Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
88 lines (69 loc) · 9.65 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

88 lines (69 loc) · 9.65 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for urfave/cli

Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation for CLI Arguments and Flags

  • Description:

    1. Define Expected Input for Each Flag and Argument: For every flag and argument defined in your urfave/cli application, explicitly define the expected data type, format, and any constraints (e.g., allowed values, length limits, numerical ranges).
    2. Implement Validation Logic within Command Handlers: Within each command's Action function (or equivalent handler), add code at the beginning to validate the values received from cli flags and arguments before any further processing.
    3. Utilize urfave/cli's Type System (where applicable): Leverage built-in flag types like StringFlag, IntFlag, BoolFlag, PathFlag as they provide basic type enforcement. However, these are not sufficient for comprehensive validation and should be supplemented with custom checks.
    4. Perform Custom Validation Checks: Implement custom validation logic using conditional statements, regular expressions, or validation libraries to enforce specific format requirements, value ranges, or allowed sets of values for flags and arguments.
    5. Return Clear Error Messages on Validation Failure: If validation fails for any flag or argument, immediately return an error from the command's Action function using cli.Exit() or by returning an error value. The error message should be user-friendly and clearly indicate which input is invalid and why.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Command Injection (High Severity): Prevents injection by ensuring that user-provided CLI inputs are validated and conform to expected patterns, reducing the chance of malicious input being interpreted as commands.
    • Path Traversal (Medium to High Severity): Validating path inputs from PathFlag or string flags intended for file paths helps restrict access to authorized directories and prevents users from manipulating paths to access sensitive files.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Low to Medium Severity): Validation can prevent unexpected input types or formats that could lead to application crashes or resource exhaustion due to malformed input processing.

  • Impact:

    • Command Injection: High impact reduction. Direct validation of CLI input is a key defense layer.
    • Path Traversal: Medium to High impact reduction. Limits the scope of user-controlled file paths via CLI.
    • DoS: Low to Medium impact reduction. Prevents some input-based DoS scenarios originating from CLI.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Partially implemented in the process command where file paths provided via CLI arguments are validated to exist and be within allowed directories using os.Stat and path prefix checks.
    • Basic type checking is used for integer flags in the config command using strconv.Atoi.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • String inputs in the report command are not validated for format or content before being used in log messages or potentially in system commands.
    • No validation is performed on the format or content of configuration file paths provided via the --config flag.
    • Input length limits are not explicitly enforced for any string arguments or flags defined in urfave/cli.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Default Flag Values in urfave/cli

  • Description:

    1. Review Default Values for All Flags: Carefully examine the default values assigned to every flag defined in your urfave/cli application's configuration.
    2. Avoid Insecure Defaults: Identify and eliminate any default flag values that could introduce security vulnerabilities or unintended behavior. Examples of insecure defaults include:
      • Default file paths pointing to sensitive system directories.
      • Default network ports that are commonly targeted by attackers.
      • Default usernames or passwords (never hardcode these as defaults!).
      • Default API keys or tokens (use environment variables or secure configuration instead).
    3. Set Secure and Least-Privilege Defaults: Change insecure defaults to more secure and less privileged alternatives. For instance:
      • Default to a non-privileged user context if applicable.
      • Default to safe or restricted file system paths.
      • Disable optional features by default if they are not essential for basic functionality and could introduce risk.
    4. Document Secure Default Choices: Clearly document the rationale behind choosing specific default values, especially when security considerations are involved. This helps maintainability and ensures that future changes do not inadvertently reintroduce insecure defaults.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Information Disclosure (Medium to High Severity): Prevents accidental exposure of sensitive information if default flag values inadvertently reveal internal paths, configurations, or even credentials (though credentials should never be defaults).
    • Privilege Escalation (Medium Severity): Secure defaults can prevent unintended privilege escalation if default configurations grant excessive permissions or access rights.
    • Unauthorized Access (Medium Severity): Insecure default configurations might unintentionally grant unauthorized access to resources or functionalities if flags controlling access are not securely defaulted.

  • Impact:

    • Information Disclosure: Medium to High impact reduction. Prevents easy exposure of sensitive defaults via CLI flags.
    • Privilege Escalation: Medium impact reduction. Reduces risk from overly permissive defaults set through CLI flags.
    • Unauthorized Access: Medium impact reduction. Limits unintended access granted by default flag configurations.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • The application uses environment variables for API keys and database credentials, avoiding hardcoding them as default flag values, which is a positive security practice.
    • Default configuration file path is set to a user-specific directory (~/.myapp/config.yaml), which is a reasonably secure default location.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • The default log file path is set to /var/log/myapp.log. If the application runs with elevated privileges, this could be a security risk if not properly secured. It should default to a user-writable location within the user's home directory or be configurable via a flag with a more secure default.
    • The --debug flag defaults to false, which is good for production. However, in development, it might be unintentionally enabled, potentially exposing more verbose and sensitive information in logs. Consider making debug mode opt-in only (no default) or defaulting to false and requiring explicit enabling via the flag.

Mitigation Strategy: Review and Secure urfave/cli Help Text

  • Description:

    1. Generate and Review Help Text: Use urfave/cli's built-in help generation features to produce the help text for your application and all its commands and flags.
    2. Identify Sensitive Information in Help Text: Carefully review the generated help text for any information that could be considered sensitive or could aid attackers in understanding your application's internals or potential vulnerabilities. Look for:
      • Internal file paths or directory structures revealed in flag descriptions or examples.
      • Details about internal application logic or algorithms hinted at in command or flag descriptions.
      • Specific versions of internal components or libraries (beyond urfave/cli itself) mentioned in help text.
      • Accidental inclusion of credentials, API keys, or other sensitive data in example commands or flag descriptions (this should never happen, but review to ensure).
    3. Remove or Redact Sensitive Information: Edit flag descriptions, command descriptions, and examples within your urfave/cli application code to remove or redact any identified sensitive information from the generated help text. Keep help text informative but avoid unnecessary detail that could be exploited.
    4. Test Help Text Generation After Changes: After making changes to remove sensitive information, regenerate the help text and review it again to confirm that the sensitive information is no longer present and that the help text remains useful and accurate.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Information Disclosure (Low to Medium Severity): Prevents unintentional leakage of potentially sensitive information through publicly accessible help text generated by urfave/cli.

  • Impact:

    • Information Disclosure: Low to Medium impact reduction. Reduces the surface area for information leakage via CLI help documentation.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Help text is automatically generated by urfave/cli and generally focuses on command usage and flag descriptions. It does not currently appear to contain overtly sensitive information in a readily apparent way.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • A formal security-focused review of all urfave/cli generated help text has not been conducted to specifically identify and remove any potentially subtle or unintentionally disclosed sensitive information. This review should be performed as a proactive security measure.
    • There is no automated process to check for sensitive information in help text during development or CI. Manual review is currently the only mechanism.