Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
137 lines (114 loc) · 15.3 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

137 lines (114 loc) · 15.3 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the AMP HTML project based on the provided design document.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the AMP HTML framework, identifying potential vulnerabilities, assessing their impact, and recommending mitigation strategies. This analysis focuses on the core components of AMP, including the runtime, validator, components, and interactions with external systems (CDNs, origin servers, third-party services). The goal is to ensure the secure delivery of content, protect user data (if any), and maintain the integrity of the AMP ecosystem.

  • Scope: This analysis covers:

    • The AMP Runtime (JavaScript library).
    • AMP Components (pre-built HTML tags).
    • Third-Party Embeds (iframes).
    • The AMP Validator (API and Engine).
    • Interactions with CDNs (specifically the Google AMP Cache).
    • Interactions with Origin Servers.
    • The build process and associated security controls.

    This analysis does not cover:

    • Security of specific implementations of AMP on publisher websites (beyond the framework itself).
    • Security of third-party services integrated with AMP (beyond the sandboxing provided by AMP).
    • The internal security of Google's infrastructure (AMP Cache). We assume Google maintains adequate security for their services.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams (Context, Container, Deployment, Build) to understand the system's architecture, components, data flow, and trust boundaries.
    2. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the architecture, business risks, and known vulnerabilities associated with web technologies. We'll use a combination of STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) and attack trees.
    3. Security Control Review: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing and recommended security controls listed in the design document.
    4. Codebase Inference: Since we don't have direct access to the AMP HTML codebase, we'll infer potential vulnerabilities and mitigation strategies based on the project's public documentation (https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml), known security best practices, and the design document's description of AMP's security mechanisms.
    5. Mitigation Recommendations: Provide specific, actionable recommendations to address identified vulnerabilities and strengthen the overall security posture of the AMP framework.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component, referencing the existing and recommended security controls:

  • AMP Runtime (JS Library):

    • Threats: XSS (despite built-in protections), CSP bypass, malicious code injection (if the runtime itself is compromised), denial-of-service (resource exhaustion), dependency vulnerabilities (if any external libraries are used).
    • Existing Controls: Strict CSP, limited JavaScript execution, built-in XSS protections.
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: Even with limited JavaScript, vulnerabilities in the parsing and handling of AMP components could lead to XSS. Bypassing the CSP, even partially, could allow for malicious script execution. Flaws in the runtime's resource management could lead to DoS.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Fuzzing: Regularly fuzz the AMP Runtime to test its handling of unexpected or malformed input. This is crucial for identifying XSS and other injection vulnerabilities.
      • CSP Enhancement: While a strict CSP is in place, regularly review and refine it to ensure it's as restrictive as possible, following the principle of least privilege. Consider using CSP nonces for any dynamic script loading.
      • Runtime Integrity Checks: Implement mechanisms to verify the integrity of the AMP Runtime loaded by the browser. This could involve checking a hash of the runtime against a known-good value.
      • Resource Limits: Enforce strict resource limits (CPU, memory) within the runtime to prevent DoS attacks.
      • Dependency Auditing: If any external libraries are used, rigorously audit them for vulnerabilities and keep them up-to-date. Minimize dependencies whenever possible.

  • AMP Components (HTML Tags):

    • Threats: XSS (if a component mishandles user input), injection attacks (e.g., CSS injection), data leakage (if a component exposes sensitive information), component-specific vulnerabilities.
    • Existing Controls: Built-in security features, adherence to AMP specifications.
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: Each component needs individual security review. For example, an image component might be vulnerable to image-based XSS attacks if it doesn't properly sanitize image metadata. A form component (if allowed) could be vulnerable to CSRF or data leakage.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Component-Specific Security Audits: Each AMP component should undergo a dedicated security audit, focusing on its specific functionality and potential attack vectors.
      • Input Sanitization and Output Encoding: Ensure all components properly sanitize input and encode output to prevent XSS and other injection attacks. Use well-vetted sanitization libraries.
      • Regular Expression Review: Carefully review any regular expressions used for input validation or parsing, as poorly crafted regexes can be vulnerable to ReDoS (Regular Expression Denial of Service).
      • Subresource Integrity (SRI): Implement SRI for all AMP components loaded from external sources. This is a critical recommendation from the original design document that should be prioritized. SRI ensures that the loaded component hasn't been tampered with.

  • Third-Party Embeds (iframes):

    • Threats: Malicious code execution within the iframe, clickjacking, cross-site scripting (if the sandbox is bypassed), data exfiltration from the iframe.
    • Existing Controls: Strict iframe sandboxing, CSP restrictions.
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: Sandbox escapes are rare but possible. The sandbox attribute itself might have misconfigurations. The communication between the AMP page and the iframe (if any) needs careful scrutiny.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strong Sandboxing: Use the most restrictive sandbox attribute possible, explicitly disallowing features that aren't absolutely necessary (e.g., allow-scripts, allow-top-navigation, allow-popups).
      • X-Frame-Options Header: Ensure that the content loaded within the iframe sets the X-Frame-Options header (or the equivalent Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors directive) to prevent clickjacking.
      • Post-Message API Security: If postMessage is used for communication between the AMP page and the iframe, rigorously validate the origin and data of all messages. Use structured cloning to prevent prototype pollution attacks.
      • Regularly Audit Iframe Interactions: Review the allowed interactions between the AMP page and iframes to ensure they adhere to the principle of least privilege.

  • AMP Validator (API and Engine):

    • Threats: Validator bypass (allowing invalid AMP pages to be served), denial-of-service (overloading the validator), code injection (if the validator itself is compromised).
    • Existing Controls: Regular updates, robust validation logic, input validation, access controls (for the API).
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: The validator is a critical security component. Any flaw in its logic could allow malicious AMP pages to bypass validation. Complex parsing logic is often a source of vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Extensive Fuzzing: Fuzz the validator extensively with a wide variety of valid and invalid AMP inputs to identify edge cases and potential bypasses.
      • Formal Verification (if feasible): Consider using formal verification techniques to prove the correctness of the validator's logic, especially for critical security rules.
      • Rate Limiting and Resource Limits: Implement rate limiting and resource limits on the AMP Validator API to prevent DoS attacks.
      • Input Validation: Ensure the validator API itself properly validates all inputs to prevent injection attacks.
      • Regular Expression Security: As with components, carefully review and secure any regular expressions used in the validator.

  • Interactions with CDNs (Google AMP Cache):

    • Threats: Cache poisoning, man-in-the-middle attacks (if HTTPS is misconfigured), serving outdated or malicious versions of AMP pages.
    • Existing Controls: HTTPS, DDoS protection, CDN security features.
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: Cache poisoning could allow an attacker to inject malicious content into the cached version of an AMP page. Misconfigured HTTPS could allow for interception of traffic.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Cache Control Headers: Use appropriate Cache-Control headers to ensure that AMP pages are cached correctly and that stale or malicious versions aren't served.
      • HTTPS Configuration: Ensure that HTTPS is properly configured on both the origin server and the AMP Cache, using strong ciphers and protocols. Regularly check for certificate misconfigurations.
      • Origin Pull Security: Secure the connection between the AMP Cache and the origin server to prevent tampering with content during the pull process.

  • Interactions with Origin Servers:

    • Threats: Man-in-the-middle attacks, serving malicious AMP pages from a compromised origin server.
    • Existing Controls: HTTPS, server-side security measures.
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: A compromised origin server could serve malicious AMP pages, bypassing all the security features of the AMP framework.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strong Server-Side Security: Implement robust server-side security measures on the origin server, including regular security updates, intrusion detection systems, and web application firewalls (WAFs).
      • HTTPS Enforcement: Ensure that HTTPS is strictly enforced on the origin server.
      • File Integrity Monitoring: Use file integrity monitoring (FIM) to detect unauthorized changes to AMP files on the origin server.

  • Build Process:

    • Threats: Injection of malicious code during the build process, use of vulnerable dependencies, deployment of insecure configurations.
    • Existing Controls: AMP Validator, linters, SAST tools, CI/Build server, code repository, dependency management.
    • Inferred Vulnerabilities: A compromised build server or CI pipeline could inject malicious code into AMP pages. Vulnerable dependencies could introduce security flaws.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Secure Build Environment: Ensure the build server and CI pipeline are secure and protected from unauthorized access.
      • Software Composition Analysis (SCA): Use SCA tools to identify and manage vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies.
      • Automated Security Testing: Integrate security testing (SAST, DAST) into the CI/CD pipeline.
      • Code Signing: Consider code signing the build artifacts (AMP HTML files) to ensure their integrity.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary and Prioritization)

Here's a prioritized summary of the most critical mitigation strategies:

  • High Priority:

    • Subresource Integrity (SRI): Implement SRI for all AMP components loaded from external sources. This is essential to prevent the loading of compromised components.
    • Fuzzing: Regularly fuzz the AMP Runtime and Validator with a wide range of inputs. This is crucial for identifying XSS, injection vulnerabilities, and validator bypasses.
    • Component-Specific Security Audits: Conduct thorough security audits of each individual AMP component.
    • Strong Sandboxing for Iframes: Use the most restrictive sandbox attribute possible for iframes, and ensure proper X-Frame-Options and CSP configurations.
    • Secure Build Environment: Protect the build server and CI pipeline from compromise.

  • Medium Priority:

    • CSP Enhancement: Regularly review and refine the CSP to be as restrictive as possible.
    • Runtime Integrity Checks: Implement mechanisms to verify the integrity of the AMP Runtime.
    • Post-Message API Security: Rigorously validate the origin and data of all postMessage communications.
    • Rate Limiting and Resource Limits (Validator API): Prevent DoS attacks against the validator.
    • Software Composition Analysis (SCA): Manage vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies.
    • Origin Server Security: Implement robust security measures on the origin server, including FIM.

  • Low Priority (but still important):

    • Formal Verification (Validator): Consider if feasible for critical validation rules.
    • Code Signing: Sign build artifacts to ensure integrity.
    • Cache Control Headers: Use appropriate headers to prevent cache poisoning.
    • Regular Expression Review: Carefully review and secure all regular expressions.

4. Addressing Questions and Assumptions

  • Specific third-party services: Analytics (Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics), Ads (Google Ad Manager, AdSense), Social Media embeds (Twitter, Facebook), Video players (YouTube, Vimeo). Each of these needs to be carefully integrated using AMP-approved components and sandboxed iframes.
  • Vulnerability handling process: The AMP Project should have a clear, publicly documented vulnerability disclosure program (as recommended in the design document). This should include a process for reporting vulnerabilities, triaging them, developing patches, and deploying updates to the runtime and validator.
  • Customization level: AMP's restrictions limit customization, which is a trade-off for security and performance. Any required customization should be carefully reviewed to ensure it doesn't introduce vulnerabilities.
  • Compliance requirements: GDPR and CCPA compliance is primarily the responsibility of the website publisher, not the AMP framework itself. However, AMP components that handle user data (e.g., forms) should be designed to facilitate compliance (e.g., providing mechanisms for data access and deletion).
  • Traffic volume and performance: AMP is designed for high traffic and performance. The security controls should not significantly impact performance.

The assumptions made in the design document are generally reasonable. The key is to ensure that the stated security controls are effectively implemented and regularly reviewed.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the AMP HTML project. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, the AMP Project can significantly enhance its security posture and protect users and publishers from a wide range of web-based threats. Continuous monitoring, testing, and updates are crucial to maintain a strong security posture in the ever-evolving threat landscape.