Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
205 lines (155 loc) · 13.4 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

205 lines (155 loc) · 13.4 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for signalapp/signal-server

Mitigation Strategy: Robust Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention (Server-Side)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Implement multi-layered rate limiting and abuse prevention mechanisms within the server logic.

  • Description:

    1. IP-Based Rate Limiting: Limit requests (registration, message sending, etc.) from a single IP address within a time window at the server level. Use algorithms like sliding windows or token buckets, implemented in the server's request handling code.
    2. Phone Number-Based Rate Limiting: Limit registration attempts/verification code requests for a phone number within a time window. This logic must reside on the server to be effective.
    3. Account-Based Rate Limiting: Limit actions a single account can perform within a time window, enforced by server-side checks.
    4. CAPTCHA/Challenge-Response (Server-Side Trigger): The decision to present a CAPTCHA and the validation of the CAPTCHA response must be handled by the server. The server triggers the client to display the CAPTCHA based on rate limiting or other abuse detection logic.
    5. Time-Based Lockouts (Server-Enforced): After repeated failures, the server enforces escalating lockouts, preventing further requests for a specific phone number or IP address.
    6. Anomaly Detection (Server-Side): The server monitors for unusual activity patterns and triggers alerts or automated blocking. This requires server-side logic to analyze request patterns.
    7. Global Rate Limits: Implement overall server-wide rate limits to protect against large-scale attacks. This is a server configuration and logic implementation.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Registration Lock Attacks (High Severity): Server prevents locking legitimate users out.
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) Attacks (High Severity): Server protects itself from overload.
    • Account Enumeration (Medium Severity): Server makes enumeration more difficult.
    • Brute-Force Attacks (Medium Severity): Server slows down brute-force attempts.
    • Spam and Abuse (Medium Severity): Server limits abusive actions.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for Registration Lock Attacks, DoS Attacks, and Brute-Force Attacks.
    • Medium reduction for Account Enumeration and Spam/Abuse.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • Basic IP and phone number rate limiting are likely present.
    • Account-based rate limiting for message sending is probable.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Sophisticated anomaly detection, global rate limits, and dynamic CAPTCHA triggering might be incomplete.
    • Escalating lockouts might need configuration.
    • Consistent application across all API endpoints might be lacking.

Mitigation Strategy: Consistent and Opaque Error Handling (Server-Side)

  • Mitigation Strategy: The server returns generic, consistent error responses, avoiding information leakage.

  • Description:

    1. Avoid Information Leakage: Server responses never reveal whether a phone number is registered, a username exists, or a password is correct.
    2. Generic Responses: The server uses responses like "Request processed" or "Invalid request" for both success/failure, where revealing success/failure would leak information.
    3. Consistent Timing (Server-Side): The server ensures consistent response times for success/failure to prevent timing attacks. This may involve adding artificial delays on the server.
    4. Internal Logging: The server logs detailed error information internally for debugging, but never exposes it to the client.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Account Enumeration (Medium Severity): Server prevents revealing registered phone numbers.
    • Username Enumeration (Medium Severity): Server prevents revealing valid usernames.
    • Brute-Force Attacks (Medium Severity): Server makes it harder to determine password correctness.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for Account and Username Enumeration.
    • Medium reduction for Brute-Force Attacks.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • Some measures to prevent account enumeration during registration are likely present.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Uniform application across all API endpoints might be lacking.
    • Timing attack mitigations might be incomplete or untested.
    • Consistency in error handling logic might be missing.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Verification Code Handling (Server-Side)

  • Mitigation Strategy: The server implements a robust mechanism for generating, validating, and managing verification codes.

  • Description:

    1. Strong Randomness: The server uses a cryptographically secure random number generator (CSPRNG) to generate codes.
    2. Sufficient Length: The server generates codes long enough to resist brute-force.
    3. Short Expiration: The server sets a short expiration time for codes.
    4. Limited Attempts: The server limits the number of code entry attempts.
    5. One-Time Use: The server ensures a code can only be used once.
    6. Rate Limiting (Server-Side): The server applies rate limiting to code requests (covered in #1).
    7. TOTP as secondary method (Server-Side): The server implements TOTP generation and validation logic.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Brute-Force Attacks (High Severity): Server prevents code guessing.
    • Account Takeover (High Severity): Server protects accounts.
    • Replay Attacks (Medium Severity): Server prevents code reuse.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for all listed threats.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • CSPRNG, short expiration, and limited attempts are likely implemented.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Code length and attempt limits might need review.
    • CSPRNG implementation and seeding might need auditing.
    • TOTP implementation might be missing.

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Message ID and Timestamp Handling (Server-Side)

  • Mitigation Strategy: The server enforces message uniqueness and ordering.

  • Description:

    1. Unique Message IDs: The server validates (and potentially generates) unique message IDs, scoped by device and session. It rejects duplicates.
    2. Server-Side Timestamping: The server generates timestamps for all messages using a trusted time source.
    3. Timestamp Validation: The server validates client-provided timestamps (within a reasonable range) to prevent manipulation.
    4. Out-of-Order Rejection: The server rejects messages that are significantly out of order (based on timestamp) or have duplicate IDs.
    5. Session Management (Server-Side): The server implements robust session management, invalidating sessions and ensuring new sessions have fresh keys and ID sequences.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Replay Attacks (Medium Severity): Server prevents message replays.
    • Message Ordering Manipulation (Medium Severity): Server prevents reordering.
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) Attacks (Medium Severity): Server mitigates some DoS types.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for Replay Attacks and Message Ordering Manipulation.
    • Medium reduction for DoS Attacks.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • Message ID uniqueness and ordering within a session are likely enforced.
    • Server-side timestamping is likely used.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Strict enforcement across session resets/device changes might need review.
    • Out-of-order rejection thresholds might need tuning.
    • Robustness against server clock drift might need verification.

Mitigation Strategy: Minimize and Secure Stored Data (Server-Side)

  • Mitigation Strategy: The server minimizes data storage and secures any persistent storage.

  • Description:

    1. Ephemeral Storage: The server stores messages only as long as needed for delivery, deleting them immediately after confirmation. This is a core server design principle.
    2. Metadata Minimization: The server stores only essential metadata for routing and delivery.
    3. Encryption at Rest: The server encrypts all stored data, including metadata and temporary message storage.
    4. Key Management (Server-Side): The server uses a robust key management system to protect encryption keys (ideally with an HSM, although HSM control is often outside the direct signal-server code). Key rotation policies are enforced by the server.
    5. Access Control (Server-Side): The server software enforces strict access controls to limit data access, even for internal processes.
    6. Data Retention Policy (Server-Enforced): The server enforces a data retention policy, automatically deleting data after a defined period.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Server Compromise (High Severity): Server minimizes data exposure.
    • Data Breaches (High Severity): Server protects data.
    • Insider Threats (Medium Severity): Server limits insider access.
    • Privacy Violations (Medium Severity): Server minimizes data collection.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for Server Compromise, Data Breaches, and Privacy Violations.
    • Medium reduction for Insider Threats.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • Ephemeral message storage is likely a core principle.
    • Encryption at rest is probably implemented.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Key management system details and HSM usage might need verification.
    • Data retention policy enforcement might need review.
    • Metadata minimization might have areas for improvement.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Group Management (Server-Side)

  • Mitigation Strategy: The server enforces group membership rules and cryptographically verifies group operations.

  • Description:

    1. Authorization: The server ensures only authorized users can modify group settings or membership. This is entirely server-side logic.
    2. Cryptographic Verification: The server validates digital signatures or other cryptographic mechanisms for group operations, preventing unauthorized changes.
    3. Group Key Management (Server-Side): The server manages group keys, ensuring secure distribution and updates upon membership changes. This is a critical server-side function.
    4. Metadata Protection (Server-Side): The server minimizes and encrypts group metadata.
    5. Rate Limiting (Server-Side): The server applies rate limiting to group operations (covered in #1).

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Unauthorized Group Membership Changes (High Severity): Server prevents unauthorized changes.
    • Group Hijacking (High Severity): Server prevents takeovers.
    • Group Metadata Leakage (Medium Severity): Server protects group information.
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) Attacks (Medium Severity): Server mitigates some DoS types.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for Unauthorized Changes and Group Hijacking.
    • Medium reduction for Group Metadata Leakage and DoS Attacks.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • The Signal Protocol's group management mechanisms are likely implemented.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Group key management and metadata protection details might need review.
    • Rate limiting on group operations might be incomplete.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Key Management and Distribution (Server-Side Aspects)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Server securely manages keys and related operations.

  • Description:

    1. Key Revocation (Server-Side): The server provides a mechanism to revoke compromised keys, preventing their further use. This is a server-side function.
    2. Cryptographically Secure Random Number Generators (CSPRNGs) (Server-Side): The server uses CSPRNGs for all key generation (e.g., for server-side keys, or if the server assists in client key generation).
    3. Key Rotation (Server-Side Policies): The server enforces policies for periodic key rotation (for server-side keys).
    4. Secure Key Storage (Server-Side): The server protects its own keys using strong encryption and access controls.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Impersonation (High Severity): Server prevents use of compromised keys.
    • Key Compromise (High Severity): Server reduces impact of compromise.

  • Impact:

    • High reduction for Impersonation.
    • Medium Reduction for Key Compromise.

  • Currently Implemented (Likely):

    • CSPRNGs are almost certainly used.

  • Missing Implementation (Potential):

    • Key revocation mechanisms might need to be more user-friendly.
    • Key rotation frequency might need review.
    • Server-side key storage details need verification.