Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
148 lines (112 loc) · 10.6 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

148 lines (112 loc) · 10.6 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for apache/commons-codec

Mitigation Strategy: Stay Up-to-Date (Dependency Management)

  • 1. Mitigation Strategy: Stay Up-to-Date (Dependency Management)

    • Description:

      1. Configure Build System: Ensure your project's build system (Maven, Gradle, etc.) correctly declares Apache Commons Codec as a dependency, including its version.
      2. Enable Version Management: Use the build system's features to manage the Commons Codec version (e.g., version ranges, properties).
      3. Automated Dependency Checks: Integrate a tool like OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk, or Dependabot (for GitHub) to automatically scan for vulnerable Commons Codec versions.
      4. Regular Review: Regularly review reports from dependency checking tools, prioritizing security updates for Commons Codec.
      5. Update Process: Update the Commons Codec version in your build configuration and run a full build/test cycle.
      6. Release Notes: Before updating, review the Commons Codec release notes for security fixes and potential breaking changes.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Known Vulnerabilities in Commons Codec (Critical): Exploitation of publicly disclosed vulnerabilities in older Commons Codec versions.
      • Zero-Day Vulnerabilities in Commons Codec (High): Reduces exposure to undiscovered vulnerabilities within the library itself.

    • Impact:

      • Known Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: High. Eliminates known Commons Codec issues.
      • Zero-Day Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: Moderate. Reduces the window of vulnerability for Commons Codec.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Dependency management in pom.xml.
      • OWASP Dependency-Check in Jenkins CI/CD.
      • Weekly dependency review.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Automated updates (with testing) are not yet implemented.
      • Dependabot integration is planned but not implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Understand and Validate Input Before Encoding/Decoding (Commons Codec Specific)

  • 2. Mitigation Strategy: Understand and Validate Input Before Encoding/Decoding (Commons Codec Specific)

    • Description:

      1. Define Input Specifications: For every input passed to a Commons Codec function (encoding or decoding), define:
        • Expected Data Type: (String, byte array).
        • Character Set: (UTF-8, ASCII, etc.). This is crucial for text-based encodings.
        • Maximum Length: A reasonable upper bound before encoding/decoding.
        • Allowed Characters: A whitelist of permitted characters before encoding/decoding.
        • Format: The expected structure (e.g., a valid Base64 alphabet).
      2. Implement Validation Logic: Write code that enforces these specifications before calling any Commons Codec method. Use regular expressions (avoiding ReDoS), length checks, and character validation.
      3. Reject Invalid Input: If the input fails any validation, reject it immediately. Do not attempt to sanitize.
      4. Contextual Validation (Post-Decoding): After decoding with Commons Codec, perform additional validation based on the meaning of the decoded data.
      5. Input validation should be performed in service layer.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Codec-Specific Injection Attacks (Critical): Prevents attacks that exploit flaws in how Commons Codec handles malformed input (e.g., a specially crafted Base64 string).
      • Denial of Service (DoS) against Codec (High): Length limits prevent attackers from causing Commons Codec to allocate excessive memory or CPU.
      • Buffer Overflows in Native Codec Code (High): While rare in Java, strict input validation reduces the chance of triggering buffer overflows in any underlying native code used by Commons Codec.

    • Impact:

      • Codec-Specific Injection Attacks: Risk reduction: High. A primary defense against attacks targeting Commons Codec.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Risk reduction: High. Protects against resource exhaustion within Commons Codec.
      • Buffer Overflows: Risk reduction: Moderate. Adds a layer of defense.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Basic length checks for some inputs.
      • Regular expressions for email validation after Base64 decoding.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Comprehensive input specifications are not documented for all Commons Codec inputs.
      • Contextual validation is inconsistent.
      • A centralized input validation framework is missing.

Mitigation Strategy: Be Mindful of Character Encodings (with URL Encoding)

  • 3. Mitigation Strategy: Be Mindful of Character Encodings (with URL Encoding)

    • Description:

      1. Always Specify UTF-8 with URLCodec: Explicitly use new URLCodec("UTF-8") or the encode(String, String) and decode(String, String) methods, passing "UTF-8".
      2. Consistent Encoding: Ensure the encoding used for encoding matches the encoding used for decoding. Document this.
      3. Avoid Double Decoding: Be extremely cautious about decoding data more than once with URLCodec. If necessary, analyze security implications and validate between steps. Log each decoding.
      4. Encode Only When Necessary: Only URL-encode data when it's actually being used in a URL.
      5. Character encoding should be configured in application properties.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • URL Encoding-Specific XSS (Critical): Incorrect URL encoding with Commons Codec can lead to XSS.
      • Data Corruption (Medium): Wrong character encoding with Commons Codec can garble data.
      • URL Encoding-Specific Injection (Medium): Incorrect encoding can bypass validation and inject data.

    • Impact:

      • URL Encoding-Specific XSS: Risk reduction: High. Proper URLCodec usage is crucial.
      • Data Corruption: Risk reduction: Medium. Ensures data integrity when using URLCodec.
      • Injection Attacks: Risk reduction: Medium. Reduces the attack surface related to URLCodec.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • UTF-8 is specified in some uses of URLCodec.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Consistent encoding policy is not enforced. Developers need education.
      • Double decoding is not prohibited/audited. Code review needed.

Mitigation Strategy: Avoid Using Deprecated Methods/Classes (in Commons Codec)

  • 4. Mitigation Strategy: Avoid Using Deprecated Methods/Classes (in Commons Codec)

    • Description:

      1. Identify Deprecated APIs: Review code for deprecated Commons Codec APIs. Use IDE warnings and static analysis.
      2. Read Deprecation Notices: Read the Javadoc for the deprecated Commons Codec method/class. It will suggest a replacement.
      3. Refactor: Replace the deprecated Commons Codec API with the recommended alternative. Test thoroughly.
      4. Configure Build Warnings: Configure the build to treat deprecated Commons Codec API usage as warnings/errors.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Known Vulnerabilities in Deprecated Codec Code (High): Deprecated methods may have known security flaws fixed in newer Commons Codec APIs.
      • Unexpected Behavior in Deprecated Codec Code (Medium): Deprecated methods may behave unexpectedly or insecurely.

    • Impact:

      • Known Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: High. Avoids using known flawed Commons Codec APIs.
      • Unexpected Behavior: Risk reduction: Medium. Improves stability and security of Commons Codec usage.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • IDE flags deprecated API usage.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Comprehensive review for deprecated Commons Codec API usage is needed.
      • Build process does not fail on deprecated API usage.

Mitigation Strategy: Fuzz Testing (Commons Codec Functions)

  • 5. Mitigation Strategy: Fuzz Testing (Commons Codec Functions)

    • Description:

      1. Choose a Fuzzing Framework: Select a Java fuzzing framework (Jazzer, libFuzzer with Java wrapper).
      2. Write Fuzz Targets: Create code that takes input from the fuzzer and passes it to the specific Commons Codec functions you want to test (e.g., Base64.decodeBase64(), URLCodec.decode()).
      3. Configure the Fuzzer: Configure input corpus, max input size, and run duration.
      4. Run the Fuzzer: Run and monitor for crashes, errors, or unexpected behavior within Commons Codec.
      5. Analyze Results: Investigate crashes/errors reported by the fuzzer, focusing on the Commons Codec interaction.
      6. Fix Vulnerabilities: Address any vulnerabilities found in how your code uses Commons Codec, or potentially report issues to the Commons Codec project if the flaw is in the library itself.
      7. Integrate into CI/CD: Run fuzz tests automatically on builds/commits.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Unexpected Input Vulnerabilities in Commons Codec (High): Finds vulnerabilities triggered by malformed input to Commons Codec functions.
      • Denial of Service (DoS) against Commons Codec (High): Identifies inputs causing excessive resource consumption within Commons Codec.
      • Buffer Overflows in Native Commons Codec Code (High): Can detect buffer overflows in underlying native code used by Commons Codec.

    • Impact:

      • Unexpected Input Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: High. Finds hard-to-discover Commons Codec issues.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Risk reduction: High. Identifies resource exhaustion in Commons Codec.
      • Buffer Overflows: Risk reduction: Moderate to High.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • None.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Fuzz testing is not part of the testing strategy. This is a major gap for Commons Codec security. A plan to implement fuzz testing is needed, prioritizing critical Commons Codec functions.