Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
150 lines (117 loc) · 14.6 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

150 lines (117 loc) · 14.6 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the Lottie-Android library based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The primary objective is to conduct a thorough security analysis of the Lottie-Android library's key components, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities, assessing their impact, and proposing actionable mitigation strategies. This analysis aims to uncover security weaknesses that could be exploited by maliciously crafted animation files or through other attack vectors related to the library's functionality. We will focus on the library itself, not the applications that use it, except where those applications directly interact with Lottie's features.

Scope:

The scope of this analysis includes:

  • The Lottie-Android library's core components: Animation Parser, Rendering Engine, LottieAnimationView, and Cache.
  • The interaction of these components with the Android OS and external resources (animation files).
  • The build process and associated security controls.
  • The identified business risks and security requirements outlined in the design review.
  • The library's handling of animation files (JSON format).

The scope excludes:

  • Security of the Android OS itself (this is assumed to be the responsibility of the OS vendor).
  • Security of remote servers hosting animation files (this is the responsibility of the application using Lottie).
  • General application security best practices (e.g., authentication, authorization) that are not directly related to Lottie's functionality.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Component Analysis: We will analyze the inferred architecture, components, and data flow based on the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions. This will help us understand the attack surface and identify potential points of vulnerability.
  2. Threat Modeling: We will identify potential threats based on the library's functionality and the identified business risks. We will consider various attack scenarios, including those involving maliciously crafted animation files, denial-of-service attacks, and potential exploits of the rendering engine.
  3. Security Control Review: We will evaluate the existing security controls (input validation, fuzz testing, code reviews, static analysis) and assess their effectiveness in mitigating the identified threats.
  4. Vulnerability Analysis: We will analyze the key components for potential vulnerabilities, focusing on areas such as JSON parsing, resource handling, and interaction with the Android graphics framework.
  5. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified vulnerability or weakness, we will propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to the Lottie-Android library.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component:

  • Animation Parser:

    • Functionality: Parses the JSON animation file, extracting data and structure.
    • Threats:
      • JSON Injection/Malformed Input: A maliciously crafted JSON file could exploit vulnerabilities in the parsing logic, leading to arbitrary code execution, denial of service, or information disclosure. This is the primary attack vector for Lottie. Specific concerns include:
        • Billion Laughs Attack (XML, but analogous JSON attacks exist): Exploiting nested entities to cause exponential memory consumption.
        • Unexpected Data Types: Providing numbers where strings are expected, or vice-versa, to trigger errors or unexpected behavior.
        • Extremely Large Values: Using very large numbers or strings to cause buffer overflows or integer overflows.
        • Deeply Nested Objects: Creating deeply nested JSON objects to cause stack overflows.
        • Malformed Unicode: Using invalid or unexpected Unicode sequences to trigger parsing errors or bypass validation.
      • Resource Exhaustion: A large or complex animation file could consume excessive memory or CPU resources during parsing, leading to a denial-of-service condition.
    • Existing Controls: Input validation, fuzz testing.
    • Vulnerabilities (Potential): Insufficiently robust JSON parsing, lack of limits on input size and complexity, inadequate error handling.
    • Mitigation:
      • Robust JSON Parser: Use a well-vetted, secure JSON parsing library (e.g., Gson, Jackson) and configure it securely. Specifically, disable features that could be exploited, such as external entity resolution (if applicable).
      • Strict Schema Validation: Implement strict schema validation against a predefined schema for Lottie animation files. This schema should define allowed data types, ranges, and limits on nesting depth and string lengths. This is crucial.
      • Input Size Limits: Enforce strict limits on the size of the animation file and the size of individual elements within the file (e.g., strings, arrays).
      • Resource Limits: Limit the amount of memory and CPU time that can be consumed during parsing. Implement timeouts to prevent long-running parsing operations.
      • Recursive Depth Limit: Limit the maximum depth of nested JSON objects to prevent stack overflows.

  • Rendering Engine:

    • Functionality: Draws the animation frames based on the parsed data, interacting with the Android Canvas API.
    • Threats:
      • Exploitation of Graphics Framework Vulnerabilities: The rendering engine relies on the Android Canvas API, which could have its own vulnerabilities. A maliciously crafted animation could trigger these vulnerabilities, potentially leading to code execution or denial of service.
      • Resource Exhaustion: Complex animations with many layers, shapes, or effects could consume excessive CPU, memory, or battery life, leading to a denial-of-service condition.
      • Side-Channel Attacks: While less likely, it's theoretically possible that the rendering process could leak information through timing or power consumption, although this is a very advanced attack.
    • Existing Controls: Potentially sandboxing (recommended).
    • Vulnerabilities (Potential): Vulnerabilities in the Android Canvas API, inefficient rendering algorithms, lack of resource limits.
    • Mitigation:
      • Sandboxing: Isolate the rendering engine in a separate process or sandbox to limit the impact of potential exploits. This is a significant architectural change, but provides the strongest protection.
      • Resource Limits: Enforce limits on the complexity of animations (e.g., number of layers, shapes, effects) and the resources they can consume (CPU, memory, battery).
      • Performance Optimization: Optimize rendering algorithms to minimize resource consumption and improve performance.
      • Regular Updates: Keep the library up-to-date with the latest Android OS security patches to address any vulnerabilities in the underlying graphics framework.
      • Fuzz Testing of Rendering Logic: Extend fuzz testing to cover not just the parsing, but also the rendering of various animation features and edge cases.

  • LottieAnimationView:

    • Functionality: A UI component that displays Lottie animations and manages playback.
    • Threats:
      • Denial of Service: Rapidly changing animation properties or triggering frequent re-renders could potentially overload the UI thread, leading to unresponsiveness.
      • Input Validation (Indirect): If user input controls animation playback (e.g., speed, progress), this input should be validated to prevent unexpected behavior.
    • Existing Controls: None specific.
    • Vulnerabilities (Potential): Lack of input validation for user-controlled animation parameters, inefficient handling of frequent updates.
    • Mitigation:
      • Rate Limiting: Limit the frequency of animation updates and re-renders to prevent UI thread overload.
      • Input Sanitization: Sanitize any user-provided data used to control animation playback. For example, clamp animation speed and progress values to reasonable ranges.
      • Asynchronous Operations: Perform resource-intensive operations (e.g., loading large animation files) on a background thread to avoid blocking the UI thread.

  • Cache:

    • Functionality: Caches parsed animation data to improve performance.
    • Threats:
      • Cache Poisoning: If an attacker can modify the cached animation data, they could potentially inject malicious code or alter the animation's behavior.
      • Information Disclosure: If the cache is not properly secured, sensitive data from the animation files could be exposed.
    • Existing Controls: None specific, but should ensure cached data is not tampered with.
    • Vulnerabilities (Potential): Lack of integrity checks for cached data, insecure storage of cached data.
    • Mitigation:
      • Integrity Checks: Use cryptographic hashes (e.g., SHA-256) to verify the integrity of cached animation data. Before loading data from the cache, compare its hash to a stored hash value.
      • Secure Storage: Store cached data in a secure location (e.g., internal storage with appropriate permissions) and encrypt it if it contains sensitive information.
      • Cache Invalidation: Implement a robust cache invalidation mechanism to ensure that outdated or potentially compromised data is not used.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to Lottie-Android)

These are prioritized based on impact and feasibility:

  1. Highest Priority: Robust JSON Parsing and Schema Validation:

    • Action: Implement strict schema validation using a well-vetted JSON schema validator. The schema should define all allowed elements, attributes, data types, and constraints (e.g., maximum string lengths, array sizes, nesting depth).
    • Rationale: This is the most critical mitigation, as it directly addresses the primary attack vector of maliciously crafted JSON files.
    • Specific Library: Consider using a library like everit-json-schema for Java.
    • Example: Define a schema that limits the layers array to a maximum of 100 elements, restricts string lengths for layer names to 64 characters, and enforces that ty (layer type) must be one of a predefined set of enum values.

  2. High Priority: Input Size and Complexity Limits:

    • Action: Enforce strict limits on the overall size of the animation file (e.g., 10MB) and the size of individual elements (e.g., strings, arrays). Reject files that exceed these limits.
    • Rationale: Prevents resource exhaustion attacks during parsing and rendering.
    • Example: Reject any JSON file larger than 10MB. Reject any layer with a name longer than 256 characters. Limit the total number of layers to 500.

  3. High Priority: Resource Limits and Timeouts:

    • Action: Implement timeouts for parsing and rendering operations. Limit the amount of memory that can be allocated during these operations.
    • Rationale: Prevents denial-of-service attacks that attempt to consume excessive resources.
    • Example: Set a 5-second timeout for parsing a JSON file. If parsing takes longer, abort the operation and report an error.

  4. Medium Priority: Sandboxing the Rendering Engine:

    • Action: Explore options for isolating the rendering engine in a separate process or sandbox. This is a significant architectural change, but provides strong protection against exploits.
    • Rationale: Limits the impact of any vulnerabilities in the rendering engine or the underlying Android graphics framework.
    • Example: Investigate using Android's IsolatedProcess attribute or other sandboxing techniques.

  5. Medium Priority: Cache Integrity Checks:

    • Action: Calculate a cryptographic hash (e.g., SHA-256) of the parsed animation data before caching it. Store the hash along with the cached data. Before loading from the cache, recalculate the hash and compare it to the stored value.
    • Rationale: Detects tampering with cached data.

  6. Medium Priority: Enhanced Fuzz Testing:

    • Action: Expand the existing fuzz testing to cover a wider range of animation features and edge cases, including both parsing and rendering logic.
    • Rationale: Proactively identifies vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.
    • Specific Tools: Consider using libFuzzer or other fuzzing frameworks.

  7. Low Priority: Rate Limiting and Input Sanitization for LottieAnimationView:

    • Action: Limit the frequency of animation updates and sanitize any user-provided data used to control animation playback.
    • Rationale: Prevents UI thread overload and unexpected behavior.

  8. Ongoing: Dependency Management and Security Audits:

    • Action: Regularly update dependencies (especially the JSON parsing library) to address known vulnerabilities. Perform periodic security audits and penetration testing.
    • Rationale: Ensures that the library is protected against known vulnerabilities and that new vulnerabilities are identified and addressed promptly.

4. Addressing Questions and Assumptions

  • Specific static analysis tools: This needs to be clarified with the development team. Common tools include FindBugs, PMD, Checkstyle, and SonarQube. The specific configuration and rules used are also important.
  • Security guidelines or policies: This also needs clarification. A documented security policy would be beneficial.
  • Process for handling reported security vulnerabilities: A clear vulnerability disclosure policy and process should be established and documented.
  • Plans for sandboxing: This should be discussed with the development team. It's a significant change, but highly recommended.
  • Maximum supported size/complexity: These limits should be defined and enforced (as discussed above).
  • Known limitations or vulnerabilities: A thorough vulnerability assessment should be conducted to identify any existing issues.

The assumptions about business posture, security posture, and design are reasonable starting points, but should be validated through further investigation and communication with the development team. The most important assumption is that security is a significant concern, but performance and ease of use are also key priorities. This means that security measures should be carefully balanced against these other factors.