Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
38 lines (31 loc) · 6.55 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

38 lines (31 loc) · 6.55 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for afollestad/material-dialogs

Attack Surface: Input Field Injection Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Material Dialogs provides easy-to-use input dialogs (input()). If applications directly use the input received from these dialogs in backend operations (like database queries or system commands) without proper sanitization after retrieval from the dialog, injection vulnerabilities can arise. While the library itself doesn't introduce the vulnerability, its ease of use in creating input fields can contribute to developers overlooking crucial input validation steps on the application side.
  • Material-Dialogs Contribution: Material Dialogs provides the UI component (input() dialog) and the mechanism to easily collect user input. This simplicity can inadvertently encourage developers to skip proper input handling, assuming the library handles security, which it does not for application-level logic.
  • Example: An application uses MaterialDialog(this).input { _, input -> ... } to get user input for a database query. If the input string is directly embedded into an SQL query without sanitization within the ... block, an attacker could inject SQL code via the dialog input, leading to unauthorized database access.
  • Impact: Data breaches, unauthorized data modification, privilege escalation, or application compromise due to successful injection attacks (SQL, command, etc.).
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the application's backend operations and data sensitivity).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Mandatory Application-Side Input Sanitization: Always sanitize and validate user input after receiving it from Material Dialogs' input fields, before using it in any backend operations.
    • Use Parameterized Queries/Prepared Statements: For database interactions, use parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Minimize the permissions of the application and database user to limit the impact of potential injection vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in WebView Dialogs

  • Description: Material Dialogs allows embedding custom views, including WebViews, within dialogs. If an application uses this feature to display dynamic content in a WebView based on user input collected from or related to the dialog, and fails to properly encode this input for HTML context, XSS vulnerabilities can be introduced within the WebView. Material Dialogs facilitates this integration, making it a contributing factor if developers are not cautious with WebView content generation.
  • Material-Dialogs Contribution: Material Dialogs' flexibility in allowing custom view integration, specifically WebViews, creates a pathway for XSS if developers dynamically generate WebView content based on dialog interactions without proper encoding.
  • Example: An application uses a Material Dialog with a custom WebView to display formatted text. If the application takes user input from the dialog (e.g., a text formatting choice) and directly concatenates this input into HTML loaded into the WebView without HTML encoding, an attacker could inject malicious JavaScript through the formatting choice, leading to XSS when the dialog is shown.
  • Impact: Session hijacking, cookie theft, redirection to malicious websites, defacement of WebView content, or execution of arbitrary JavaScript code within the WebView context.
  • Risk Severity: High (due to potential for significant compromise within the WebView context).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict HTML Encoding: Always HTML-encode any user input or dynamic data before injecting it into HTML content loaded into a WebView within a Material Dialog.
    • Content Security Policy (CSP) for WebViews: Implement a restrictive Content Security Policy for WebViews to limit the capabilities of injected scripts and mitigate the impact of XSS.
    • Careful WebView Content Generation: Minimize dynamic content generation for WebViews within dialogs. If necessary, use secure templating mechanisms and avoid directly concatenating untrusted input into HTML.

Attack Surface: Logic Flaws in Dialog Callback Handling leading to Security Bypasses

  • Description: Material Dialogs relies on callbacks to handle user interactions (button clicks, list selections, etc.). If the application's logic within these callback handlers is flawed, it can lead to unintended application states or security bypasses. Material Dialogs' event-driven nature through callbacks makes the security of these handlers critical.
  • Material-Dialogs Contribution: Material Dialogs' core interaction model is based on callbacks. Incorrectly implemented or insecure callback logic directly undermines the intended security controls or application flow triggered by dialog interactions.
  • Example: An application uses a confirmation dialog before performing a sensitive action. The "positive" button callback in the application code has a logic error (e.g., incorrect conditional statement) that causes the sensitive action to be executed even when the user clicks "Cancel" (negative button) or dismisses the dialog. This bypasses the intended confirmation step due to flawed callback logic associated with the Material Dialog.
  • Impact: Unauthorized execution of sensitive actions, security control bypasses, data corruption, or unintended privilege escalation due to flawed application logic triggered by dialog interactions.
  • Risk Severity: High (as it can directly lead to bypassing security mechanisms or unintended sensitive actions).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Rigorous Callback Logic Review: Thoroughly review and test the logic within all Material Dialogs callback handlers, especially those related to security-sensitive actions or data modifications.
    • Unit Testing for Callback Handlers: Implement unit tests specifically for dialog callback handlers to ensure they behave as expected under various user interaction scenarios and input conditions.
    • Clear State Management around Dialogs: Ensure that dialog callbacks correctly update and manage the application's state. Review state transitions triggered by dialog interactions to prevent race conditions or inconsistent states that could be exploited.