Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
117 lines (97 loc) · 11 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

117 lines (97 loc) · 11 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for cypress-io/cypress

Mitigation Strategy: Data Scrubbing in Test Scripts

Description:

  1. Identify Sensitive Data in Tests: Developers review Cypress test scripts to pinpoint any instances where sensitive information (passwords, API keys, PII, etc.) is directly used or logged within test commands or assertions.
  2. Implement Redaction within Cypress Commands:
    • String Manipulation in Assertions: When asserting on responses or elements containing sensitive data, use JavaScript string manipulation (e.g., String.replace(), regular expressions) within the assertion to mask or remove sensitive parts before logging or comparison. For example, instead of expect(response.body.token).to.contain('sensitive_token'), redact it like expect(response.body.token.replace(/sensitive_token/g, 'REDACTED')).to.contain('REDACTED').
    • cy.intercept() for Request/Response Modification: Utilize cy.intercept() to intercept API requests and responses. Within the intercept handler, modify request bodies or response bodies to replace sensitive data with placeholder values before Cypress logs or records them. For example: 
      cy.intercept('POST', '/api/login', (req) => {
  if (req.body && req.body.password) {
    req.body.password = 'REDACTED';
  }
}).as('loginRequest');
    • Custom Cypress Commands for Redaction: Create custom Cypress commands that encapsulate redaction logic. This promotes reusability and consistency across test suites. For instance, a custom command cy.redactLog(message) could be created to sanitize messages before logging them using cy.log().
  3. Verify Redaction in Cypress Artifacts: After implementing redaction, review Cypress test recordings (videos, screenshots) and command logs to ensure sensitive data is effectively masked and not visible in the generated artifacts.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Data Exposure in Test Recordings: Severity: High - Sensitive data hardcoded or logged in tests can be captured in recordings and artifacts, potentially exposing it to unauthorized users.
    • Data Exposure in Cypress Dashboard/Cloud: Severity: High - If test recordings are uploaded to Cypress Dashboard or Cypress Cloud, unredacted sensitive data could be exposed in the cloud environment.
    • Accidental Leakage of Secrets: Severity: High - Hardcoded secrets in tests can be accidentally committed to version control or shared, leading to security breaches.

  • Impact:

    • Data Exposure in Test Recordings: Risk Reduction: High - Effectively redacts sensitive data from test recordings and artifacts, significantly reducing the risk of exposure.
    • Data Exposure in Cypress Dashboard/Cloud: Risk Reduction: High - Prevents sensitive data from being uploaded to cloud services, mitigating cloud-based data exposure risks.
    • Accidental Leakage of Secrets: Risk Reduction: High - Encourages moving away from hardcoded secrets, reducing the risk of accidental leakage.

  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Basic string replacement is used in some API tests to mask passwords in request bodies within assertions. Implemented in: cypress/integration/api_tests/user_management.spec.js

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Comprehensive redaction across all test suites (UI and API).
    • Redaction using cy.intercept() for request/response bodies.
    • Custom Cypress commands for reusable redaction logic.
    • Verification process to ensure redaction is effective in all artifacts.

Mitigation Strategy: Environment-Specific Cypress Configuration

Description:

  1. Utilize cypress.config.js (or .ts): Leverage Cypress configuration files to define environment-specific settings. This is the primary mechanism for configuring Cypress behavior based on the target environment.
  2. baseUrl Management in Configuration: Define different baseUrl values within cypress.config.js for each environment (development, test, staging). Use environment variables to dynamically set the baseUrl based on the detected environment. For example: 
    const { defineConfig } = require('cypress')

module.exports = defineConfig({
  e2e: {
    baseUrl: process.env.CYPRESS_BASE_URL || 'http://localhost:3000', // Default dev URL
    setupNodeEvents(on, config) {
      // ...
    },
  },
})
    Then, set CYPRESS_BASE_URL environment variable in different CI/CD pipelines or local run configurations.
  3. Conditional Plugins and Configuration: Use conditional logic within cypress.config.js to load environment-specific plugins or adjust other Cypress settings. For example, you might load a specific reporter only for CI environments.
  4. Environment Checks in before() Hooks: Implement checks within global before() hooks in your support/e2e.js file to verify the intended environment before tests start. This can involve checking Cypress.config('baseUrl') or querying environment-specific endpoints to confirm the target environment. Abort test execution if the environment is incorrect, especially to prevent accidental production runs. Example: 
    before(() => {
  if (Cypress.config('baseUrl').includes('production.example.com')) {
    throw new Error("Tests are configured to run against production. Aborting!");
  }
});
  5. Disable Production Execution via Environment Variables: Introduce an environment variable (e.g., CYPRESS_ALLOW_PRODUCTION_RUN) that must be explicitly set to true to allow Cypress tests to run against production-like URLs. In your cypress.config.js or before() hook, check this variable and prevent execution if it's not set or set to false.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Accidental Execution of Tests in Production: Severity: High - Misconfiguration or accidental execution against production URLs can lead to data corruption, unintended side effects, or service disruption.
    • Data Corruption in Production due to Test Actions: Severity: High - Tests, especially destructive ones, run against production can directly modify or delete live data.
    • Unintended Side Effects in Production: Severity: High - Even read-only tests in production can cause unexpected load or trigger unintended application behavior.

  • Impact:

    • Accidental Execution of Tests in Production: Risk Reduction: High - Robust environment configuration and checks significantly reduce the risk of tests running in production.
    • Data Corruption in Production due to Test Actions: Risk Reduction: High - Prevents tests from interacting with production environments, eliminating the risk of data corruption.
    • Unintended Side Effects in Production: Risk Reduction: High - Avoids potential side effects of running tests in production, ensuring stability and availability.

  • Currently Implemented: Yes - We use cypress.config.js and environment variables to manage baseUrl.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • More robust environment detection logic beyond baseUrl.
    • Explicit safeguards in before() hooks to prevent production execution based on baseUrl or environment variables.
    • Conditional configuration for plugins and reporters based on environment.
    • CYPRESS_ALLOW_PRODUCTION_RUN style safeguard to explicitly disable production runs.

Mitigation Strategy: Careful Plugin Selection and Review

Description:

  1. Establish Plugin Evaluation Criteria: Define criteria for evaluating Cypress plugins before adoption. Consider factors like:
    • Source Reputability: Prefer official Cypress plugins or plugins from well-known and trusted developers/organizations.
    • Maintenance and Activity: Check plugin's GitHub repository for recent commits, active issue resolution, and community engagement. A plugin that is actively maintained is more likely to receive security updates.
    • Download Statistics: Review npm download statistics to gauge plugin popularity and community trust (though popularity is not a guarantee of security).
    • Permissions and Functionality: Understand the plugin's required permissions and functionality. Avoid plugins that request excessive permissions or perform actions beyond their stated purpose.
  2. Security Code Review (if feasible): For plugins considered high-risk or handling sensitive data, perform a code review of the plugin's source code (available on GitHub or npm) to identify potential security vulnerabilities or malicious code. Pay attention to:
    • Dependency vulnerabilities within the plugin itself.
    • Unsafe coding practices (e.g., insecure data handling, injection vulnerabilities).
    • Unnecessary network requests or data exfiltration attempts.
  3. Principle of Least Privilege for Plugins: Only install plugins that are strictly necessary for your testing needs. Avoid adding plugins "just in case" as each plugin increases the potential attack surface.
  4. Regular Plugin Inventory and Review: Periodically review the list of installed Cypress plugins. Remove any plugins that are no longer needed or are no longer actively maintained. Check for updates to plugins and update them regularly to patch known vulnerabilities.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Plugins: Severity: High - Malicious plugins could contain code designed to steal data, compromise the testing environment, or introduce vulnerabilities into the application under test.
    • Plugin Vulnerabilities: Severity: High - Plugins, like any software, can have vulnerabilities. Exploiting these vulnerabilities could compromise the testing environment or the application.
    • Supply Chain Attacks via Plugins: Severity: Medium - Compromised plugin dependencies or malicious updates to plugins could introduce vulnerabilities or malicious code into your project.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Plugins: Risk Reduction: High - Careful selection and review significantly reduces the risk of installing and using malicious plugins.
    • Plugin Vulnerabilities: Risk Reduction: High - Proactive evaluation and regular updates minimize the risk of exploiting known plugin vulnerabilities.
    • Supply Chain Attacks via Plugins: Risk Reduction: Medium - Reduces the likelihood of supply chain attacks by promoting scrutiny of plugin sources and dependencies.

  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Developers informally review plugins before adding them, primarily focusing on functionality and perceived reputability.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Formalized plugin evaluation process with documented criteria and checklists.
    • Security-focused code review of plugins, especially for high-risk plugins.
    • Regular scheduled review of installed plugins and their update status.
    • Automated checks for plugin vulnerabilities (could be integrated with dependency scanning).