Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
87 lines (72 loc) · 11.9 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

87 lines (72 loc) · 11.9 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for labstack/echo

Attack Surface: 1. Route Parameter Injection

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities arising from improper handling of route parameters defined in Echo routes (e.g., /users/:id). Lack of validation and sanitization can allow attackers to manipulate these parameters for malicious purposes. This is directly related to how Echo defines and processes routes.
  • Echo Contribution: Echo's core routing mechanism relies on path parameters, making applications inherently dependent on secure handling of these dynamic URL parts.
  • Example: A route /files/:filepath intended to serve files. If filepath is not validated, an attacker could use ../ sequences to access files outside the intended directory (path traversal), e.g., /files/../../../etc/passwd.
  • Impact: Unauthorized access to sensitive data, potentially code execution depending on application logic, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Input Validation: Strictly validate all route parameters against expected formats and allowed values within your handler functions.
    • Sanitization/Encoding: Sanitize or encode route parameters before using them in file paths, database queries, or system commands within your handler functions.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Limit the application's access to resources to only what is necessary, reducing the impact of path traversal.

Attack Surface: 2. Query Parameter Manipulation (Specifically SQL Injection Risk)

  • Description: Attacks exploiting vulnerabilities caused by mishandling of query parameters in GET requests, specifically focusing on the high-risk scenario of SQL Injection. Improper sanitization of query parameters used in database queries can lead to severe vulnerabilities.
  • Echo Contribution: Echo applications often use query parameters, and if developers directly incorporate these into database queries without proper safeguards within their handlers, they become vulnerable.
  • Example: An e-commerce site uses /products?category=electronics&price_range=0-100. An attacker could inject malicious SQL by manipulating price_range if it's directly used in a database query without sanitization in the handler. e.g., /products?category=electronics&price_range=0-100 OR 1=1 --.
  • Impact: Data breaches (SQL Injection leading to unauthorized data access or modification), potential for complete database compromise.
  • Risk Severity: High (SQL Injection)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Prepared Statements/Parameterized Queries: Always use prepared statements or parameterized queries when interacting with databases within your Echo handlers to prevent SQL Injection. This is the most effective mitigation.
    • Input Validation: Validate query parameters to ensure they conform to expected types and formats before using them in database queries.
    • Input Sanitization/Encoding: Sanitize or encode query parameters before using them in database queries as a secondary defense, but prepared statements are primary.

Attack Surface: 3. Request Body Parsing Vulnerabilities (Deserialization Attacks)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities arising from how Echo parses and handles request bodies (JSON, XML, form data), specifically focusing on the potential for deserialization attacks. While less common in Go's standard libraries, using external libraries or flawed custom deserialization logic within Echo handlers can introduce risk.
  • Echo Contribution: Echo's automatic binding of request bodies to Go structs simplifies data handling but can become a vulnerability point if deserialization processes are not secure within the application's handlers.
  • Example: If an Echo application uses a third-party library for handling a specific data format (e.g., YAML) and that library has a deserialization vulnerability, an attacker could send a malicious request body that exploits this vulnerability during Echo's request handling.
  • Impact: Potential for Remote Code Execution (RCE) if a deserialization vulnerability is successfully exploited, data corruption, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical (if RCE is possible)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Deserialization Libraries: If using external libraries for deserialization within your Echo handlers, choose reputable and actively maintained libraries. Keep these libraries updated.
    • Input Validation: Validate the structure and content of the request body after binding to ensure it conforms to expectations and prevent unexpected data from being processed.
    • Avoid Deserializing Untrusted Data: Minimize deserializing data from untrusted sources whenever possible.

Attack Surface: 4. Cookie Manipulation (Session Hijacking Risk)

  • Description: Attacks targeting vulnerabilities related to cookie handling, specifically focusing on the high-risk scenario of session hijacking. Insecure cookie management in Echo applications can allow attackers to steal or manipulate session cookies.
  • Echo Contribution: Echo provides mechanisms for setting and retrieving cookies, and if session management is implemented using cookies in an insecure manner within the Echo application, it becomes vulnerable.
  • Example: If session cookies set by an Echo application lack the HttpOnly and Secure flags, an attacker could potentially steal them via Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) or network sniffing (if HTTPS is not enforced).
  • Impact: Session hijacking, unauthorized access to user accounts, data breaches, and potential for further malicious actions performed under the hijacked session.
  • Risk Severity: High (Session Hijacking)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Cookie Flags: Always set HttpOnly and Secure flags for session cookies and other sensitive cookies when using Echo's cookie setting mechanisms. Use SameSite attribute to mitigate CSRF risks.
    • HTTPS Enforcement: Enforce HTTPS for the entire application to protect cookies in transit from network sniffing.
    • Secure Session Management: Implement robust session management practices within your Echo application, including session invalidation, session timeouts, and regeneration of session IDs after authentication.

Attack Surface: 5. Template Injection (if using server-side rendering with Echo)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities arising when user-controlled data is directly embedded into server-side templates without proper escaping in Echo applications that utilize server-side rendering. This can lead to both Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) and, in more severe cases, Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI).
  • Echo Contribution: If an Echo application is designed to use server-side templating (e.g., with Go's html/template or other engines) to render dynamic content, and developers improperly handle user input within these templates, Echo's context becomes relevant.
  • Example: A template in an Echo application displays a user's name from a query parameter: <h1>Hello, {{.Name}}</h1>. If .Name is not properly escaped and an attacker provides <script>alert('XSS')</script> as the name, the script will execute in the user's browser (XSS). With certain template engines and improper usage, SSTI could allow remote code execution on the server.
  • Impact: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) potentially leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE).
  • Risk Severity: Critical (SSTI/RCE) to High (XSS)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Context-Aware Output Encoding: Always use context-aware output encoding provided by the template engine to escape user-controlled data before embedding it in templates within your Echo application. For HTML templates, use HTML escaping.
    • Avoid Raw Output: Avoid using "raw" or "unsafe" template directives that bypass automatic escaping unless absolutely necessary and with extreme caution in your templates.
    • Template Security Audits: Regularly audit templates for potential injection vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: 6. Vulnerable Middleware Components

  • Description: Introducing vulnerabilities by using outdated or malicious middleware components within the Echo application's middleware pipeline. This is directly related to Echo's middleware feature.
  • Echo Contribution: Echo's middleware system allows developers to extend application functionality, but reliance on third-party or even custom middleware can introduce security risks if these components are vulnerable.
  • Example: Using an outdated version of a third-party authentication middleware in an Echo application that has a known security vulnerability allowing authentication bypass.
  • Impact: Wide range of impacts depending on the vulnerability in the middleware, including authentication bypass, authorization bypass, data breaches, denial of service, potentially Remote Code Execution.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the vulnerability)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Vetted Middleware Sources: Use middleware from trusted and reputable sources within your Echo application.
    • Middleware Security Audits: If using custom middleware, conduct thorough security audits and testing.
    • Keep Middleware Updated: Regularly update all middleware components to the latest versions to patch known vulnerabilities.
    • Principle of Least Privilege (Middleware): Only use middleware that is strictly necessary and avoid adding unnecessary complexity to the Echo application's middleware pipeline.

Attack Surface: 7. Middleware Ordering and Bypass

  • Description: Security bypasses due to incorrect ordering of middleware in the Echo pipeline, allowing attackers to circumvent security checks. This is a direct consequence of how Echo's middleware pipeline is configured.
  • Echo Contribution: Echo's middleware execution order is determined by the order in which middleware is registered. Incorrect ordering, configured by the developer within the Echo application, can lead to critical security flaws.
  • Example: If a logging middleware is placed before an authentication middleware in an Echo application, sensitive requests might be logged even if they are ultimately rejected by the authentication middleware. More critically, if an authorization middleware is placed after a middleware that handles sensitive data processing, authorization checks might be bypassed entirely.
  • Impact: Authentication bypass, authorization bypass, information disclosure, other security bypasses potentially leading to full application compromise.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Careful Middleware Ordering: Carefully plan and meticulously review the order of middleware in the Echo application's pipeline to ensure security middleware (authentication, authorization, input validation) is applied before middleware that handles sensitive requests or data processing.
    • Middleware Pipeline Audits: Regularly audit the middleware pipeline configuration to ensure the order remains correct and secure as the application evolves.
    • Principle of Least Privilege (Middleware): Minimize the number of middleware components and ensure each middleware has a clear and well-defined purpose in the security pipeline to reduce complexity and potential ordering errors.