Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
69 lines (60 loc) · 5.94 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

69 lines (60 loc) · 5.94 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for bigskysoftware/htmx

Attack Surface: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)

  • Description: Injection of malicious JavaScript into the web application, executed in the context of other users' browsers.
  • How HTMX Contributes: HTMX's core mechanism of injecting server-rendered HTML fragments directly into the DOM significantly increases XSS risk if server responses are not meticulously sanitized. The persistent nature of htmx updates (vs. full-page reloads) makes stored XSS more likely and impactful. hx-swap, especially with innerHTML, is a key factor. hx-on attribute can be used to inject malicious javascript code.
  • Example:
    • User input <script>alert('XSS')</script> into a comment field.
    • Server fails to sanitize.
    • HTMX fetches the comment list (with the script) via hx-get and injects it using hx-swap="innerHTML".
    • The script executes in other users' browsers.
  • Impact:
    • Theft of cookies/session tokens.
    • Redirection to malicious sites.
    • Defacement.
    • Arbitrary code execution in the user's browser.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Server-Side Output Encoding (Primary): Use a robust HTML templating engine with automatic, contextual escaping (e.g., Jinja2, ERB with proper escaping). Never construct HTML responses via string concatenation. This is the single most important defense.
    • Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strict CSP, focusing on the script-src directive. Avoid unsafe-inline if at all possible; use nonces or hashes if necessary. Ensure unsafe-eval is not enabled unless absolutely required by a specific, trusted htmx extension.
    • Input Validation (Secondary): Validate and sanitize all user input before server-side use, but rely primarily on output encoding.
    • Safer hx-swap Options: If possible, use safer hx-swap alternatives to innerHTML (e.g., outerHTML, beforebegin, afterend) with carefully structured HTML. This reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk.

Attack Surface: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

  • Description: Tricking a user's browser into making unintended, authenticated requests.
  • How HTMX Contributes: HTMX makes requests via JavaScript. Standard form-based CSRF tokens might not be automatically included. Developers must explicitly handle CSRF for htmx-initiated requests (using hx-post, hx-put, hx-patch, hx-delete).
  • Example:
    • Attacker crafts a malicious site with a hidden form or JS that makes a POST to /delete-account.
    • A logged-in user visits the attacker's site.
    • The browser sends the request to /delete-account with the user's cookies.
    • Without proper CSRF protection specifically for htmx requests, the account is deleted.
  • Impact:
    • Unauthorized actions on behalf of the user (data deletion, setting changes, purchases).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Request Headers (Recommended): Include the CSRF token in a request header (e.g., X-CSRF-Token). Configure htmx to automatically include this header (using the htmx:configRequest event listener or the hx-headers attribute).
    • Server-Side Validation: The server must validate the CSRF token for all state-changing requests, regardless of origin (htmx or otherwise).

Attack Surface: Sensitive Data Exposure

  • Description: Unintentional disclosure of sensitive information.
  • How HTMX Contributes: HTMX fetches HTML fragments. If these fragments contain sensitive data that shouldn't be exposed, it creates a vulnerability. Developers might be less careful with partial responses. All hx- attributes that trigger server requests are relevant.
  • Example:
    • An htmx request to update a profile section fetches the entire user object, including the hashed password, even though only the username is displayed.
    • An attacker inspects the network response and sees the sensitive data.
  • Impact:
    • Exposure of passwords (even hashed), API keys, internal IDs, etc.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Minimal Response Data: Only include the absolutely necessary data in the HTML fragments. Avoid returning entire model objects.
    • Dedicated API Endpoints: Use separate API endpoints specifically for htmx requests, returning only the data needed for the partial update.
    • Server-Side Templating: Use server-side templating to selectively render only the required data fields.

Attack Surface: Request Forgery

  • Description: Crafting unauthorized requests by manipulating request parameters, headers, or the target URL on the client-side.
  • How HTMX Contributes: HTMX allows dynamic modification of request details (using attributes like hx-vals, hx-headers, and dynamically generated URLs in hx-get, hx-post, etc.), making it easier for an attacker to tamper with requests if client-side JavaScript is compromised.
  • Example:
    • An attacker uses a browser extension or compromised JS to modify hx-vals, adding a hidden parameter that grants them admin privileges.
  • Impact:
    • Unauthorized access to data/functionality.
    • Bypassing security controls.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Server-Side Validation (Paramount): Always validate all request parameters and headers on the server-side, regardless of their origin. Do not trust client-side data.
    • Input Sanitization: Sanitize any user input used in request parameters or headers.
    • Minimize Client-Side Manipulation: Avoid relying on client-side JS to dynamically modify request details based on user input.