Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
71 lines (62 loc) · 8.36 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

71 lines (62 loc) · 8.36 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for freecodecamp/freecodecamp

Attack Surface: Client-Side Code Execution (Learn Platform)

  • Description: Users submit code (JavaScript, HTML, CSS, etc.) that is executed within their browser as part of the learning curriculum.
  • How freeCodeCamp Contributes: This is the core functionality of the learning platform. The entire interactive learning experience relies on this. The breadth of supported languages and frameworks increases complexity. fCC's implementation of the sandboxing, input validation, and execution environment is the key factor.
  • Example: A user submits JavaScript code containing a malicious payload that attempts to bypass the fCC-implemented sandbox and access the user's cookies or perform a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against other users.
  • Impact: Compromise of user accounts, data theft, defacement of the website, execution of arbitrary code in the user's browser, potential for cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks if the sandbox is breached.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Implement multiple, independent layers of sandboxing (e.g., iframes with sandbox attribute, Web Workers, service workers). This is entirely within fCC's control.
      • Enforce a strict Content Security Policy (CSP) to limit the capabilities of executed code (e.g., disallow inline scripts, restrict network access). fCC must define and maintain this CSP.
      • Regularly update browser dependencies and sandboxing libraries to patch known vulnerabilities. fCC is responsible for managing these dependencies.
      • Implement robust input validation and sanitization, even before the code reaches the sandbox. This is a crucial fCC-specific implementation detail.
      • Consider using a separate, isolated domain (e.g., code.freecodecamp.org) for code execution to limit the impact of a successful sandbox escape. This is an architectural decision for fCC.
      • Implement monitoring and anomaly detection to identify potentially malicious code execution patterns. fCC must build and maintain this monitoring system.
      • Use WebAssembly (Wasm) for sandboxing where possible, as it offers stronger security guarantees. fCC's choice to use and how to implement Wasm is key.

Attack Surface: Server-Side Code Execution (Optional Challenges)

  • Description: Some advanced challenges may require server-side code execution (e.g., Node.js, Python) to test backend logic.
  • How freeCodeCamp Contributes: The decision to include server-side challenges, and the entire implementation of the server-side execution environment (sandboxing, resource limits, input validation), are completely under fCC's control.
  • Example: A user submits a Node.js challenge solution that attempts to read system files, open network connections, or execute shell commands, exploiting a flaw in fCC's sandboxing implementation.
  • Impact: Complete server compromise, data breaches, denial of service, potential for lateral movement within the freeCodeCamp infrastructure.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Use highly restrictive sandboxing techniques, such as containers (Docker) or virtual machines (VMs), with minimal privileges and resource limits. fCC's configuration and management of these sandboxes are paramount.
      • Implement strict input validation and sanitization to prevent code injection vulnerabilities. This is entirely fCC's responsibility.
      • Limit the resources (CPU, memory, network bandwidth, file system access) available to the executed code. fCC must configure these limits.
      • Use a dedicated, isolated network for server-side code execution, separate from the main application infrastructure. This is an architectural decision and implementation detail for fCC.
      • Regularly update the server-side runtime environment (e.g., Node.js, Python) and all dependencies. fCC is responsible for managing these updates.
      • Implement robust logging and monitoring to detect suspicious activity. fCC must build and maintain this monitoring.
      • Consider using a "serverless" architecture (e.g., AWS Lambda) to further isolate code execution. This is an architectural choice for fCC.
      • Never trust user-provided code, even in a testing environment. This is a fundamental security principle that fCC must adhere to.

Attack Surface: JWT Handling and Session Management

  • Description: freeCodeCamp uses JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) for session management after the initial OAuth authentication.
  • How freeCodeCamp Contributes: The implementation details of JWT creation, signing, validation, and storage are entirely within fCC's codebase and configuration. This is not a general OAuth concern, but specific to fCC's JWT usage.
  • Example: An attacker discovers the JWT secret key used by freeCodeCamp (due to a misconfiguration or code leak) and uses it to forge JWTs, impersonating any user. Alternatively, a flaw in fCC's JWT validation logic could allow an attacker to bypass authentication.
  • Impact: Complete account takeover, unauthorized access to user data, potential for privilege escalation.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Use strong, randomly generated secrets stored securely (e.g., using environment variables, a secrets management service). Never hardcode secrets in the codebase. fCC's secret management practices are crucial.
      • Enforce strong JWT validation, including signature verification, expiration checks, and issuer checks. This validation logic is entirely within fCC's code.
      • Use a well-vetted JWT library and keep it up-to-date. fCC is responsible for choosing and maintaining this library.
      • Consider using short-lived JWTs and refresh tokens. fCC's implementation of refresh token handling is key.
      • Implement robust key rotation procedures. fCC must design and implement this rotation.
      • Use HTTPS for all communication to protect JWTs in transit. fCC must ensure HTTPS is properly configured.
      • Store JWT securely on the client-side (e.g. HttpOnly Cookie). fCC's implementation choice.

Attack Surface: API Endpoint Security

  • Description: freeCodeCamp exposes various API endpoints for interacting with user data and functionality.
  • How freeCodeCamp Contributes: The design, implementation, and security configuration of each API endpoint are entirely under fCC's control. This is not a general web API issue, but specific to fCC's API.
  • Example: An attacker exploits a vulnerability in an fCC-developed API endpoint to access or modify another user's progress data, or to perform a denial-of-service attack. The vulnerability exists because of a flaw in fCC's code or configuration.
  • Impact: Data breaches, data modification, denial of service, potential for unauthorized access to the system.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers:
      • Implement strong authentication and authorization for all API endpoints. fCC's authentication and authorization logic is key.
      • Use input validation and sanitization to prevent injection attacks (e.g., SQL injection, NoSQL injection, command injection). This validation is entirely within fCC's code.
      • Implement rate limiting to prevent abuse and denial-of-service attacks. fCC must configure and enforce rate limits.
      • Regularly perform security testing of the API endpoints (e.g., using penetration testing tools, fuzzing). fCC is responsible for this testing.
      • Follow secure API design principles (e.g., RESTful API best practices, OWASP API Security Top 10). fCC's adherence to these principles is crucial.
      • Use a well-defined API specification (e.g., OpenAPI/Swagger) to document and validate API behavior. fCC must create and maintain this specification.
      • Implement robust error handling and logging. fCC's error handling and logging implementation.