Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
205 lines (166 loc) · 17.5 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

205 lines (166 loc) · 17.5 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the Signal Server based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the key components of the signal-server codebase (as represented by the design review), identifying potential vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for security improvement. The analysis will focus on inferring the architecture, data flow, and security controls from the provided information and common patterns in similar systems. The primary goal is to assess the server's ability to protect user privacy and data confidentiality, maintain service integrity and availability, and resist various attack vectors.

  • Scope: The analysis will cover the following components as described in the design review:

    • Message Router
    • User Service
    • Attachment Service
    • Group Service
    • Push Notification Service
    • Interactions with external systems (APNs, FCM)
    • Deployment environment (Kubernetes)
    • Build process (Gradle/Cargo, GitHub Actions)

    The analysis will not cover:

    • Client-side security (Signal client applications)
    • Detailed cryptographic analysis of the Signal Protocol itself (we assume it's correctly implemented)
    • Physical security of the server infrastructure

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Data Flow Inference: Based on the C4 diagrams and component descriptions, we'll infer the likely data flow and interactions between components.
    2. Component-Specific Threat Modeling: For each key component, we'll identify potential threats based on its responsibilities, security controls, and interactions. We'll use the STRIDE threat model (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) as a guide.
    3. Security Control Analysis: We'll evaluate the effectiveness of existing and recommended security controls in mitigating identified threats.
    4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified vulnerability or weakness, we'll propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to the Signal Server context.
    5. Prioritization: We will prioritize recommendations based on their impact and feasibility.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

We'll analyze each component using STRIDE and consider the inferred data flow.

  • Message Router:

    • Responsibilities: Receives, routes, and forwards encrypted messages; handles undelivered messages.

    • Data Flow: Receives encrypted messages from clients, interacts with User Service to determine recipients, forwards messages to recipients (or holds them if undelivered), interacts with Push Notification Service.

    • Threats:

      • Spoofing: An attacker could attempt to impersonate a legitimate user to send messages. Mitigation: Strong client authentication (already in place).
      • Tampering: An attacker could try to modify messages in transit. Mitigation: End-to-end encryption (Signal Protocol) prevents this.
      • Repudiation: A sender could deny sending a message. Mitigation: Cryptographic deniability is a feature of Signal, not a vulnerability in this context. The server doesn't need to enforce non-repudiation.
      • Information Disclosure: Leakage of metadata (sender, recipient, timestamp). Mitigation: Signal minimizes metadata, but some is inherent. Strong access controls and monitoring are crucial.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Flooding the router with messages to overwhelm it. Mitigation: Rate limiting (existing control) is essential. Robust infrastructure (Kubernetes) helps with scalability.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Exploiting a vulnerability in the router to gain higher privileges. Mitigation: Secure coding practices, input validation, regular security audits, and potentially using memory-safe languages (Rust) are crucial.

    • Specific Recommendations:

      • High: Implement strict message size limits to prevent large messages from contributing to DoS.
      • High: Monitor for unusual message routing patterns that might indicate an attack or compromise.
      • Medium: Consider using Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to filter malicious traffic at the ingress level.

  • User Service:

    • Responsibilities: User registration, profile management, contact synchronization, authentication.

    • Data Flow: Interacts with clients during registration and authentication, stores user identifiers (phone numbers, usernames), interacts with Group Service.

    • Threats:

      • Spoofing: Creating fake accounts or impersonating existing users. Mitigation: Phone number verification (likely already in place), rate limiting on registration attempts.
      • Tampering: Modifying user profiles or contact lists. Mitigation: Strong access controls, input validation, and data integrity checks.
      • Repudiation: A user denying actions on their account. Mitigation: Audit logs (with appropriate privacy considerations) could be helpful, but must be carefully designed to avoid compromising privacy.
      • Information Disclosure: Leaking user data (phone numbers, usernames, profile information). Mitigation: Strict access controls, encryption of data at rest (if stored), minimizing data retention.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Overwhelming the service with registration or authentication requests. Mitigation: Rate limiting, CAPTCHAs (if appropriate), robust infrastructure.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Exploiting a vulnerability to gain administrative access. Mitigation: Secure coding practices, least privilege principle, regular security audits.

    • Specific Recommendations:

      • High: Implement robust password hashing (e.g., Argon2id) with appropriate salts and work factors. This is critical for protecting user credentials.
      • High: Enforce strict input validation on all user-provided data (phone numbers, usernames, profile fields) to prevent injection attacks.
      • High: Implement account lockout policies to mitigate brute-force attacks on user authentication.
      • Medium: Consider implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) as an option for users.
      • Medium: Regularly audit and review access logs for suspicious activity.

  • Attachment Service:

    • Responsibilities: Stores and retrieves encrypted attachments.

    • Data Flow: Receives encrypted attachments from clients, stores them (likely on persistent storage), provides access to authorized users.

    • Threats:

      • Spoofing: Uploading attachments under a false identity. Mitigation: Strong client authentication.
      • Tampering: Modifying attachments in storage. Mitigation: End-to-end encryption protects against this. Integrity checks on stored data are also important.
      • Repudiation: A user denying uploading or downloading an attachment. Mitigation: Similar to the Message Router, this isn't a primary concern due to Signal's design.
      • Information Disclosure: Unauthorized access to encrypted attachments. Mitigation: Strict access controls, encryption key management, regular security audits.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Uploading excessively large attachments or making numerous requests. Mitigation: Rate limiting, storage quotas, robust infrastructure.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Exploiting a vulnerability to gain access to other users' attachments. Mitigation: Secure coding practices, least privilege, regular security audits.

    • Specific Recommendations:

      • High: Ensure that encryption keys for attachments are managed securely and are separate from any server-side keys. Ideally, the server should never have access to the decryption keys.
      • High: Implement strict access controls based on user identity and message association. Only the sender and recipients of a message should be able to access its attachments.
      • High: Implement robust input validation to prevent attacks that might exploit vulnerabilities in file parsing or processing libraries.
      • Medium: Regularly scan stored attachments for malware (using a secure, isolated environment) to prevent the server from becoming a distribution point for malicious files. This is a complex issue due to end-to-end encryption, but potential solutions exist (e.g., client-side scanning before upload).

  • Group Service:

    • Responsibilities: Manages group messaging functionality (creation, membership, message distribution).

    • Data Flow: Interacts with User Service for user authentication and authorization, interacts with Message Router for message delivery.

    • Threats:

      • Spoofing: Creating fake groups or adding unauthorized members. Mitigation: Strong authentication and authorization mechanisms, group creator controls.
      • Tampering: Modifying group membership or settings. Mitigation: Strict access controls, input validation, data integrity checks.
      • Repudiation: A user denying participation in a group. Mitigation: Audit logs (with privacy considerations) could be helpful, but must be carefully designed.
      • Information Disclosure: Leaking group membership information. Mitigation: Strict access controls, minimizing data retention.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Creating a large number of groups or sending numerous group messages. Mitigation: Rate limiting, resource quotas, robust infrastructure.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Exploiting a vulnerability to gain control over a group or access other groups' data. Mitigation: Secure coding practices, least privilege, regular security audits.

    • Specific Recommendations:

      • High: Implement strict controls on who can create groups and add/remove members. Consider different group roles with varying permissions.
      • High: Ensure that group membership information is only accessible to authorized users within the group.
      • Medium: Implement mechanisms to detect and prevent spam or abuse within groups.

  • Push Notification Service:

    • Responsibilities: Interfaces with APNs and FCM to send push notifications.

    • Data Flow: Receives notification requests from Message Router, formats notifications, sends them to APNs and FCM.

    • Threats:

      • Spoofing: Sending fake notifications to users. Mitigation: Secure communication with APNs and FCM (TLS), API key protection.
      • Tampering: Modifying notification content. Mitigation: Secure communication with APNs and FCM, integrity checks.
      • Repudiation: The server denying sending a notification. Mitigation: Not a primary concern, as the server is acting as a relay.
      • Information Disclosure: Leaking information through notifications (e.g., sender identity, message content snippets). Mitigation: Minimize the amount of information included in notifications. Signal's design should already minimize this.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Sending a large number of notification requests to overwhelm APNs/FCM or the server itself. Mitigation: Rate limiting, robust infrastructure.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Exploiting a vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to APNs/FCM credentials. Mitigation: Secure storage of API keys, least privilege, regular security audits.

    • Specific Recommendations:

      • High: Securely store and manage API keys for APNs and FCM. Use a secrets management system (e.g., Kubernetes Secrets, HashiCorp Vault) and rotate keys regularly.
      • High: Implement strict rate limiting on notification requests to prevent abuse and protect against DoS attacks on APNs/FCM.
      • High: Monitor the communication with APNs and FCM for errors or anomalies that might indicate an attack or misconfiguration.
      • Medium: Implement robust error handling and retry mechanisms to ensure reliable notification delivery.

3. Deployment (Kubernetes) Security

  • Threats:

    • Pod-to-Pod Attacks: A compromised pod could attack other pods within the cluster.
    • Unauthorized Access to Cluster Resources: An attacker could gain access to the Kubernetes API and manipulate resources.
    • Vulnerable Container Images: Using images with known vulnerabilities.
    • Data Exposure: Sensitive data (e.g., API keys, database credentials) could be exposed if not properly managed.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • High: Implement Network Policies to restrict communication between pods. Only allow necessary traffic flows.
    • High: Use Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to restrict access to Kubernetes API resources based on the principle of least privilege.
    • High: Use a container image scanning tool to identify and remediate vulnerabilities in container images before deployment.
    • High: Use Kubernetes Secrets or a dedicated secrets management system to securely store and manage sensitive data. Never store secrets directly in container images or configuration files.
    • High: Regularly update Kubernetes and its components to patch security vulnerabilities.
    • High: Enable audit logging for the Kubernetes API to track all actions performed within the cluster.
    • Medium: Use a service mesh (e.g., Istio, Linkerd) to provide additional security features, such as mutual TLS authentication between pods and traffic encryption.
    • Medium: Implement Pod Security Policies (or a successor like Kyverno) to enforce security best practices for pod configurations.

4. Build Process Security

  • Threats:

    • Dependency Vulnerabilities: Using third-party libraries with known vulnerabilities.
    • Compromised Build Tools: Using compromised versions of Gradle, Cargo, or other build tools.
    • Code Injection: An attacker could inject malicious code into the codebase during the build process.
    • Insecure Artifact Storage: Storing build artifacts (JARs, binaries, Docker images) in an insecure location.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • High: Implement a robust Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) management system to track all dependencies and their vulnerabilities. Use tools like dependency-check (for Java) or cargo-audit (for Rust).
    • High: Verify the integrity of build tools and dependencies by checking their digital signatures or checksums.
    • High: Implement Static Application Security Testing (SAST) in the CI/CD pipeline to scan for vulnerabilities in the codebase.
    • High: Use a secure container registry with access controls and vulnerability scanning.
    • High: Implement code signing of build artifacts to ensure their integrity and authenticity.
    • Medium: Consider using Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) to test the running application for vulnerabilities.
    • Medium: Implement a secure build environment (e.g., using isolated build agents) to prevent tampering with the build process.

5. Prioritized Recommendations Summary

The following recommendations are prioritized as High, meaning they should be addressed as soon as possible:

  • All Components:

    • Implement a robust SBOM management system.
    • Formalize and document the security audit process.
    • Enhance supply chain security measures (code signing, verification of build artifacts).
    • Implement a bug bounty program.

  • Message Router:

    • Implement strict message size limits.
    • Monitor for unusual message routing patterns.

  • User Service:

    • Implement robust password hashing (Argon2id).
    • Enforce strict input validation.
    • Implement account lockout policies.

  • Attachment Service:

    • Securely manage encryption keys for attachments.
    • Implement strict access controls based on user identity and message association.
    • Implement robust input validation for attachments.

  • Group Service:

    • Implement strict controls on group creation and membership management.
    • Ensure group membership information is only accessible to authorized users.

  • Push Notification Service:

    • Securely store and manage API keys for APNs and FCM.
    • Implement strict rate limiting on notification requests.
    • Monitor communication with APNs and FCM.

  • Deployment (Kubernetes):

    • Implement Network Policies.
    • Use RBAC.
    • Use a container image scanning tool.
    • Use Kubernetes Secrets or a dedicated secrets management system.
    • Regularly update Kubernetes.
    • Enable audit logging for the Kubernetes API.

  • Build Process:

    • Implement SBOM generation.
    • Verify the integrity of build tools and dependencies.
    • Implement SAST in the CI/CD pipeline.
    • Use a secure container registry.
    • Implement code signing of build artifacts.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the Signal Server, based on the provided design review. It highlights potential vulnerabilities and provides actionable recommendations to improve the server's security posture. The recommendations are tailored to the specific context of the Signal Server and its mission to provide secure and private communication.