Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
180 lines (137 loc) · 12.9 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

180 lines (137 loc) · 12.9 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for usememos/memos

Mitigation Strategy: Private by Default & Draft Mode

Mitigation Strategy: Implement "Private by Default" and "Draft" modes for new memos.

Description:

  1. Code Change (Backend): Modify the database schema to include a status field for each memo (e.g., draft, private, public).
  2. Code Change (Backend): When a new memo is created via the API or web interface, set the status to draft by default.
  3. Code Change (Frontend): In the memo creation UI, add a prominent visual indicator (e.g., a dropdown or toggle) to allow the user to choose between draft, private, and public. The default selection should be draft.
  4. Code Change (Frontend & Backend): "Draft" memos should not be visible to anyone, even the creator, in the main memo list or via search. They should only be accessible via a dedicated "Drafts" section.
  5. Code Change (Frontend & Backend): "Private" memos should be visible only to the creator. The backend should enforce this access control.
  6. Code Change (Frontend): Clearly distinguish between draft, private, and public memos in the UI with visual cues (icons, colors, labels).

Threats Mitigated: * Unintended Public Disclosure of Sensitive Information (Severity: High): Reduces the risk of accidentally publishing sensitive data. * Accidental Data Leakage (Severity: Medium): Provides a buffer against hasty posting.

Impact: * Unintended Public Disclosure: Significantly reduces the risk. The default private setting acts as a safety net. * Accidental Data Leakage: Reduces the risk by providing a "draft" state for incomplete or unvetted memos.

Currently Implemented (Assumption): * Memos likely has a "private" mode, but it might not be the default. * A dedicated "Draft" mode is likely not implemented.

Missing Implementation: * Making "private" the default setting for new memos. * Implementing a distinct "Draft" mode separate from "private." * Adding clear visual distinctions between all three states in the UI.

Mitigation Strategy: Content Warning/Confirmation Dialogs

Mitigation Strategy: Implement strong confirmation dialogs before publishing a memo.

Description:

  1. Code Change (Frontend): When a user attempts to change a memo's status from draft or private to public, trigger a JavaScript modal dialog.
  2. Dialog Content: The dialog should:
    • Display a clear warning message: "Warning: Making this memo public will make it visible to everyone. Are you sure you want to proceed?"
    • Include a checkbox list: "Does this memo contain: [ ] Passwords, [ ] API Keys, [ ] Personal Information, [ ] Confidential Documents?"
    • Require the user to type "CONFIRM" (or a similar phrase) into a text input field to enable the "Publish" button. This prevents accidental clicks.
    • Disable the "Publish" button until all conditions are met.
  3. Code Change (Backend): While the primary enforcement is on the frontend, the backend should also verify the memo's status before updating it in the database. This is a defense-in-depth measure.

Threats Mitigated: * Unintended Public Disclosure of Sensitive Information (Severity: High): Forces the user to consciously acknowledge the risks of public posting. * Accidental Data Leakage (Severity: Medium): Provides a final check before publishing.

Impact: * Unintended Public Disclosure: Significantly reduces the risk, especially for users who might not fully understand the implications of public posting. * Accidental Data Leakage: Reduces the risk by adding a deliberate confirmation step.

Currently Implemented (Assumption): * Memos likely has some form of confirmation dialog, but it might be a simple "OK/Cancel" dialog without the enhanced features (checkboxes, typing confirmation).

Missing Implementation: * Implementing the more robust confirmation dialog with the checklist and typing requirement. * Backend verification of the memo status change (defense-in-depth).

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Markdown Sanitization and Rendering

Mitigation Strategy: Employ a secure Markdown parser, renderer, and Content Security Policy (CSP).

Description:

  1. Library Selection: Choose a Markdown rendering library specifically designed for security (e.g., a library that explicitly disallows arbitrary HTML and JavaScript). Research its security history.
  2. Configuration: Configure the Markdown renderer to be as restrictive as possible. Whitelist only a safe subset of Markdown features (e.g., bold, italics, lists, links – but not inline HTML or script tags).
  3. CSP Implementation:
    • Code Change (Backend/Server Configuration): Implement a strict CSP using HTTP headers.
    • CSP Directives: The CSP should:
      • default-src 'self': Only allow resources from the same origin.
      • script-src 'self': Only allow scripts from the same origin. Do not use 'unsafe-inline' or 'unsafe-eval'.
      • style-src 'self': Only allow styles from the same origin.
      • img-src 'self' data: https://trusted-image-host.com: Allow images from the same origin, data URLs (for embedded images), and a specific trusted host (if necessary).
      • connect-src 'self': Only allow AJAX requests to the same origin.
      • frame-src 'none': Disallow iframes.
      • object-src 'none': Disallow plugins (Flash, etc.).
    • Testing: Thoroughly test the CSP to ensure it doesn't break legitimate functionality. Use browser developer tools to monitor CSP violations.
  4. Regular Updates: Keep the Markdown rendering library and any related dependencies up-to-date to patch security vulnerabilities.

Threats Mitigated: * Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (Severity: High): Prevents attackers from injecting malicious JavaScript into memos. * Markdown Injection (Severity: Medium): Limits the ability of attackers to exploit vulnerabilities in the Markdown rendering process.

Impact: * XSS: Very significantly reduces the risk. A well-configured CSP and secure Markdown renderer are crucial defenses against XSS. * Markdown Injection: Reduces the risk by limiting the attack surface.

Currently Implemented (Assumption): * Memos likely uses some form of Markdown rendering, but the level of sanitization and the strictness of the CSP are unknown.

Missing Implementation: * Reviewing and potentially replacing the existing Markdown rendering library with a more security-focused one. * Implementing a strict CSP with the specific directives outlined above. * Establishing a process for regularly updating the Markdown library and related dependencies.

Mitigation Strategy: Strict File Type Validation

Mitigation Strategy: Validate uploaded files (attached to memos) based on content, not extension, and whitelist allowed types.

Description:

  1. Library Selection: Use a library that can reliably determine the true MIME type of a file by examining its content (e.g., using "magic numbers" or file signatures). Examples include python-magic (Python), file command (Linux), or appropriate libraries for other languages.
  2. Code Change (Backend):
    • When a file is uploaded as part of a memo, do not trust the file extension or the MIME type provided by the client.
    • Use the chosen library to determine the actual MIME type of the file.
    • Compare the detected MIME type against a whitelist of allowed types (e.g., image/jpeg, image/png, image/gif, application/pdf).
    • Reject any file that does not match an allowed type.
    • Store the detected MIME type, not the user-provided one.
  3. Code Change (Frontend): While the primary validation is on the backend, provide feedback to the user in the frontend if they attempt to upload an unsupported file type.

Threats Mitigated: * Malicious File Upload (Severity: High): Prevents attackers from uploading executable files or other malicious content disguised as images or documents and attaching them to memos. * File Type Spoofing (Severity: Medium): Prevents attackers from bypassing file type restrictions by simply changing the file extension.

Impact: * Malicious File Upload: Very significantly reduces the risk. Content-based validation is a strong defense against this threat. * File Type Spoofing: Completely eliminates this risk.

Currently Implemented (Assumption): * Memos likely has some file type validation, but it might rely on file extensions or user-provided MIME types, which are unreliable.

Missing Implementation: * Implementing content-based file type validation using a reliable library. * Using a strict whitelist of allowed MIME types. * Storing the detected MIME type, not the user-provided one.

Mitigation Strategy: Private Tags

Mitigation Strategy: Allow users to mark tags associated with memos as private.

Description:

  1. Code Change (Backend): Modify the database schema to add a visibility field (or similar) to the tags table (e.g., public, private).
  2. Code Change (Frontend): In the tag creation/editing UI (when creating or editing a memo), add an option (e.g., a checkbox) to mark a tag as private.
  3. Code Change (Backend & Frontend): Ensure that private tags are only visible to the owner of the memo. The backend should enforce this access control. The frontend should not display private tags to other users.

Threats Mitigated: * Information Disclosure via Tags (Severity: Medium): Prevents sensitive information from being leaked through publicly visible tags associated with memos.

Impact: * Information Disclosure: Significantly reduces the risk, especially for users who might use tags to categorize sensitive memos.

Currently Implemented (Assumption): * This feature is likely not implemented. Tags are typically public.

Missing Implementation: * Adding the visibility field to the tags table. * Adding the UI element to control tag visibility. * Implementing the backend and frontend logic to enforce tag privacy.

Mitigation Strategy: Content Filtering

Mitigation Strategy: Implement content filtering to prevent users from posting specific words or patterns within memos.

Description:

  1. Configuration Interface: Create an administrative interface (accessible only to administrators) to define:
    • Banned Words List: A list of specific words that are not allowed in memos.
    • Regular Expressions: A list of regular expressions that define patterns to be blocked (e.g., patterns that match credit card numbers, social security numbers, or other sensitive data).
  2. Code Change (Backend):
    • Before saving a new memo or updating an existing one, scan the memo content (title, body, tags) against the banned words list and regular expressions.
    • If a match is found, reject the memo and return an error message to the user.
    • Consider using a dedicated library for regular expression matching to ensure efficiency and security.
  3. Code Change (Frontend): Optionally, provide real-time feedback to the user as they type, highlighting any potentially blocked words or patterns. This is a usability enhancement, but the primary enforcement should be on the backend.

Threats Mitigated: * Posting of Offensive Content (Severity: Medium): Helps prevent users from posting offensive or inappropriate language within memos. * Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (Severity: Medium): Can help prevent the accidental or intentional posting of sensitive data within memos (if appropriate regular expressions are defined). * Spam (Severity: Low): Can help prevent spam by blocking specific keywords or patterns within memos.

Impact: * Offensive Content: Reduces the risk, but it's not foolproof (users can find ways to circumvent filters). * DLP: Provides a basic level of DLP, but it's not a substitute for a dedicated DLP solution. * Spam: Reduces the risk of spam.

Currently Implemented (Assumption): * This feature is likely not implemented.

Missing Implementation: * Creating the administrative interface for configuring banned words and regular expressions. * Implementing the backend logic to scan memo content and enforce the filters. * Optionally, adding frontend feedback for real-time filtering.