Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
46 lines (39 loc) · 5.95 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

46 lines (39 loc) · 5.95 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for square/picasso

Attack Surface: 1. Untrusted Image Sources (RCE/SSRF)

  • Description: Loading images from URLs provided by untrusted sources, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) or Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).
  • How Picasso Contributes: Picasso's primary function is to fetch and display images from URLs. If the URL is maliciously crafted, Picasso becomes the direct mechanism for the attack.
  • Example:
    • An attacker provides a URL to a crafted image designed to exploit a vulnerability in the system's image decoder (low probability, but high impact): https://evil.com/malicious.jpg
    • An attacker uses a URL parameter to trigger SSRF, causing the server to make requests to internal resources: https://example.com/image?url=http://localhost:8080/admin
  • Impact:
    • Remote Code Execution (RCE) - Low probability, but extremely high impact.
    • Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict URL Validation: Implement extremely rigorous validation of all image URLs. Use a whitelist of allowed domains/hosts exclusively if possible. Reject any URL that doesn't match the expected format or comes from an untrusted source. Use URL parsing libraries to decompose the URL and validate each component (scheme, host, path, query parameters). Never trust user-supplied input directly.
    • Input Sanitization: Sanitize any user-provided data used to construct image URLs, even if it's just a small part of the URL. Escape or remove any potentially dangerous characters.
    • Use HTTPS: Enforce HTTPS for all image URLs to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.
    • Image Loading Proxy: Use a trusted proxy server to fetch and validate images before serving them to the application. The proxy can perform additional checks, such as image size limits, content type verification, and even malware scanning. This is a strong defense-in-depth measure.

Attack Surface: 2. Large Image Downloads (DoS)

  • Description: An attacker provides a URL to an extremely large image, causing excessive resource consumption and a Denial of Service (DoS).
  • How Picasso Contributes: Picasso downloads the image data. If the image is excessively large (either in file size or dimensions), it can consume significant memory, bandwidth, and processing power on the device.
  • Example: An attacker provides a URL to a "pixel bomb" image (e.g., a 1x1 pixel image with metadata claiming it's 10000x10000 pixels) or a very high-resolution image.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (application crash, unresponsiveness, excessive battery drain).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Set resize() and centerCrop()/centerInside(): Always use Picasso's resize() method to limit the maximum dimensions of the loaded image. Combine this with centerCrop() or centerInside() to handle images with different aspect ratios gracefully. This is a critical mitigation. Do not rely solely on the server to provide appropriately sized images.
    • Set Maximum Image Size (Bytes) - Custom Downloader: Implement a custom Downloader or RequestHandler that checks the Content-Length header (if available) before downloading the image. Refuse to download images exceeding a predefined, reasonable size limit. This adds an extra layer of protection beyond just dimension limits.
    • Use .fetch() for pre-validation: Before loading image into ImageView, use .fetch() method to check if image can be loaded. This allows to check for errors before actual image loading.

Attack Surface: 3. Custom Component Vulnerabilities (Directly Related to Picasso's API)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities introduced by poorly implemented custom Downloader or RequestHandler components that interact directly with Picasso's image loading process. This excludes general security flaws in custom components not directly related to how Picasso fetches or processes image data.
  • How Picasso Contributes: Picasso's extensibility allows developers to create custom components that handle the core image loading and request processing. Flaws in these specific components directly impact Picasso's security.
  • Example:
    • A custom Downloader that doesn't use HTTPS or improperly validates SSL certificates, making the image download vulnerable to MITM attacks.
    • A custom RequestHandler that allows arbitrary file access based on user input, allowing an attacker to bypass URL validation and load images from unintended locations.
  • Impact: Varies depending on the vulnerability, but could include RCE (if the custom component has severe flaws), information disclosure, or DoS.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Thorough Code Review: Carefully review the code of any custom Downloader or RequestHandler for security vulnerabilities, specifically focusing on how they interact with network requests and file system access (if applicable).
    • Security Testing: Perform security testing (e.g., penetration testing, fuzzing) on these custom components to identify and address vulnerabilities related to image fetching and processing.
    • Follow Secure Coding Practices: Adhere to secure coding principles when developing these components. Avoid common vulnerabilities like insecure network communication, improper handling of redirects, and path traversal.
    • Minimize Custom Components: If possible, avoid creating custom Downloader or RequestHandler components unless absolutely necessary. Use Picasso's built-in functionality whenever feasible. If customization is required, keep it as minimal and focused as possible.