Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
209 lines (179 loc) · 105 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

209 lines (179 loc) · 105 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Ory Hydra

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of Ory Hydra's key components, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities and providing actionable mitigation strategies. This analysis aims to ensure that an application leveraging Ory Hydra maintains a strong security posture, protecting against unauthorized access, data breaches, and denial-of-service attacks. The key components to be analyzed include:

  • Authorization Endpoint: Handles authorization requests from client applications.
  • Token Endpoint: Issues and validates access tokens, refresh tokens, and ID tokens.
  • Introspection Endpoint: Allows resource servers to validate tokens.
  • Userinfo Endpoint: Provides information about the authenticated user (when used as an OpenID Connect provider).
  • JWKS Endpoint: Publishes the public keys used to verify JWT signatures.
  • Client Management: The process of registering, updating, and deleting OAuth 2.0 clients.
  • Consent Management: The process of obtaining and managing user consent for requested scopes.
  • Database Interaction: How Hydra interacts with its configured database.
  • Admin API: The API used for managing Hydra's configuration.

Scope: This analysis focuses on the security implications of Ory Hydra's design and implementation, as inferred from the provided documentation, C4 diagrams, and deployment model. It considers the interaction between Hydra and external components (Identity Providers, Client Applications, Resource Servers) but does not include a full security review of those external components. The analysis assumes a Kubernetes deployment environment, as described in the design document.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Data Flow Inference: Based on the provided information, we'll solidify the understanding of Hydra's architecture, data flow, and component interactions.
  2. Component-Specific Threat Modeling: For each key component listed above, we'll identify potential threats using a combination of STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) and known OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect attack vectors.
  3. Vulnerability Analysis: We'll assess the likelihood and impact of each identified threat, considering existing security controls.
  4. Mitigation Recommendations: For each significant vulnerability, we'll provide specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to Ory Hydra and the assumed Kubernetes deployment.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

We'll now analyze each key component, outlining threats, vulnerabilities, and mitigations.

2.1 Authorization Endpoint (/oauth2/auth)

  • Architecture: This endpoint receives authorization requests from client applications, typically via a user's browser redirect. It interacts with the Identity Provider (IdP) for user authentication and obtains user consent.
  • Data Flow: Client App -> (redirect) -> User Browser -> (redirect) -> Hydra Authorization Endpoint -> IdP -> Hydra Authorization Endpoint -> (redirect with authorization code) -> User Browser -> (redirect) -> Client App.
  • Threats:
    • Spoofing: A malicious client could impersonate a legitimate client by using a stolen client ID or manipulating the redirect_uri.
    • Tampering: An attacker could modify request parameters (e.g., scope, state, response_type) to escalate privileges or bypass security controls.
    • Information Disclosure: Leaking sensitive information in error messages or through improper redirect handling.
    • Open Redirect: If the redirect_uri validation is flawed, an attacker could redirect the user to a malicious site.
    • CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery): If the state parameter is not properly used and validated, an attacker could trick a user into initiating an authorization request on their behalf.
    • Code Injection: If input validation is insufficient, an attacker might inject malicious code into request parameters.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weak redirect_uri validation.
    • Insufficient state parameter validation.
    • Improper error handling revealing sensitive information.
    • Lack of CSRF protection.
    • Vulnerable to injection attacks.
  • Mitigations:
    • Strict redirect_uri Whitelisting: Hydra should strictly enforce pre-registered redirect_uri values, using exact string matching (no wildcards or pattern matching unless absolutely necessary and carefully reviewed). This is a critical defense against open redirect and client impersonation attacks.
    • Mandatory and Robust state Parameter Usage: Enforce the use of the state parameter and ensure it's cryptographically random and bound to the user's session. Verify the state value upon return from the IdP. This prevents CSRF attacks.
    • Secure Error Handling: Implement generic error messages that do not reveal sensitive information about the system or configuration. Log detailed error information separately for debugging purposes.
    • Input Validation: Strictly validate all input parameters, including client_id, scope, response_type, redirect_uri, and any custom parameters. Use a whitelist approach whenever possible.
    • Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strong CSP to mitigate the impact of potential XSS vulnerabilities.
    • Regular Expression Review: If regular expressions are used for redirect_uri validation (which should be avoided if possible), ensure they are carefully reviewed and tested to prevent ReDoS (Regular Expression Denial of Service) attacks.

2.2 Token Endpoint (/oauth2/token)

  • Architecture: This endpoint exchanges authorization codes, refresh tokens, or other grant type credentials for access tokens, ID tokens, and refresh tokens.
  • Data Flow: Client App -> Hydra Token Endpoint (with authorization code, refresh token, or other credentials) -> Hydra Database -> Hydra Token Endpoint -> Client App (with tokens).
  • Threats:
    • Spoofing: A malicious client could attempt to use a stolen authorization code or refresh token.
    • Tampering: An attacker could modify the request to attempt to obtain tokens with elevated privileges.
    • Information Disclosure: Leaking token information through error messages or logging.
    • Brute-Force Attacks: Attempting to guess client secrets or authorization codes.
    • Token Replay: Reusing a previously issued token.
    • Code Injection in Client Credentials Grant: If using client credentials grant, ensure proper sanitization to prevent injection.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weak client authentication.
    • Insufficient authorization code or refresh token validation.
    • Improper token generation or storage.
    • Vulnerable to brute-force attacks.
  • Mitigations:
    • Strong Client Authentication: Enforce strong client authentication methods, such as private key JWT or mutual TLS (mTLS), especially for confidential clients. Avoid using client secret basic authentication for highly sensitive clients.
    • Authorization Code and Refresh Token Binding: Ensure that authorization codes and refresh tokens are bound to the client that requested them and cannot be used by other clients. Hydra should track the client ID associated with each code and refresh token.
    • Short-Lived Authorization Codes: Issue authorization codes with very short expiration times (e.g., a few minutes) to minimize the window of opportunity for attackers.
    • One-Time Use Authorization Codes: Ensure that authorization codes can only be used once. Hydra should revoke the code after it's exchanged for tokens.
    • Secure Token Generation: Use a cryptographically secure random number generator to generate tokens.
    • Token Storage Security: Store tokens securely in the database, using encryption at rest.
    • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting on the token endpoint to prevent brute-force attacks on client secrets and authorization codes.
    • Token Revocation: Implement and actively use token revocation mechanisms to invalidate compromised tokens.
    • Audience Restriction: Ensure that issued tokens are restricted to the intended audience (resource servers) using the aud claim.

2.3 Introspection Endpoint (/oauth2/introspect)

  • Architecture: This endpoint allows resource servers to validate access tokens and obtain information about them (e.g., scopes, expiration time, associated client).
  • Data Flow: Resource Server -> Hydra Introspection Endpoint (with access token) -> Hydra Database -> Hydra Introspection Endpoint -> Resource Server (with token information).
  • Threats:
    • Information Disclosure: Leaking information about tokens to unauthorized resource servers.
    • Tampering: An attacker could modify the introspection request to obtain information about tokens they shouldn't have access to.
    • Denial of Service: Overloading the introspection endpoint with requests.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weak authentication of resource servers.
    • Insufficient access control on token information.
    • Lack of rate limiting.
  • Mitigations:
    • Strong Resource Server Authentication: Require strong authentication for resource servers accessing the introspection endpoint, such as mutual TLS (mTLS) or a dedicated API key.
    • Access Control: Ensure that resource servers can only introspect tokens that were issued to them or to clients authorized to access their resources. This can be achieved by checking the aud (audience) claim of the token.
    • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
    • Input Validation: Validate the token parameter to ensure it's in the expected format.

2.4 Userinfo Endpoint (/userinfo)

  • Architecture: This endpoint provides information about the authenticated user, based on the access token provided. It's part of the OpenID Connect standard.
  • Data Flow: Client App -> Hydra Userinfo Endpoint (with access token) -> Hydra Database/IdP -> Hydra Userinfo Endpoint -> Client App (with user information).
  • Threats:
    • Information Disclosure: Leaking user information to unauthorized clients.
    • Tampering: An attacker could modify the request to attempt to obtain information about other users.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weak access token validation.
    • Insufficient access control on user information.
  • Mitigations:
    • Strict Access Token Validation: Thoroughly validate the access token before returning user information. Ensure it's a valid, non-expired token issued by Hydra.
    • Scope-Based Access Control: Only return user information that's within the scope of the access token. For example, if the access token only has the openid scope, don't return information associated with the profile or email scopes.
    • Audience Restriction: Ensure the access token was issued to the client making the request.

2.5 JWKS Endpoint (.well-known/jwks.json)

  • Architecture: This endpoint publishes the public keys used by Hydra to sign JWTs (ID tokens and access tokens, if JWT format is used). Clients and resource servers use these keys to verify the signatures of the tokens.
  • Data Flow: Client App/Resource Server -> Hydra JWKS Endpoint -> Hydra -> Client App/Resource Server (with public keys).
  • Threats:
    • Tampering: An attacker could attempt to modify the JWKS to include their own keys, allowing them to forge tokens.
    • Information Disclosure: While the keys are public, the structure of the JWKS could potentially reveal information about Hydra's key management practices.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Lack of integrity protection on the JWKS.
    • Predictable key IDs (KIDs).
  • Mitigations:
    • HTTPS: Serve the JWKS endpoint only over HTTPS.
    • Key Rotation: Implement regular key rotation to limit the impact of a compromised key. Hydra should support multiple keys in the JWKS to allow for smooth key transitions.
    • Unpredictable KIDs: Use unpredictable, randomly generated Key IDs (KIDs) to make it harder for attackers to predict future keys.
    • Cache Control Headers: Use appropriate cache control headers to ensure that clients and resource servers fetch the latest JWKS.

2.6 Client Management

  • Architecture: This involves the processes for registering, updating, and deleting OAuth 2.0 clients within Hydra. This is typically done via the Admin API.
  • Threats:
    • Unauthorized Client Creation/Modification: An attacker could create malicious clients or modify existing clients to gain unauthorized access.
    • Client Secret Leakage: Client secrets could be leaked through insecure storage or transmission.
    • Privilege Escalation: An attacker could create a client with excessive privileges.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weak authentication and authorization for the Admin API.
    • Insecure storage of client secrets.
    • Lack of auditing of client management actions.
  • Mitigations:
    • Strong Authentication and Authorization for Admin API: Use strong authentication (e.g., multi-factor authentication) and role-based access control (RBAC) for the Admin API. Limit access to the client management functions to authorized administrators.
    • Secure Storage of Client Secrets: Store client secrets securely, using encryption at rest. Consider using a secrets management solution (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault).
    • Auditing: Log all client management actions (creation, modification, deletion) to provide an audit trail.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: When creating clients, grant only the necessary scopes and grant types. Avoid granting excessive privileges.
    • Regular Client Review: Periodically review registered clients to ensure they are still needed and have appropriate privileges.

2.7 Consent Management

  • Architecture: Hydra handles user consent, typically by interacting with a consent app (which can be custom-built or provided by a third party).
  • Threats:
    • Consent Bypass: An attacker could bypass the consent process and obtain tokens without user authorization.
    • Consent Manipulation: An attacker could modify the consent request to trick the user into granting more permissions than intended.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weaknesses in the integration with the consent app.
    • Insufficient validation of consent responses.
  • Mitigations:
    • Secure Communication with Consent App: Use HTTPS and mutual TLS (mTLS) to secure communication between Hydra and the consent app.
    • Input Validation: Strictly validate all data received from the consent app.
    • Tamper-Proof Consent Requests: Use digitally signed requests or other mechanisms to ensure that consent requests haven't been tampered with.
    • Clear and Concise Consent Prompts: Ensure that consent prompts are clear, concise, and accurately reflect the requested permissions.
    • Auditing: Log all consent decisions.

2.8 Database Interaction

  • Architecture: Hydra relies on a database (typically SQL) to store configuration data, client information, tokens, and consent records.
  • Threats:
    • SQL Injection: An attacker could inject malicious SQL code through input parameters.
    • Data Breach: Unauthorized access to the database could lead to the exposure of sensitive data.
    • Denial of Service: Attacks targeting the database could make Hydra unavailable.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Lack of input sanitization.
    • Weak database access controls.
    • Unencrypted database connections.
    • Lack of database monitoring.
  • Mitigations:
    • Prepared Statements/Parameterized Queries: Use prepared statements or parameterized queries for all database interactions to prevent SQL injection. Never construct SQL queries by concatenating user input.
    • Database Access Control: Implement strong access controls on the database. Use a dedicated database user with the minimum necessary privileges for Hydra.
    • Encrypted Database Connections: Use TLS to encrypt all connections between Hydra and the database.
    • Database Encryption at Rest: Encrypt the database at rest to protect data in case of physical theft or unauthorized access to the database server.
    • Database Monitoring and Auditing: Monitor database activity for suspicious behavior and enable auditing to track all database operations.
    • Regular Database Backups: Implement regular backups of the database to ensure data recovery in case of failure or disaster.
    • Database Firewall: Use a database firewall to restrict network access to the database server.

2.9 Admin API

  • Architecture: The Admin API provides endpoints for managing Hydra's configuration, including clients, keys, and policies.
  • Threats:
    • Unauthorized Access: An attacker could gain access to the Admin API and modify Hydra's configuration, potentially compromising the entire system.
    • Privilege Escalation: An attacker with limited access could exploit vulnerabilities in the Admin API to gain higher privileges.
  • Vulnerabilities:
    • Weak authentication and authorization.
    • Lack of input validation.
    • Vulnerable dependencies.
  • Mitigations:
    • Strong Authentication and Authorization: Require strong authentication (e.g., multi-factor authentication) and implement role-based access control (RBAC) for the Admin API. Restrict access to specific endpoints based on user roles.
    • Network Segmentation: Isolate the Admin API from the public internet. Use network policies in Kubernetes to restrict access to the Admin API to authorized pods and services.
    • Input Validation: Strictly validate all input to the Admin API.
    • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the Admin API to identify and address vulnerabilities.
    • Web Application Firewall (WAF): Consider using a WAF to protect the Admin API from common web attacks.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary)

The following table summarizes the key mitigation strategies, categorized by the component they address:

| Component | Mitigation Strategy

These mitigations are specific to Ory Hydra and the assumed Kubernetes deployment. They are designed to be actionable and directly address the identified threats and vulnerabilities. Regular security audits, penetration testing, and staying up-to-date with the latest security advisories from the Ory team are also crucial for maintaining a strong security posture.