Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
78 lines (67 loc) · 7.98 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

78 lines (67 loc) · 7.98 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for element-hq/element-web

Attack Surface: 1. Malicious Homeserver Interaction (Event Handling)

  • Description: Element Web must process potentially malicious events and data received from untrusted homeservers. Vulnerabilities in this processing can lead to client compromise.
  • Element-Web Contribution: Element Web's core functionality involves parsing, validating, and rendering data from potentially malicious homeservers. This is the primary attack vector.
  • Example: A malicious homeserver sends a crafted room state event that exploits a buffer overflow in Element Web's event handling code, leading to remote code execution.
  • Impact: Complete client compromise, data exfiltration, impersonation, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Implement extremely rigorous input validation and sanitization for all data received from homeservers (events, room state, user profiles, etc.). Assume all input is potentially malicious.
      • Use a strict Content Security Policy (CSP) to limit the execution of untrusted code, even in the presence of XSS vulnerabilities.
      • Regularly audit and fuzz test all federation protocol handling code, including edge cases and malformed input.
      • Employ memory-safe languages or techniques (e.g., Rust) where possible to prevent buffer overflows and other memory corruption vulnerabilities.
      • Implement sandboxing techniques to isolate homeserver interactions and limit the impact of potential exploits.

Attack Surface: 2. Cross-Signing and Device Verification Failure

  • Description: Flaws in Element Web's implementation of cross-signing or device verification could allow attackers to impersonate users or devices, bypassing E2EE protections.
  • Element-Web Contribution: Element Web is entirely responsible for the correct implementation of the cross-signing and device verification user interface and logic. This is a critical security feature.
  • Example: An attacker exploits a race condition in the device verification flow to add a malicious device to a user's account without their knowledge, gaining access to encrypted messages.
  • Impact: Impersonation, unauthorized access to encrypted communications, complete loss of trust in the E2EE system.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Thoroughly audit and test the entire cross-signing and device verification code, including all edge cases and potential race conditions.
      • Follow best practices for cryptographic key management, including secure storage and key derivation.
      • Provide a clear, unambiguous, and user-friendly UI for device verification, minimizing the chance of user error.
      • Implement robust error handling and recovery mechanisms, ensuring that failures are handled securely.
      • Consider formal verification of critical components of the cross-signing and device verification logic.

Attack Surface: 3. E2EE Implementation Vulnerabilities (Olm/Megolm)

  • Description: Bugs in Element Web's implementation of the Olm or Megolm cryptographic protocols could weaken encryption or lead to key compromise, directly impacting the security of E2EE.
  • Element-Web Contribution: Element Web directly implements these protocols (or uses a library that it closely integrates with) for end-to-end encryption. The correctness of this implementation is paramount.
  • Example: A subtle flaw in the ratchet implementation allows an attacker to predict future session keys and decrypt messages.
  • Impact: Complete compromise of encrypted communications, loss of confidentiality for all affected users.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Use well-vetted and actively maintained cryptographic libraries (e.g., a well-audited Rust implementation of Olm/Megolm). Avoid "rolling your own crypto."
      • Regularly review and update the cryptographic code, paying close attention to any security advisories related to the libraries used.
      • Perform thorough testing, including fuzzing and cryptographic analysis, to identify potential vulnerabilities.
      • Consider formal verification of critical cryptographic components, especially those related to key exchange and ratchet mechanisms.

Attack Surface: 4. Malicious Message Content (Rich Text/Markdown/Custom Events)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities in Element Web's parsing and rendering of message content (rich text, Markdown, custom event types) can lead to XSS or other injection attacks.
  • Element-Web Contribution: Element Web is directly responsible for safely handling and displaying potentially malicious message content received from other users or homeservers.
  • Example: An attacker sends a message containing a specially crafted custom event type that exploits a vulnerability in Element Web's handling of unknown event fields, leading to JavaScript execution.
  • Impact: Client compromise, data exfiltration, impersonation, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Implement extremely rigorous input validation and sanitization for all message content, regardless of its source or type. Assume all input is potentially malicious.
      • Use a very strict Content Security Policy (CSP) to prevent the execution of untrusted code, even in the presence of XSS vulnerabilities. This is a crucial defense-in-depth measure.
      • Regularly audit and fuzz test the parsing and rendering logic for all supported message formats and custom event types.
      • Consider using a sandboxed iframe or a separate rendering process to isolate the rendering of untrusted content from the main application context.
      • Employ output encoding to prevent XSS vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: 5. Supply Chain Attacks (JavaScript Dependencies - Direct Impact)

  • Description: A compromised direct JavaScript dependency (especially matrix-js-sdk) could introduce malicious code that directly impacts Element Web's security.
  • Element-Web Contribution: Element Web's functionality is heavily reliant on its direct dependencies, particularly matrix-js-sdk. A vulnerability here is almost equivalent to a vulnerability in Element Web itself.
  • Example: A malicious actor compromises the matrix-js-sdk package and injects code that intercepts encryption keys before they are stored.
  • Impact: Client compromise, data exfiltration, impersonation, potential compromise of E2EE.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Maintain a very close relationship with the matrix-js-sdk development team and actively participate in security reviews and audits.
      • Use dependency management tools (e.g., npm audit, yarn audit, Snyk) to continuously monitor for known vulnerabilities in all direct dependencies.
      • Regularly update dependencies to the latest secure versions, especially matrix-js-sdk.
      • Pin dependencies to specific versions to prevent unexpected updates that might introduce vulnerabilities.
      • Thoroughly audit and vet any new dependencies before integrating them into the codebase.
      • Consider using subresource integrity (SRI) to verify the integrity of loaded scripts, particularly for critical dependencies.
      • Implement robust code review processes, with a particular focus on changes to dependencies.