.Redirect(), validate the user-supplied URL against the whitelist.
  4. Prefer Relative Redirects: Use relative paths (e.g., /dashboard) whenever possible. This is inherently safer.
  5. Robust URL Validation (if absolute URLs are necessary): If you must use absolute URLs with user input, use Go's net/url package to parse and validate the URL's components (scheme, hostname, path). Use this with c.Redirect().
  6. Use correct HTTP Status Code: Use correct status code for redirect (3xx).

Threats Mitigated:

  • Open Redirect (Medium Severity): Prevents attackers from redirecting users to malicious sites.

Impact:

  • Open Redirect: Risk reduced to near zero with a whitelist or robust validation.

Currently Implemented:

  • Relative redirects are used in /login (handlers/auth.go).

Missing Implementation:

  • No whitelist is implemented.
  • No robust URL validation is performed.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Template Handling (Gin-Specific)

Description:

  1. Identify c.HTML() Usage: Find all instances of c.HTML() in your code.
  2. Review Templates: Carefully review all HTML templates.
  3. Avoid template.HTML with User Input: Never use template.HTML to render user-supplied data directly. This bypasses Gin's (and Go's html/template) automatic escaping.
  4. Context-Aware Escaping: If embedding data in special contexts (e.g., JavaScript), ensure html/template's escaping is sufficient. You may need additional escaping (e.g., js.EscapeString).

Threats Mitigated:

  • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (High Severity): Prevents injection of malicious JavaScript.

Impact:

  • XSS: Risk significantly reduced by using c.HTML() and html/template correctly.

Currently Implemented:

  • html/template is used correctly with automatic escaping in most templates (templates/*.html).

Missing Implementation:

  • Review needed to ensure no instances of template.HTML with untrusted data.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Middleware Configuration (Gin-Specific)

Description:

  1. Review Middleware Order: Carefully review the order of all Gin middleware. Security middleware should come before business logic middleware.
  2. Audit Third-Party Gin Middleware: Thoroughly review any third-party Gin middleware before using it.
  3. Custom Error Handling (Gin-Specific): Implement custom error handling middleware using gin.HandlerFunc. This middleware should:
    • Log the error securely.
    • Return a generic error response to the user (don't expose internal details).
  4. Replace gin.Recovery(): Replace the default gin.Recovery() middleware with a custom recovery middleware (also a gin.HandlerFunc) that logs errors appropriately and returns a generic error response. The default recovery can expose stack traces.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Information Leakage (Medium Severity): Prevents sensitive information leakage in error responses.
  • Authentication/Authorization Bypass (Critical Severity): Correct middleware order ensures security checks.
  • Vulnerabilities in Third-Party Middleware (Variable Severity): Auditing reduces risk.

Impact:

  • Information Leakage: Risk significantly reduced.
  • Authentication/Authorization Bypass: Risk significantly reduced.
  • Vulnerabilities in Third-Party Middleware: Risk reduced.

Currently Implemented:

  • Basic middleware order is correct.
  • Custom error handling is partially implemented (handlers/errors.go).

Missing Implementation:

  • Audit of third-party middleware needed.
  • gin.Recovery() needs to be replaced.
  • Comprehensive error logging needed.

Mitigation Strategy: Disable Debugging in Production (Gin-Specific)

Description:

  1. GIN_MODE=release: Ensure the GIN_MODE environment variable is set to release in your production environment. This disables Gin's debug mode.
  2. Remove/Conditionalize Debugging Code: Remove or conditionally disable any code that uses Gin's debugging features (e.g., DebugPrintRouteFunc).

Threats Mitigated:

  • Information Leakage (Medium Severity): Prevents Gin's debugging features from exposing sensitive information.

Impact:

  • Information Leakage: Risk significantly reduced.

Currently Implemented:

  • GIN_MODE is set to release in production.

Missing Implementation:

  • Review code for remaining debugging statements.

Mitigation Strategy: Explicit and Secure Context Usage (Gin-Specific)

Description:

  1. Review gin.Context Usage: Examine all uses of gin.Context.
  2. Avoid Sensitive Data in Context: Do not store sensitive data directly in the gin.Context.
  3. c.Copy() for Goroutines: When passing the context to a goroutine, always use c.Copy() to create a read-only copy.
  4. Context Timeouts: Use context timeouts (c.Request.Context()) to prevent long-running operations from blocking the server. Use c.Request.Context() with WithTimeout.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Information Leakage (Medium Severity): Prevents accidental exposure of sensitive data.
  • Race Conditions (Medium Severity): c.Copy() prevents data races.

Impact:

  • Information Leakage: Risk significantly reduced.
  • Race Conditions: Risk significantly reduced.

Currently Implemented:

  • c.Copy() is used in some goroutines (handlers/async.go).

Missing Implementation:

  • Comprehensive review of context usage needed.
  • c.Copy() needs to be used consistently.
  • Context timeouts are not consistently implemented.