Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
163 lines (146 loc) · 15.7 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

163 lines (146 loc) · 15.7 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of Hyper, based on the provided security design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of Hyper's key components, identify potential vulnerabilities, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will focus on the core application, its interaction with the operating system, and the plugin architecture. We aim to identify risks related to code execution, data breaches, privilege escalation, and denial of service.
  • Scope: The analysis covers the Hyper terminal application itself, its core components (as described in the C4 diagrams), the plugin API, the build and deployment processes, and the interaction with the operating system. Third-party plugins themselves are out of scope (as their security is the responsibility of their developers), but the mechanisms by which Hyper interacts with plugins are in scope. The update server is considered in scope, as it's a critical part of the application's security posture.
  • Methodology:
    1. Architecture Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions to understand the application's architecture, components, and data flow.
    2. Codebase Inference: Infer security-relevant details from the codebase structure and available documentation on GitHub, focusing on Electron configuration, inter-process communication, and plugin interaction.
    3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the architecture, identified components, and known vulnerabilities in similar technologies (Electron, Node.js, Chromium). We'll use a combination of STRIDE and attack trees.
    4. Vulnerability Analysis: Analyze each key component for potential vulnerabilities, considering the identified threats.
    5. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies for each identified vulnerability, tailored to Hyper's architecture and technology stack.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component, referencing the C4 diagrams and descriptions:

  • Main Process (Node.js):

    • Threats:
      • Spoofing: Malicious code could attempt to impersonate the main process. This is less likely given Electron's architecture, but still a consideration.
      • Tampering: Modification of the main process code or its dependencies.
      • Repudiation: Lack of logging for security-relevant events in the main process.
      • Information Disclosure: Leakage of sensitive data from the main process (e.g., through IPC, logging, or error messages).
      • Denial of Service: Crashing the main process, rendering the entire application unusable.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Exploiting vulnerabilities in the main process to gain full system access.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Vulnerabilities in Node.js modules (especially native modules).
      • Improper handling of inter-process communication (IPC) messages.
      • Insecure file system access.
      • Insecure network communication (if applicable).
      • Insufficient logging and auditing.
    • Mitigation:
      • Minimize Attack Surface: Reduce the functionality of the main process to the absolute minimum necessary.
      • Dependency Management: Regularly update Node.js modules and audit them for known vulnerabilities. Use tools like npm audit or yarn audit. Consider using a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM).
      • Secure IPC: Use Electron's contextBridge to expose only necessary APIs to the renderer process. Validate all IPC messages. Avoid using ipcRenderer.sendSync.
      • File System Access Control: Restrict file system access to only necessary directories. Use the principle of least privilege.
      • Secure Network Communication: Use HTTPS for all network communication. Validate certificates.
      • Logging and Auditing: Implement comprehensive logging of security-relevant events, including errors, warnings, and successful/failed operations.
      • Electron Security Best Practices: Ensure that all recommended Electron security best practices are followed (see https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/tutorial/security). Specifically, verify:
        • nodeIntegration: false
        • contextIsolation: true
        • sandbox: true (if possible)
        • webviewTag: false (unless absolutely necessary, and then with extreme caution)
        • Careful handling of remote module (if used at all)
      • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the main process code.
      • SAST/DAST: Integrate static and dynamic analysis tools into the build process.

  • Renderer Process (HTML, CSS, JS):

    • Threats:
      • Spoofing: A compromised renderer process could impersonate legitimate UI elements.
      • Tampering: Modification of the renderer process code (e.g., through XSS).
      • Information Disclosure: Leakage of sensitive data displayed in the terminal (e.g., through XSS or a compromised plugin).
      • Denial of Service: Crashing the renderer process, making the terminal UI unresponsive.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Escaping the renderer process sandbox and gaining access to the main process or the operating system (highly unlikely with proper Electron configuration, but a critical threat).
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
      • Improper handling of user input.
      • Vulnerabilities in third-party JavaScript libraries.
      • Insecure communication with the main process.
    • Mitigation:
      • Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strict CSP to mitigate XSS risks. The CSP should restrict the sources from which scripts, styles, and other resources can be loaded. This is crucial.
      • Input Sanitization: Sanitize all user input before displaying it in the terminal or passing it to other components. Use a dedicated sanitization library.
      • Output Encoding: Encode all output displayed in the terminal to prevent XSS.
      • Secure IPC: Use contextBridge to communicate with the main process securely. Validate all messages received from the main process.
      • Dependency Management: Regularly update JavaScript libraries and audit them for known vulnerabilities.
      • XSS Prevention Framework: Utilize a front-end framework with built-in XSS protection (e.g., React with JSX, Angular).
      • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the renderer process code.

  • Plugin API (JS):

    • Threats:
      • Tampering: Modification of the plugin API code.
      • Information Disclosure: Leakage of sensitive data through the plugin API.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Plugins gaining unauthorized access to system resources through the API.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Insufficient input validation.
      • Lack of a permission system.
      • Exposure of sensitive APIs.
      • Insecure communication between plugins and the main process.
    • Mitigation:
      • Strict Input Validation: Validate all input passed to the plugin API. Use a schema validation library.
      • Permission System: Implement a granular permission system for plugins. Plugins should request specific permissions (e.g., file system access, network access), and users should be prompted to grant these permissions. The principle of least privilege should be strictly enforced.
      • API Design: Carefully design the plugin API to expose only the minimum necessary functionality. Avoid exposing any APIs that could be used to compromise the system.
      • Secure Communication: Use contextBridge to communicate with plugins securely. Validate all messages.
      • Sandboxing: Explore sandboxing techniques for plugins (e.g., using iframes, Web Workers, or separate processes) to further isolate them from the main process and the user's system. This is a high-priority recommendation.
      • Plugin Signing/Verification: Implement a mechanism to verify the authenticity and integrity of plugins. This could involve code signing or a centralized plugin repository with verification procedures.
      • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the plugin API code.

  • Plugins (Third-Party):

    • Threats: (While the plugins themselves are out of scope, the interaction with them is not)
      • Tampering: Malicious plugins could tamper with the terminal's behavior or data.
      • Information Disclosure: Malicious plugins could steal sensitive data.
      • Elevation of Privilege: Malicious plugins could attempt to gain unauthorized access to the system.
    • Vulnerabilities: (These are vulnerabilities in the system, not the plugins themselves)
      • Lack of isolation between plugins.
      • Insufficient validation of plugin input.
      • Lack of a mechanism to revoke plugin permissions.
    • Mitigation: (These are mitigations for the system)
      • All Plugin API Mitigations: All mitigations listed for the Plugin API apply here.
      • Plugin Isolation: Maximize isolation between plugins. If one plugin is compromised, it should not be able to affect other plugins or the core application. Sandboxing is key here.
      • Permission Revocation: Provide a mechanism for users to revoke permissions granted to plugins.
      • Plugin Monitoring: Consider implementing mechanisms to monitor plugin behavior and detect suspicious activity. (This is a more advanced mitigation.)
      • User Education: Educate users about the risks of installing third-party plugins and encourage them to install plugins only from trusted sources.

  • Update Server (Optional):

    • Threats:
      • Tampering: An attacker could compromise the update server and distribute malicious updates.
      • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM): An attacker could intercept the update process and inject malicious code.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Weak server security.
      • Lack of code signing for updates.
      • Insecure communication (HTTP instead of HTTPS).
    • Mitigation:
      • Secure Server Infrastructure: Use a secure server infrastructure with strong access controls and regular security updates.
      • Code Signing: Digitally sign all updates (application and plugins, if applicable) to ensure their authenticity and integrity. Use a secure key management system.
      • HTTPS Communication: Use HTTPS for all communication between the client and the update server. Validate certificates.
      • Update Verification: The client should verify the digital signature of updates before installing them.
      • Rollback Mechanism: Implement a mechanism to roll back to a previous version of the application in case of a compromised update.

  • Build Process:

    • Threats:
      • Tampering: Introduction of malicious code during the build process.
      • Dependency Compromise: Compromise of a build tool or dependency.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Insecure build environment.
      • Lack of integrity checks for dependencies.
    • Mitigation:
      • Secure Build Environment: Use a secure build environment (e.g., a dedicated build server or a containerized build environment).
      • Dependency Pinning: Pin the versions of all dependencies (including build tools) to prevent unexpected changes.
      • Integrity Checks: Use checksums or other integrity checks to verify the integrity of downloaded dependencies.
      • Software Composition Analysis (SCA): Use SCA tools to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
      • Reproducible Builds: Aim for reproducible builds, where the same source code always produces the same binary output. This helps to ensure that the build process has not been tampered with.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Prioritized)

Here's a prioritized list of actionable mitigation strategies, combining the recommendations from above:

  1. HIGH: Implement a Strict Content Security Policy (CSP). This is the most critical mitigation for the renderer process, preventing XSS attacks.
  2. HIGH: Implement a Granular Permission System for Plugins. This is crucial for limiting the damage that a malicious plugin can do.
  3. HIGH: Enforce Electron Security Best Practices. Verify nodeIntegration: false, contextIsolation: true, sandbox: true, and webviewTag: false.
  4. HIGH: Implement Plugin Sandboxing. This is a complex but essential mitigation to isolate plugins from the core application and the system.
  5. HIGH: Implement Code Signing for Updates and (Ideally) Plugins. This ensures the authenticity and integrity of updates and helps prevent the distribution of malicious code.
  6. HIGH: Secure the Update Server. Use HTTPS, validate certificates, and implement strong server security measures.
  7. MEDIUM: Secure Inter-Process Communication (IPC). Use contextBridge and validate all IPC messages.
  8. MEDIUM: Implement Comprehensive Input Validation and Output Encoding. This is essential for preventing XSS and other injection attacks.
  9. MEDIUM: Regularly Audit Dependencies. Use npm audit or yarn audit and consider using SCA tools.
  10. MEDIUM: Implement Robust Logging and Auditing. Log security-relevant events in the main process.
  11. MEDIUM: Secure the Build Process. Use a secure build environment, pin dependencies, and perform integrity checks.
  12. LOW: Implement a Rollback Mechanism for Updates. This allows users to revert to a previous version if an update is compromised.
  13. LOW: Consider Plugin Monitoring. This is a more advanced mitigation that can help detect malicious plugin behavior.

4. Specific Recommendations for Hyper

Based on the analysis, here are specific recommendations tailored to Hyper:

  • Review Electron Configuration: Immediately review the Electron configuration files (main.js, preload.js, etc.) to verify that the recommended security settings are in place.
  • CSP Audit: Conduct a thorough audit of the existing CSP (if any) and ensure that it is as strict as possible.
  • Plugin API Redesign: Prioritize the redesign of the plugin API to incorporate a granular permission system and sandboxing. This is a major undertaking but is essential for the long-term security of Hyper.
  • Code Signing Implementation: Implement code signing for all releases. Investigate options for plugin signing.
  • Security Tooling Integration: Integrate SAST and DAST tools into the CI/CD pipeline (e.g., GitHub Actions).
  • Vulnerability Disclosure Program: Establish a clear vulnerability disclosure program to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  • Documentation: Update the Hyper documentation to clearly state the security model, the risks of using third-party plugins, and the steps users can take to protect themselves.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for Hyper. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, Vercel can significantly improve the security of Hyper and protect its users from potential threats. The most critical areas to focus on are the plugin architecture, the Electron configuration, and the update mechanism.