Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
102 lines (77 loc) · 8.13 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

102 lines (77 loc) · 8.13 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for semantic-org/semantic-ui

Mitigation Strategy: Fork and Maintain

Description:

  1. Forking: Create a private fork of the Semantic UI repository (or a well-maintained community fork like Fomantic UI). This is the most direct way to control the Semantic UI code itself.
  2. Dependency Updates (within the fork): Regularly update dependencies, especially jQuery, to their latest secure versions within your forked repository. This directly impacts the Semantic UI code you're using.
  3. Vulnerability Patching (within the fork): Monitor for vulnerabilities and apply patches directly to your forked Semantic UI codebase. This is a direct modification of the framework.
  4. Code Auditing (of the fork): Conduct security audits of the forked Semantic UI code, focusing on areas that handle user input or interact with external resources. This is a direct examination of the framework's code.
  5. Component Modification/Removal (within the fork): If specific Semantic UI components are identified as problematic, modify or remove them directly within your forked repository.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Unpatched Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Vulnerabilities in the core Semantic UI code.
  • Supply Chain Attacks (High Severity): Risk of malicious code in the Semantic UI repository.
  • Denial of Service (DoS) via outdated components (Medium Severity): Exploitation of vulnerabilities in older Semantic UI components.

Impact:

  • Unpatched Vulnerabilities: Risk significantly reduced (almost eliminated with diligent patching).
  • Supply Chain Attacks: Risk significantly reduced (you control the codebase).
  • DoS via outdated components: Risk significantly reduced.

Currently Implemented: (Example - Replace with your project's status)

  • Not Implemented.

Missing Implementation: (Example - Replace with your project's status)

  • Entire project. Requires forking the repository and establishing a maintenance process.

Mitigation Strategy: Dependency Management (Focus on jQuery within Semantic UI)

Description:

  1. Identify jQuery Version (used by Semantic UI): Determine the exact version of jQuery that Semantic UI is configured to use. This might involve examining Semantic UI's source code or build configuration.
  2. Pin to a Secure Version (within Semantic UI's configuration): If possible, modify Semantic UI's configuration (e.g., build scripts, configuration files) to force it to use a specific, known-safe version of jQuery. This is a direct modification of how Semantic UI interacts with its dependency. This is much easier if you have forked the repository.
  3. Update jQuery (within Semantic UI's build process): If you've forked Semantic UI, modify the build process to use the updated jQuery version. This is a direct change to how Semantic UI is built.
  4. Consider Removal (of jQuery from Semantic UI): This is the most direct, but also the most complex, approach. It involves rewriting parts of Semantic UI to remove its reliance on jQuery. This is a significant modification of the framework's code.

Threats Mitigated:

  • jQuery Vulnerabilities (High Severity): XSS and other vulnerabilities in jQuery that could be exploited through Semantic UI.
  • Supply Chain Attacks (via jQuery) (High Severity): Risk of malicious code in a compromised jQuery version used by Semantic UI.

Impact:

  • jQuery Vulnerabilities: Risk significantly reduced by controlling the jQuery version used by Semantic UI.
  • Supply Chain Attacks (via jQuery): Risk reduced, especially if you control the build process of your forked version.

Currently Implemented: (Example)

  • Not Implemented. We are relying on the jQuery version bundled with the unmaintained Semantic UI.

Missing Implementation: (Example)

  • Requires modifying Semantic UI's configuration or build process (ideally within a forked repository) to control the jQuery version. The "removal" option requires significant code changes to Semantic UI.

Mitigation Strategy: Component-Specific Input Handling (Modifying Semantic UI Components)

Description:

  1. Identify High-Risk Components: Focus on Semantic UI components that handle user input.
  2. Modify Component Code (within your fork): Directly modify the JavaScript code of these Semantic UI components (within your forked repository) to:
    • Add input sanitization before the component processes the input. This is a direct change to the component's logic.
    • Improve or add client-side validation (understanding that server-side validation is still essential).
    • Ensure proper output encoding within the component's rendering logic.
    • Remove or disable any features that allow arbitrary HTML or script execution if they are not absolutely necessary.
  3. Avoid inline event handlers: Avoid using inline event handlers like onclick within your Semantic UI components. Instead, use unobtrusive JavaScript to attach event listeners.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (High Severity): Injection of malicious scripts through specific Semantic UI components.
  • Component-Specific Vulnerabilities (Medium Severity): Any vulnerabilities specific to how a particular Semantic UI component handles input.

Impact:

  • XSS: Risk reduced by directly hardening the component's code against script injection.
  • Component-Specific Vulnerabilities: Risk reduced by addressing vulnerabilities directly within the component.

Currently Implemented: (Example)

  • Not Implemented.

Missing Implementation: (Example)

  • Requires modifying the source code of individual Semantic UI components (ideally within a forked repository).

Mitigation Strategy: Denial of Service Mitigation for JavaScript Components (Modifying/Configuring Semantic UI)

Description:

  1. Identify Heavy Components: Use browser developer tools to profile Semantic UI components.
  2. Lazy Loading (Configuration/Modification): Implement lazy loading for Semantic UI components. This might involve:
    • Modifying the component's initialization logic (within your fork) to delay loading until it's needed.
    • Using Semantic UI's configuration options (if available) to enable lazy loading for specific components.
  3. Debouncing and Throttling (within Component Code): Modify the JavaScript code of Semantic UI components (within your fork) to add debouncing and throttling to event handlers. This is a direct code change.
  4. Component Optimization (within your fork):
    • Simplify the component's configuration (if possible, through Semantic UI's options).
    • Modify the component's code (within your fork) to improve its performance.
    • If a component is inherently heavy and cannot be optimized, consider replacing it with a custom, lightweight alternative (which is a direct change to how you use Semantic UI).
  5. Asynchronous Operations (within Component Code): Modify the JavaScript code of Semantic UI components (within your fork) to perform long-running operations asynchronously.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium Severity): Excessive use of JavaScript components leading to unresponsiveness.
  • Poor User Experience (Low Severity): Slow performance due to heavy component usage.

Impact:

  • DoS: Risk reduced by optimizing component usage and preventing excessive resource consumption within Semantic UI.
  • Poor User Experience: Improved responsiveness.

Currently Implemented: (Example)

  • Not Implemented.

Missing Implementation: (Example)

  • Requires modifying the initialization logic, event handlers, and potentially the core code of Semantic UI components (ideally within a forked repository). Configuration changes might be possible if Semantic UI provides relevant options.