Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
64 lines (51 loc) · 7.98 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

64 lines (51 loc) · 7.98 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for ampproject/amphtml

Attack Surface: AMP Validator Bypass

1. AMP Validator Bypass

  • Description: Attackers circumvent the AMP validator's checks, injecting malicious code (like XSS) into AMP pages that are incorrectly deemed valid.
  • AMPHTML Contribution: The inherent complexity of the AMP specification and the validator itself can lead to parsing or logic vulnerabilities. A flawed validator can fail to detect malicious payloads embedded within seemingly valid AMP code.
  • Example: An attacker crafts an AMP page with a subtle HTML structure that exploits a parsing vulnerability in the validator. This allows them to inject a <script> tag containing malicious JavaScript, which the validator incorrectly approves.
  • Impact: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), leading to user data theft, session hijacking, website defacement, and redirection to malicious sites.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Maintain Up-to-Date Validator: Always use the latest version of the AMP validator to benefit from the most recent security patches and bug fixes.
    • Implement Server-Side Validation: Perform AMP validation on the server-side in addition to client-side validation to provide a more robust security layer.
    • Strict Content Security Policy (CSP): Deploy a restrictive CSP to minimize the impact of successful XSS attacks by limiting the capabilities of injected scripts.
    • Regular Security Audits: Conduct periodic security audits specifically targeting the AMP validation process and AMP page structure to identify potential bypass vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: AMP Component-Specific XSS

2. AMP Component-Specific XSS

  • Description: Vulnerabilities within individual AMP components (e.g., amp-script, amp-iframe, amp-form) are exploited to inject and execute arbitrary JavaScript.
  • AMPHTML Contribution: While designed for security, AMP components can contain implementation flaws or unexpected behaviors that can be leveraged for XSS attacks. Components that handle user input or dynamically load external content are particularly susceptible.
  • Example: An attacker discovers an XSS vulnerability in the amp-bind component related to how it processes user-controlled data. By manipulating data attributes, they inject and execute malicious JavaScript within the context of the AMP page.
  • Impact: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), enabling user data theft, session hijacking, website manipulation, and redirection to malicious websites.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the exploited component and its context).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Utilize Secure, Official Components: Primarily use official and actively maintained AMP components. Exercise caution when considering custom or less established components.
    • Rigorous Input Sanitization: Implement thorough sanitization of all user inputs processed by AMP components, especially those reflected in the rendered page or used in dynamic content generation.
    • Context-Aware Output Encoding: Apply appropriate output encoding when rendering data within AMP components to prevent the interpretation of data as executable code.
    • Careful Component Configuration: Scrutinize and securely configure AMP component attributes, particularly those dealing with external resources, user-provided data, and event handlers.
    • Stay Informed on Security Advisories: Actively monitor AMP project security advisories and promptly apply updates to components to address reported vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: AMP Cache Poisoning

3. AMP Cache Poisoning

  • Description: Attackers successfully inject malicious content into the AMP cache, leading the cache to serve compromised AMP pages to a broad user base.
  • AMPHTML Contribution: AMP's performance optimization strategy relies heavily on caching. This reliance introduces a critical attack surface if the cache infrastructure or the interaction between origin servers and the cache is compromised.
  • Example: An attacker gains unauthorized access to the origin server and modifies an AMP page to include malicious JavaScript. Due to a vulnerability in the cache invalidation mechanism or timing, the compromised page is cached and subsequently served to users from the AMP cache, even after the origin server is corrected.
  • Impact: Wide-scale distribution of malicious content, potentially affecting a large number of users accessing AMP pages through the cache. This can result in mass XSS attacks, malware propagation, and significant reputational damage.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Fortify Origin Server Security: Implement robust security measures to protect the origin server hosting AMP pages from unauthorized access and content manipulation.
    • Secure Cache Invalidation Mechanisms: Employ strong and secure cache invalidation processes to prevent attackers from manipulating the cache and ensure timely updates.
    • Content Integrity Verification: Implement content integrity checks, such as Subresource Integrity (SRI), to verify that cached content remains unaltered and has not been tampered with.
    • Regular Cache Infrastructure Audits: Conduct routine security audits of the AMP caching infrastructure and the communication pathways between origin servers and the cache.
    • Enforce HTTPS Everywhere: Ensure all communication channels between origin servers, the cache, and end-users are exclusively over HTTPS to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks that could facilitate cache poisoning.

Attack Surface: Insecure postMessage Handling in AMP

4. Insecure postMessage Handling in AMP

  • Description: Vulnerabilities stemming from improper or insecure handling of postMessage communication within AMP components or between AMP pages and their embedding contexts, potentially leading to XSS or other exploits.
  • AMPHTML Contribution: AMP components and AMP pages frequently utilize postMessage for cross-origin communication. If not implemented with strict security considerations, this communication mechanism can become a significant attack vector.
  • Example: A malicious website embeds an AMP page within an iframe. The AMP page uses postMessage to interact with its parent window. The malicious website crafts carefully designed messages that exploit vulnerabilities in the AMP page's postMessage event listener, enabling the execution of arbitrary JavaScript within the AMP page's security context.
  • Impact: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), data exfiltration, unauthorized actions within the AMP page, and potential compromise of the embedding origin website if bidirectional communication is involved.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the sensitivity of data exchanged and actions triggered via postMessage).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Origin Validation: Thoroughly validate the origin property of incoming postMessage events to ensure messages are exclusively accepted from trusted and expected sources.
    • Robust Data Sanitization and Validation: Rigorously sanitize and validate the data payload received through postMessage before any processing or usage. Avoid directly executing code based on postMessage data.
    • Principle of Least Privilege for postMessage: Limit the functionality exposed through postMessage to the absolute minimum necessary and avoid transmitting sensitive information if possible.
    • Regular Security Review of postMessage Implementations: Conduct periodic security reviews of all postMessage handlers within AMP components and pages to proactively identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.