Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
44 lines (37 loc) · 8.32 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

44 lines (37 loc) · 8.32 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for permissions-dispatcher/permissionsdispatcher

Attack Surface: 1. Misuse of Annotations and Generated Code Logic

  • Description: Incorrect or incomplete implementation of PermissionsDispatcher annotations (@NeedsPermission, @PermissionGranted, etc.) by developers leads to flawed permission handling logic. This results in unintended permission grants or bypasses of intended permission checks due to errors in using PermissionsDispatcher.
  • PermissionsDispatcher Contribution: The library's core mechanism relies on developers correctly using annotations to define permission requirements and handling logic. Misunderstanding or misusing these annotations directly undermines the intended security provided by PermissionsDispatcher.
  • Example: A developer annotates a function with @NeedsPermission(Manifest.permission.CAMERA) but fails to implement the @PermissionGranted method correctly, or leaves it empty. Consequently, the annotated function might execute even when the camera permission is not granted, bypassing the intended permission check enforced by PermissionsDispatcher.
  • Impact: Unauthorized access to protected resources or functionalities (e.g., camera, microphone, location), potentially leading to data breaches, privacy violations, or malicious actions performed without user consent.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical, depending on the sensitivity of the protected functionality and data exposed by the misused permission.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Deep Understanding of PermissionsDispatcher: Invest significant time in learning PermissionsDispatcher's documentation, examples, and best practices to ensure correct annotation usage and code implementation.
      • Rigorous Code Reviews (Permissions-Focused): Conduct mandatory code reviews specifically focused on verifying the correct and secure implementation of PermissionsDispatcher annotations and associated methods.
      • Comprehensive Unit Testing (Permission Flows): Implement thorough unit tests that specifically target permission request flows generated by PermissionsDispatcher. These tests should cover all permission states (granted, denied, rationale, "never ask again") and verify the expected behavior of annotated methods.
      • Static Analysis Tools (Permissions Configuration): Utilize static analysis tools capable of identifying potential misconfigurations or incorrect annotation patterns in PermissionsDispatcher usage.

Attack Surface: 2. Inconsistent Permission Request Handling Across Different Library Versions

  • Description: Employing outdated or varying versions of the PermissionsDispatcher library across different modules or components within the application can introduce inconsistencies in permission handling. This can lead to unpredictable behavior and potential vulnerabilities due to bug fixes or behavioral changes between PermissionsDispatcher versions.
  • PermissionsDispatcher Contribution: PermissionsDispatcher, like any evolving library, undergoes bug fixes and feature updates across versions. Using inconsistent or outdated versions directly introduces the risk of relying on potentially vulnerable or buggy permission handling logic within the application due to library versioning issues.
  • Example: An older version of PermissionsDispatcher might contain a bug related to handling the "never ask again" permission state, leading to permission requests being incorrectly bypassed in specific scenarios. If an application uses this vulnerable older version in some parts while using a newer version elsewhere, the permission handling becomes inconsistent and potentially exploitable.
  • Impact: Unpredictable and inconsistent permission behavior across the application, potential bypass of permission checks due to version-specific bugs, and exploitation of known vulnerabilities present in older PermissionsDispatcher library versions.
  • Risk Severity: Medium to High, depending on the specific vulnerabilities present in older versions and the extent of inconsistency in library version usage throughout the application. Can escalate to High if critical vulnerabilities are present in older versions.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Always Use Latest Stable PermissionsDispatcher: Mandate the use of the most recent stable release of PermissionsDispatcher across the entire project.
      • Strict Dependency Management (Version Locking): Implement robust dependency management practices (e.g., using Gradle dependency constraints or BOMs) to enforce a single, consistent version of PermissionsDispatcher throughout the application build.
      • Proactive Library Updates & Monitoring: Establish a process for regularly monitoring for updates and security advisories related to PermissionsDispatcher and promptly updating the library dependency.
      • Automated Dependency Audits: Integrate automated dependency auditing tools into the CI/CD pipeline to detect and flag outdated or vulnerable library versions, including PermissionsDispatcher.

Attack Surface: 3. Reflection and Code Injection (Theoretical, Low Probability, but High Impact)

  • Description: While highly improbable in typical development workflows, a theoretical attack surface exists if the annotation processing mechanism of PermissionsDispatcher or the generated code itself could be maliciously manipulated. This could lead to code injection or unintended alterations in the application's permission handling behavior due to vulnerabilities in the PermissionsDispatcher's code generation process or build environment compromise.
  • PermissionsDispatcher Contribution: PermissionsDispatcher's reliance on annotation processing and automated code generation during the build process introduces a theoretical point of vulnerability if this process is compromised. While PermissionsDispatcher itself is not inherently vulnerable to code injection in normal usage, a compromised build environment or a vulnerability in the annotation processing tools could be exploited to inject code via the PermissionsDispatcher's code generation mechanism.
  • Example: In an extremely unlikely scenario, if an attacker could compromise the developer's build environment or inject malicious code into the annotation processor used by PermissionsDispatcher, they might be able to manipulate the generated code. This injected code could then bypass permission checks, grant unauthorized permissions, or execute arbitrary malicious code within the application's context, effectively leveraging PermissionsDispatcher's code generation as an attack vector.
  • Impact: Potentially complete compromise of the application's security, arbitrary code execution within the application, significant data breaches, and severe security violations.
  • Risk Severity: Low Probability, but Critical Impact. While the likelihood of this attack vector being exploited in typical scenarios is extremely low, the potential impact is catastrophic if successful. Therefore, it warrants consideration as a critical, albeit low-probability, risk.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Secure and Isolated Build Environment: Implement a highly secure and isolated build environment to minimize the risk of unauthorized access and manipulation of the build process.
      • Trusted Dependency Sources Only: Strictly obtain PermissionsDispatcher and all other build dependencies exclusively from official and highly trusted repositories (e.g., Maven Central, Google Maven).
      • Dependency Integrity Verification: Implement robust mechanisms to cryptographically verify the integrity and authenticity of all dependencies, including PermissionsDispatcher, used in the build process.
      • Regular Security Audits of Build Pipeline: Conduct periodic security audits of the entire software build pipeline to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited for code injection or build manipulation.