Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
145 lines (106 loc) · 13.5 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

145 lines (106 loc) · 13.5 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Drawable Optimizer

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The primary objective of this deep security analysis is to conduct a thorough examination of the drawable-optimizer project (https://github.com/fabiomsr/drawable-optimizer) to identify potential security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. The analysis will focus on the key components identified in the provided security design review and infer additional components from the codebase and documentation. The goal is to provide actionable recommendations to enhance the security posture of the tool and mitigate potential risks to applications that utilize it.

Scope:

The scope of this analysis includes:

  • The core logic of the drawable-optimizer Gradle plugin, including its interaction with the Android build process.
  • The identified components: Configuration Parser, Resource Reader, Optimization Engine, and Resource Writer.
  • Dependencies on external libraries (e.g., com.android.tools.build:gradle, org.ow2.asm:asm, and image processing libraries).
  • Input validation and error handling mechanisms.
  • The build and deployment process (specifically the GitHub Actions CI/CD pipeline).
  • Potential attack vectors related to resource modification and dependency management.
  • The security controls and accepted risks outlined in the security design review.

Methodology:

The analysis will employ the following methodologies:

  1. Code Review: Manual inspection of the drawable-optimizer source code (available on GitHub) to identify potential vulnerabilities, coding errors, and insecure practices. This will be guided by the C4 diagrams and component descriptions.
  2. Dependency Analysis: Examination of the project's dependencies (declared in build.gradle files) to identify known vulnerabilities and assess the security posture of external libraries. Tools like OWASP Dependency-Check will be conceptually applied.
  3. Architecture and Data Flow Analysis: Understanding the flow of data through the system (as depicted in the C4 diagrams) to identify potential attack surfaces and points of vulnerability.
  4. Threat Modeling: Identifying potential threats and attack scenarios based on the tool's functionality and interactions with the Android build system.
  5. Security Design Review Analysis: Leveraging the provided security design review to understand existing security controls, accepted risks, and security requirements.
  6. Inference and Extrapolation: Based on the available information (code, documentation, security design review), we will infer the behavior and potential security implications of components and processes not explicitly detailed.

Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the C4 Container diagram and the project's functionality, here's a breakdown of the security implications of each key component:

  • Configuration Parser:

    • Threats: Injection attacks (e.g., XML External Entity (XXE) attacks if XML is used for configuration), path traversal vulnerabilities, denial-of-service (DoS) through excessively large or malformed configuration files. Improperly validated configuration settings could lead to insecure optimization choices.
    • Implications: An attacker could potentially inject malicious code or commands into the configuration file, leading to arbitrary code execution or unauthorized access to files on the build system. Malicious configuration could also weaken the security of the optimized application.
    • Mitigation:
      • Strict Input Validation: Implement rigorous validation of all configuration parameters, including data types, ranges, and allowed characters. Use a whitelist approach whenever possible.
      • Safe Parsing Libraries: Use secure XML parsing libraries (if applicable) that are configured to disable external entity resolution and other potentially dangerous features. Consider using a safer configuration format like YAML or JSON with appropriate parsing libraries.
      • Least Privilege: Ensure the parser operates with the minimum necessary permissions.
      • Limit Configuration File Size: Enforce a reasonable maximum size for the configuration file to prevent DoS attacks.

  • Resource Reader:

    • Threats: Path traversal vulnerabilities (reading files outside the intended drawable directories), processing of maliciously crafted image files (leading to buffer overflows, code execution, or denial-of-service in underlying image processing libraries), resource exhaustion (processing excessively large image files).
    • Implications: An attacker could potentially read arbitrary files on the build system or exploit vulnerabilities in image processing libraries to gain control of the build process.
    • Mitigation:
      • Strict Path Validation: Canonicalize file paths and ensure they are within the expected drawable directories. Reject any paths containing ".." or other suspicious sequences.
      • Secure Image Processing Libraries: Use well-vetted and up-to-date image processing libraries. Keep these libraries patched to address known vulnerabilities.
      • Input Sanitization: Sanitize image file inputs before passing them to image processing libraries.
      • Resource Limits: Enforce limits on the size and dimensions of image files that can be processed to prevent resource exhaustion.
      • Fuzzing: Consider fuzz testing the resource reader with malformed image files to identify potential vulnerabilities.

  • Optimization Engine:

    • Threats: While the optimization process itself is unlikely to introduce new vulnerabilities, poorly implemented optimization algorithms could remove existing security features (e.g., removing metadata that is used for security checks) or introduce subtle bugs that could be exploited. The use of external libraries for optimization increases the attack surface.
    • Implications: The optimized application could be more vulnerable to certain attacks if security-relevant information is removed or if bugs are introduced during optimization.
    • Mitigation:
      • Careful Algorithm Design: Thoroughly review and test optimization algorithms to ensure they don't inadvertently weaken security.
      • Secure Coding Practices: Follow secure coding practices within the optimization engine to prevent common vulnerabilities like buffer overflows.
      • Regression Testing: Implement comprehensive regression tests to ensure that optimization doesn't introduce unexpected behavior or break existing functionality.
      • Library Security: As with the Resource Reader, ensure any external libraries used for optimization are secure and up-to-date.

  • Resource Writer:

    • Threats: Path traversal vulnerabilities (writing files outside the intended output directories), race conditions (if multiple threads or processes are writing to the same files), incorrect file permissions.
    • Implications: An attacker could potentially overwrite arbitrary files on the build system or create files with insecure permissions.
    • Mitigation:
      • Strict Path Validation: Canonicalize output file paths and ensure they are within the expected output directories.
      • Atomic Operations: Use atomic file operations or appropriate locking mechanisms to prevent race conditions.
      • Secure File Permissions: Set appropriate file permissions on the output files to restrict access. The principle of least privilege should be applied.
      • Verification: After writing, verify that the output files have the expected content and permissions.

  • External Libraries:

    • Threats: Vulnerabilities in external libraries (e.g., com.android.tools.build:gradle, org.ow2.asm:asm, image processing libraries) can be exploited to compromise the build process. Supply chain attacks (where a malicious library is substituted for a legitimate one) are also a concern.
    • Implications: An attacker could exploit a vulnerability in a dependency to gain control of the build process or inject malicious code into the application.
    • Mitigation:
      • Dependency Scanning: Use tools like OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk, or Gradle's built-in dependency verification to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies. Automate this scanning as part of the CI/CD pipeline.
      • Regular Updates: Keep dependencies up-to-date to patch known vulnerabilities.
      • Dependency Pinning: Pin dependency versions to specific, known-good versions to prevent unexpected updates from introducing vulnerabilities. Use a lock file (e.g., build.gradle.lockfile in Gradle).
      • Vulnerability Monitoring: Monitor vulnerability databases (e.g., CVE, NVD) for newly discovered vulnerabilities in dependencies.
      • Supply Chain Security Measures: Use trusted repositories for dependencies (e.g., Maven Central, Google's Maven repository). Verify the integrity of downloaded artifacts using checksums or digital signatures.

Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to Drawable Optimizer)

The following mitigation strategies are specifically tailored to the drawable-optimizer project, building upon the general recommendations above:

  1. Enhanced Input Validation and Sanitization:

    • Configuration File:
      • Implement a strict schema for the configuration file (e.g., using JSON Schema or a similar technology).
      • Validate all configuration options against the schema, ensuring data types, ranges, and allowed values are enforced.
      • Reject any configuration file that does not conform to the schema.
      • If using XML, use a SAX parser with external entities disabled. Consider switching to JSON or YAML.
    • Drawable Resources:
      • Before processing any drawable file, verify that its path is within the expected resource directories. Reject any paths containing ".." or other suspicious characters.
      • Use a library like Apache Commons IO to safely handle file paths and prevent path traversal vulnerabilities.
      • Implement checks for maximum file size and image dimensions before passing the file to image processing libraries.
      • Consider using a "magic number" check to verify the file type before processing.

  2. Secure Dependency Management:

    • Integrate OWASP Dependency-Check or a similar tool into the Gradle build process (using the dependency-check-gradle plugin). Configure it to fail the build if vulnerabilities with a specified severity threshold are found.
    • Enable Gradle's dependency verification feature to ensure the integrity of downloaded dependencies. Use a build.gradle.lockfile to pin dependency versions.
    • Regularly review and update dependencies to their latest secure versions. Use a tool like Dependabot (integrated with GitHub) to automate this process.
    • Specifically investigate the security posture of the image processing libraries used by the drawable-optimizer. Ensure they are well-maintained and have a good security track record.

  3. Secure Coding Practices:

    • Use static analysis tools (e.g., FindBugs, PMD, Android Lint) to identify potential security issues in the drawable-optimizer codebase. Integrate these tools into the CI/CD pipeline.
    • Follow secure coding guidelines for Java/Kotlin, paying particular attention to issues like input validation, error handling, and resource management.
    • Conduct regular code reviews with a focus on security.

  4. CI/CD Pipeline Security:

    • Ensure the GitHub Actions workflow is configured securely:
      • Use secrets management to store sensitive data (e.g., API keys, signing keys).
      • Use environment protection rules to restrict access to specific branches or environments.
      • Regularly review and update the workflow configuration.
      • Use a dedicated service account with minimal privileges for the build process.
    • Sign the released artifacts (the Gradle plugin) to ensure their integrity and authenticity. This can be done using Gradle's signing plugin.

  5. Fuzz Testing:

    • Implement fuzz testing for the Resource Reader component. Use a fuzzing library (e.g., Jazzer for Java) to generate malformed image files and test how the tool handles them. This can help identify vulnerabilities in image parsing and processing.

  6. Error Handling:

    • Ensure the tool handles errors gracefully, without crashing or exposing sensitive information.
    • Provide informative error messages to the user, but avoid revealing details that could be useful to an attacker.
    • Log errors securely, avoiding logging sensitive data.

  7. Security Audits:

    • Consider conducting periodic security audits of the drawable-optimizer codebase and its dependencies. This could be done internally or by an external security firm.

  8. Documentation:

    • Provide clear documentation on how to securely configure and use the plugin.
    • Document any known security limitations or considerations.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the drawable-optimizer project can significantly improve its security posture and reduce the risk of introducing vulnerabilities into Android applications. Regular security reviews, dependency updates, and adherence to secure coding practices are essential for maintaining a strong security posture over time.