Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
35 lines (30 loc) · 5.07 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

35 lines (30 loc) · 5.07 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for afollestad/material-dialogs

Attack Surface: Unsanitized Input Display (XSS/Injection)

  • Description: Displaying user-provided data within dialogs without proper sanitization or encoding, leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) or other injection vulnerabilities.
  • How material-dialogs Contributes: The library provides the core functionality for displaying content (text, HTML, custom views) within dialogs, making it the direct conduit for presenting potentially malicious input if the application doesn't sanitize it. This is the primary attack surface concern.
  • Example: A dialog displays a user-provided message containing malicious JavaScript: <script>alert('XSS')</script>. This script executes when the dialog is shown, demonstrating XSS. If the input is later used to build a database query, SQL injection could also be possible.
  • Impact:
    • XSS: Execution of arbitrary JavaScript in the application's context, potentially leading to data theft, session hijacking, or defacement.
    • Other Injection (e.g., SQL Injection): If the unsanitized input is used in other parts of the application (e.g., database queries), other injection attacks become possible, with potentially severe consequences (data breaches, data modification).
  • Risk Severity: High (for XSS), potentially Critical (for other injection attacks, depending on how the input is used).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Strict Input Validation: Implement rigorous, whitelist-based input validation before passing any data to the material-dialogs library for display. Do not rely on blacklists.
      • Context-Specific Output Encoding: Use appropriate output encoding (e.g., HTML entity encoding for text displayed within HTML attributes, JavaScript escaping for data inserted into JavaScript contexts) based on where the data will be displayed within the dialog.
      • HTML Sanitization (if HTML is allowed): If the application allows users to input HTML, use a robust and well-maintained HTML sanitizer library (like Jsoup) to remove potentially malicious tags and attributes before passing the HTML to material-dialogs. Never trust user-supplied HTML directly.
      • Content Security Policy (CSP): If the dialog content is rendered in a webview-like context (less common in native Android, but possible), a strong CSP can provide an additional layer of defense against XSS, even if input validation or sanitization fails.
    • User: (No direct mitigation; users rely entirely on the developer's implementation of proper input handling and output encoding).

Attack Surface: Custom View Vulnerabilities (Leading to Code Execution)

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities within custom views used inside dialogs, specifically vulnerabilities that could lead to arbitrary code execution. This goes beyond simple UI glitches.
  • How material-dialogs Contributes: The library allows the inclusion of custom views, providing the mechanism for these potentially vulnerable views to be displayed and interacted with. The library itself doesn't create the vulnerability, but it facilitates its exploitation.
  • Example: A custom view within a dialog contains a poorly implemented EditText that is vulnerable to a buffer overflow. An attacker crafts a specific input string that overwrites memory and allows them to execute arbitrary code. This is a high-impact example, as it goes beyond UI manipulation.
  • Impact: Arbitrary code execution within the application, potentially leading to complete device compromise.
  • Risk Severity: Critical.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Secure Coding Practices for Android Views: Adhere meticulously to secure coding practices for all Android views, paying particular attention to input handling, memory management, and any interactions with external resources.
      • Thorough Security Testing of Custom Views: Treat custom views as independent, high-risk components. Perform extensive security testing, including fuzzing, penetration testing, and static analysis, specifically targeting potential code execution vulnerabilities.
      • Input Validation (within the Custom View): Even within the custom view itself, rigorously validate all user input. Do not assume that input has been validated elsewhere.
      • Memory Safety: Use memory-safe languages or techniques (e.g., Kotlin's null safety features) where possible to reduce the risk of buffer overflows and other memory-related vulnerabilities.
      • Regular Code Reviews (Security-Focused): Conduct regular code reviews of custom views, with a specific focus on identifying potential security vulnerabilities, especially those that could lead to code execution.
    • User: (No direct mitigation; users rely on the developer's secure implementation of custom views).