Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
42 lines (35 loc) · 5.74 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

42 lines (35 loc) · 5.74 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for facebook/litho

Attack Surface: 1. Component Logic Flaws (State/Event Handling)

  • Description: Errors within a Litho component's @OnUpdateState, @OnEvent, or other state-manipulating methods, leading to incorrect state transitions, data corruption, or exploitable behavior. This is intrinsic to how Litho manages state and events.
    • Litho Contribution: Litho's declarative, stateful component model and asynchronous operations are the direct source of this risk. The framework's design necessitates careful handling of state and concurrency.
    • Example: A component handling user authentication incorrectly updates its state after a failed login attempt, allowing an attacker to bypass authentication due to a race condition in the @OnEvent handler for login events.
    • Impact: Data corruption, information disclosure, privilege escalation, denial of service (depending on the component's role).
    • Risk Severity: High to Critical.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Rigorous Code Reviews: Focus specifically on state management, event handling, and asynchronous operations within Litho components. Look for race conditions, incorrect state updates, and logic errors.
      • Unit Testing (Component-Level): Exhaustively unit test each Litho component, covering all state transitions, event handling scenarios, and edge cases. Use mocking to isolate component behavior.
      • State Management Best Practices: Adhere strictly to Litho's recommended practices for state management. Understand the lifecycle of @State variables and how they are updated.
      • Concurrency Handling: Use appropriate synchronization mechanisms (e.g., synchronized blocks, atomic variables, Litho's built-in concurrency utilities) to prevent race conditions in asynchronous operations within components.
      • Input Validation (Internal to Component): Even if external input is validated, perform internal validation within the Litho component to ensure data integrity before updating state.
      • Fuzz Testing (Component-Specific): Fuzz test individual Litho components with a variety of inputs, including unexpected or malformed data, to identify potential vulnerabilities related to state handling.

Attack Surface: 2. Layout Complexity Attacks (DoS via Litho Engine)

  • Description: Exploiting the complexity of Litho's own layout engine to cause excessive resource consumption (CPU, memory), leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) condition. This is a direct attack on Litho's core functionality.
    • Litho Contribution: Litho's layout engine (often using Yoga) is the direct target of this attack. The vulnerability lies in how Litho processes and renders complex component hierarchies.
    • Example: An attacker crafts a malicious input that results in a deeply nested or excessively large Litho component tree, causing Litho's layout engine to consume all available memory and crash the application.
    • Impact: Denial of service (application crash or unresponsiveness).
    • Risk Severity: High.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Input Sanitization (Layout-Specific): Limit the depth and complexity of user-generated content that directly influences the structure of Litho components. Restrict nesting levels, the number of child components, or the size of text rendered within Litho.
      • Resource Limits (Litho-Aware): Implement mechanisms to limit the resources (CPU time, memory) that Litho's layout engine can consume. This might involve custom layout logic or integrating with platform-specific resource monitoring to detect and throttle excessive Litho layout operations.
      • Rate Limiting (Layout-Triggering Actions): Limit the frequency with which users can submit content or perform actions that could trigger complex Litho layout calculations.
      • Monitoring (Litho Performance): Monitor application performance and resource usage, specifically focusing on Litho's layout and rendering times, to detect potential DoS attacks targeting the layout engine.

Attack Surface: 3. Dependency-Related Vulnerabilities (Litho Itself)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities within the Litho library itself that can be exploited. This is distinct from vulnerabilities in other libraries used by the application.
    • Litho Contribution: This is a direct risk stemming from the use of the Litho framework. Any vulnerability in Litho's code is a potential attack vector.
    • Example: A vulnerability is discovered in Litho's component recycling mechanism that allows an attacker to inject malicious code or data into a recycled component, leading to arbitrary code execution.
    • Impact: Varies widely, potentially including arbitrary code execution, data theft, denial of service.
    • Risk Severity: High to Critical.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Regular Litho Updates: Keep the Litho library up-to-date with the latest security patches and releases. This is the primary defense against known vulnerabilities in Litho itself.
      • Monitor Litho Security Advisories: Actively monitor security advisories and announcements specifically related to the Litho framework. Subscribe to mailing lists or follow relevant channels to stay informed.
      • Vulnerability Scanning (Targeted at Litho): While general dependency scanning is important, ensure your scanning tools specifically check for vulnerabilities in the Litho library itself.