Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
41 lines (34 loc) · 5.23 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

41 lines (34 loc) · 5.23 KB

Threat Model Analysis for feross/safe-buffer

Threat: Threat 1: Uninitialized Memory Exposure (Bypassing safe-buffer)

  • Description: An attacker crafts input designed to trigger the allocation of a new Buffer using the deprecated new Buffer(number) constructor. This occurs if the application does not consistently use safe-buffer or if safe-buffer's intended usage is somehow bypassed. The attacker then attempts to read this uninitialized Buffer, potentially exposing sensitive data from previously freed memory.
    • Impact: Information disclosure of sensitive data (e.g., API keys, session tokens, other secrets). This can lead to account compromise, data breaches, and other severe security consequences.
    • Affected Component: new Buffer(number) (deprecated constructor – this threat exists because safe-buffer is not being used as intended).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Never use new Buffer(number). Strictly enforce the use of safe-buffer's Buffer.alloc(size) for creating zero-filled buffers.
      • Developer: Use static analysis tools and linters configured to flag any use of the deprecated Buffer constructor.
      • Developer: Mandatory code reviews to ensure no deprecated Buffer constructors are used.

Threat: Threat 2: Supply Chain Attack (Compromised safe-buffer Package)

  • Description: An attacker compromises the safe-buffer package itself on the npm registry (or a similar package repository). They publish a malicious version of safe-buffer containing code designed to steal data, execute arbitrary commands, or cause a denial of service. Any application installing this compromised version is vulnerable.
    • Impact: Variable, but potentially severe. Could range from complete system compromise (Remote Code Execution - RCE) to data exfiltration or denial of service. The impact depends entirely on the malicious code injected into the compromised package.
    • Affected Component: The entire safe-buffer module.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Regularly update safe-buffer (and all other dependencies) to the latest versions. However, be aware that updates could introduce a compromised version, so this is not a foolproof solution.
      • Developer: Use a dependency vulnerability scanner (npm audit, yarn audit, Snyk, Dependabot) to automatically detect known vulnerabilities in dependencies, including newly published vulnerabilities.
      • Developer: Use a Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool for a more comprehensive analysis of dependencies and their transitive dependencies.
      • Developer/Operations: Consider using a private npm registry or proxy to control which packages can be installed, allowing for vetting of packages before they are made available to developers.
      • Developer: Pin dependencies to specific versions using a lockfile (package-lock.json or yarn.lock). This prevents automatic upgrades to potentially compromised versions, but it also requires active management of updates to address legitimate security patches. This is a trade-off.
      • Developer: Investigate using tools that can verify the integrity of downloaded packages, such as those that use cryptographic signatures.

Threat: Threat 3: Denial of Service (DoS) via Large Buffer Allocation (Directly Abusing safe-buffer)

  • Description: An attacker sends a malicious request with input designed to cause the allocation of an extremely large Buffer via safe-buffer's Buffer.alloc or Buffer.from functions. While safe-buffer itself doesn't cause the vulnerability, it is the mechanism by which the large allocation is attempted. The attacker's goal is to exhaust available memory.
    • Impact: Denial of service. The application crashes or becomes unresponsive, making it unavailable to legitimate users.
    • Affected Component:
      • Buffer.alloc(size)
      • Buffer.from(...) (any variant where attacker-controlled input influences the size).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Implement strict input validation before calling any safe-buffer allocation functions. Reject any input that could lead to excessively large allocations. Define and enforce maximum input sizes based on the application's needs and resource constraints.
      • Developer: Use rate limiting or a circuit breaker pattern to prevent repeated attempts to trigger large allocations from the same source.
      • Developer/Operations: Monitor application memory usage and set alerts for unusual spikes or sustained high memory consumption.
      • Operations: Use a process manager (e.g., PM2) to automatically restart the application if it crashes due to memory exhaustion. This mitigates the effect of the DoS, but not the underlying vulnerability.