Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
142 lines (111 loc) · 16.6 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

142 lines (111 loc) · 16.6 KB

Deep Security Analysis of PermissionsDispatcher

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the PermissionsDispatcher library, focusing on its key components, architecture, and data flow. The goal is to identify potential security vulnerabilities, assess their impact, and propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will pay particular attention to how the library interacts with the Android permission system and how its design choices might impact the security of applications that use it.

Scope:

  • Codebase: The PermissionsDispatcher library's source code available on GitHub (https://github.com/permissions-dispatcher/permissionsdispatcher).
  • Documentation: The library's README, wiki, and any other available documentation.
  • Dependencies: Direct dependencies of the library, but not a full transitive dependency analysis (unless a direct dependency is deemed high-risk).
  • Android Permission Model: The analysis will consider the underlying Android permission model and how the library interacts with it.
  • Out of Scope: The security of applications using PermissionsDispatcher, except where the library's design directly contributes to vulnerabilities. We assume developers using the library are responsible for their own application's security posture. We also will not perform a full penetration test or dynamic analysis, focusing on a design and code review.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Component Identification: Infer the library's architecture, components, and data flow from the codebase and documentation. This includes understanding the annotation processing mechanism, runtime components, and interaction with the Android framework.
  2. Threat Modeling: For each identified component and interaction, identify potential threats using a threat modeling approach (e.g., STRIDE). Consider threats related to permission escalation, information disclosure, denial of service, and spoofing.
  3. Vulnerability Analysis: Analyze the code and design for potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited by the identified threats. This includes examining input validation, error handling, and the use of Android APIs.
  4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified vulnerability, propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies that can be implemented within the PermissionsDispatcher library itself.
  5. Security Control Review: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing security controls and recommend improvements or additions.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the provided design review and an examination of the GitHub repository, the key components and their security implications are:

  • Annotations (@RuntimePermissions, @NeedsPermission, @OnShowRationale, @OnPermissionDenied, @OnNeverAskAgain):

    • Security Implication: These annotations are the primary interface for developers. Incorrect usage (e.g., applying @NeedsPermission to a method that doesn't actually require the permission) could lead to unnecessary permission requests, increasing the application's attack surface. The annotation processor must correctly interpret these annotations to generate secure code.
    • Threats: Spoofing (incorrect annotation usage), Information Disclosure (over-requesting permissions).
    • Vulnerability Analysis: The annotation processor needs to rigorously validate the usage of these annotations. For example, it should check that @NeedsPermission is only applied to methods within a class annotated with @RuntimePermissions. It should also ensure that the permission names provided are valid Android permissions.
    • Mitigation:
      • Enhanced Annotation Validation: Implement stricter validation within the annotation processor to prevent misuse of annotations. This could include checks for valid permission names, correct annotation placement, and consistency between annotations.
      • Documentation and Examples: Provide clear and comprehensive documentation and examples to guide developers on the correct usage of annotations. Highlight the security implications of incorrect usage.

  • Annotation Processor:

    • Security Implication: This is the most critical component from a security perspective. It generates the code that interacts directly with the Android permission system. Any vulnerabilities in the processor could lead to vulnerabilities in all applications using the library.
    • Threats: Code Injection (vulnerabilities in the processor could allow attackers to inject malicious code into generated classes), Denial of Service (a malformed annotation could cause the processor to crash or hang), Information Disclosure (the processor could leak information about the application's structure).
    • Vulnerability Analysis: The processor must be extremely robust and secure. It should handle all possible inputs gracefully, including invalid or malicious annotations. It should avoid using reflection or other techniques that could be vulnerable to injection attacks. The generated code should follow secure coding principles, including proper input validation and error handling.
    • Mitigation:
      • Fuzz Testing: Implement fuzz testing of the annotation processor to identify edge cases and vulnerabilities. This involves providing the processor with a wide range of invalid and unexpected inputs to see how it behaves.
      • Secure Coding Practices: Adhere to secure coding practices throughout the annotation processor's codebase. Avoid using potentially dangerous APIs or techniques.
      • Code Generation Review: Carefully review the generated code to ensure it is secure and efficient. Consider using a code generation template that is known to be secure.
      • Input Sanitization: Sanitize all inputs to the annotation processor, including annotation values and class/method names.

  • Runtime Library:

    • Security Implication: This component provides runtime support for the generated code. It likely handles tasks such as checking if permissions have already been granted and forwarding results from the Android framework.
    • Threats: Denial of Service (a bug in the runtime library could cause the application to crash), Information Disclosure (incorrect handling of permission results could leak information).
    • Vulnerability Analysis: The runtime library should be as small and simple as possible to minimize the attack surface. It should handle all possible error conditions from the Android framework gracefully.
    • Mitigation:
      • Minimize Functionality: Keep the runtime library's functionality to a minimum. Avoid adding unnecessary features that could introduce vulnerabilities.
      • Thorough Testing: Thoroughly test the runtime library with a variety of Android versions and device configurations.
      • Error Handling: Implement robust error handling to prevent crashes and unexpected behavior.

  • Generated Code:

    • Security Implication: This code directly interacts with the ActivityCompat and ContextCompat classes from the Android framework to request permissions and handle results. It's the bridge between the developer's annotations and the OS.
    • Threats: Permission Escalation (incorrectly requesting permissions), Denial of Service (crashing due to unhandled permission results).
    • Vulnerability Analysis: The generated code must correctly map the developer's annotations to the appropriate Android API calls. It must handle all possible outcomes of the permission request (granted, denied, never ask again) correctly and safely. It should not introduce any new vulnerabilities beyond those that might exist in the Android framework itself.
    • Mitigation:
      • Template-Based Generation: Use a well-defined and thoroughly reviewed template for code generation. This reduces the risk of introducing errors during code generation.
      • Request Code Management: Implement a robust mechanism for managing request codes to avoid collisions and ensure that permission results are correctly routed. Consider using a hash of the permission name and method name to generate unique request codes.
      • Context Handling: Ensure that the generated code uses the correct Context object when requesting permissions. Using the wrong context could lead to unexpected behavior or crashes.

  • Interaction with Android Framework (ActivityCompat, ContextCompat):

    • Security Implication: The library relies entirely on the Android framework for the actual permission checks and enforcement. This is an accepted risk, but the library must use the framework APIs correctly.
    • Threats: Exploiting vulnerabilities in the Android framework (very low likelihood, but the library should be updated if such vulnerabilities are discovered).
    • Vulnerability Analysis: The library should use the latest versions of the Android Support Library (or AndroidX) to minimize the risk of using vulnerable APIs. It should follow the recommended best practices for using these APIs.
    • Mitigation:
      • Stay Up-to-Date: Keep the library's dependencies on Android Support Library/AndroidX up-to-date to benefit from security patches and bug fixes.
      • Follow Best Practices: Adhere to the recommended best practices for using ActivityCompat and ContextCompat.

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow (Inferred)

The architecture is centered around an annotation processor that generates code at compile time.

  1. Developer Annotates Code: The developer uses PermissionsDispatcher annotations in their Android application code.
  2. Annotation Processor Runs: During compilation, the PermissionsDispatcher annotation processor analyzes the annotated code.
  3. Code Generation: The processor generates Java code that handles the permission request logic. This code uses ActivityCompat and ContextCompat to interact with the Android permission system.
  4. Runtime Execution: When the application runs, the generated code is executed.
    • If the permission is already granted, the annotated method is executed.
    • If the permission is not granted, the generated code requests the permission using ActivityCompat.requestPermissions().
    • The Android OS displays a permission dialog to the user.
    • The user grants or denies the permission.
    • The generated code receives the result via onRequestPermissionsResult() and calls the appropriate annotated method (@OnPermissionDenied, @OnNeverAskAgain, or the original method if granted).
  5. Runtime Support: The small runtime library provides helper functions.

Data Flow:

  1. Permission Request: The application, through the generated code, requests a permission from the Android OS. The data flow here is the permission name (a string).
  2. Permission Result: The Android OS returns the result of the permission request (granted or denied) to the generated code. The data flow here is the grant result (an integer array).
  3. Callback Invocation: The generated code invokes the appropriate callback method in the application based on the permission result.

4. Specific Security Considerations and Mitigation Strategies

  • Over-Requesting Permissions:

    • Consideration: The library should not encourage or facilitate over-requesting permissions. Applications should only request the permissions they absolutely need.
    • Mitigation: The annotation processor could issue warnings if it detects that a class requests a large number of permissions, suggesting that the developer review the permission requirements. The documentation should strongly emphasize the principle of least privilege.

  • Permission Request Code Collisions:

    • Consideration: If the generated code uses the same request code for multiple permission requests, the application may not be able to correctly handle the results.
    • Mitigation: As mentioned earlier, the annotation processor should generate unique request codes, possibly using a hash of the permission name and method name.

  • Incorrect Context Usage:

    • Consideration: Using the wrong Context object (e.g., an Application context instead of an Activity context) can lead to issues with permission requests.
    • Mitigation: The generated code should use the Activity context associated with the annotated method. The annotation processor could enforce this by checking the type of the class containing the annotated method.

  • Unhandled Permission Denials:

    • Consideration: Developers might forget to handle the case where a permission is denied.
    • Mitigation: The library's API design encourages handling denials through the @OnPermissionDenied and @OnNeverAskAgain annotations. The documentation should clearly explain how to handle these cases gracefully.

  • Dynamic Analysis and Fuzzing:

    • Consideration: Static analysis alone is not sufficient to identify all potential vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation: Implement dynamic analysis, particularly fuzzing, of the annotation processor and runtime library. This is a crucial step to find edge cases and unexpected behavior.

  • Dependency Management:

    • Consideration: Vulnerabilities in dependencies can impact the security of the library.
    • Mitigation: Regularly scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities using tools like OWASP Dependency-Check or Snyk. Update dependencies promptly when vulnerabilities are found.

  • Supply Chain Security:

    • Consideration: The library's build and release process should be secure to prevent malicious code from being introduced.
    • Mitigation: Sign releases with a trusted key. Use a secure build environment (e.g., a CI/CD pipeline with appropriate security controls).

  • Security Audits:

    • Consideration: Independent security audits can help identify vulnerabilities that might be missed during internal reviews.
    • Mitigation: Conduct periodic security audits by independent experts, especially before major releases.

  • Input Validation for Permission Names:

    • Consideration: While Android itself should validate permission names, adding an extra layer of validation within the annotation processor can prevent unexpected behavior or potential bypasses if the Android framework's validation has flaws.
    • Mitigation: The annotation processor should validate that the permission names provided in the @NeedsPermission annotation are valid Android permission strings (e.g., by checking against a known list or using a regular expression). This prevents typos and potential issues with custom permissions.

5. Security Control Review and Recommendations

  • Code Reviews: (Existing) - Effective, but should be augmented with a checklist specifically focused on security considerations for annotation processors and permission handling.
  • Static Analysis (Error Prone): (Existing) - Good, but should be supplemented with other static analysis tools that are specifically designed for security analysis (e.g., FindSecBugs, SpotBugs with security plugins).
  • Tests: (Existing) - Unit and integration tests are essential, but should be expanded to include security-focused test cases (e.g., testing with invalid permission names, testing denial scenarios).
  • Minimal Permissions: (Existing) - The library itself correctly doesn't request any permissions.
  • API Design: (Existing) - The API design encourages good practices, but documentation should be strengthened to emphasize security implications.
  • Dynamic Analysis: (Recommended) - Crucially needed. Implement fuzzing for the annotation processor.
  • Dependency Scanning: (Recommended) - Implement regular dependency scanning.
  • Security Audits: (Recommended) - Conduct periodic security audits.
  • Supply Chain Security: (Recommended) - Implement measures to secure the build and release process.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the PermissionsDispatcher library. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, the library's maintainers can significantly enhance its security and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities in applications that use it. The most critical areas to focus on are the annotation processor's security (through fuzzing and rigorous validation) and ensuring the generated code is robust and follows secure coding principles.