Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
33 lines (28 loc) · 5.02 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

33 lines (28 loc) · 5.02 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for tapadoo/alerter

Attack Surface: Malicious Alert Message Injection

  • Description: Vulnerability arising from displaying alert messages constructed from untrusted or user-controlled input without proper sanitization, leading to the injection of malicious content within the alert.
    • Alerter Contribution: The alerter library is designed to display messages provided by the application. It directly renders the message content without inherent sanitization. If the application provides unsanitized input to alerter, the library will display the potentially malicious content.
    • Example: An application uses user input to generate an alert message. An attacker injects JavaScript code within the input, intending to execute it when the alert is displayed (though direct JavaScript execution in native Android alerts is unlikely, malicious links or UI spoofing are still possible). A more practical example is injecting a misleading link: "Urgent Security Notice: Click <a href='http://malicious.example.com'>here</a> to update your password." displayed via alerter.
    • Impact:
      • UI Spoofing: Displaying deceptive messages that mimic legitimate application UI, potentially tricking users into revealing sensitive information or performing unintended actions.
      • Phishing: Embedding malicious links within alerts to redirect users to external phishing websites, aiming to steal credentials or personal data.
      • Reputation Damage: Displaying attacker-controlled content can damage the application's reputation and user trust.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Input Sanitization: Thoroughly sanitize and validate all input used to construct alert messages, especially if derived from user input or external sources. Encode HTML entities and remove or neutralize potentially harmful characters or code.
      • Plain Text Alerts: Prefer using plain text alerts whenever possible to minimize the risk of injection attacks. Avoid rendering any form of dynamic HTML or rich text within alerts if not absolutely necessary and properly secured.
      • Contextual Encoding: Apply context-aware encoding based on how the alert message is rendered.

Attack Surface: Dependency Vulnerabilities in alerter or its Dependencies

  • Description: Presence of security vulnerabilities within the alerter library code itself or in any of its transitive dependencies (libraries that alerter relies upon).
    • Alerter Contribution: By including the alerter library, the application becomes dependent on its code and the code of its dependencies. Any vulnerabilities in these libraries become potential attack vectors for applications using alerter.
    • Example: A critical vulnerability (e.g., remote code execution) is discovered in a specific version of the alerter library or a library it depends on. Applications using this vulnerable version are susceptible to exploitation if an attacker can trigger the vulnerable code path, potentially through crafted inputs or specific application states that interact with alerter.
    • Impact:
      • Remote Code Execution (Critical): In severe cases, vulnerabilities could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the user's device, gaining full control of the application and potentially the device itself.
      • Data Breach (High): Vulnerabilities might allow attackers to bypass security controls and access sensitive data stored or processed by the application.
      • Denial of Service (High): Exploiting vulnerabilities could lead to application crashes or instability, resulting in denial of service.
    • Risk Severity: Critical to High (depending on the specific vulnerability)
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Regularly Update alerter Library: Keep the alerter library updated to the latest stable version. Updates often include bug fixes and security patches that address known vulnerabilities.
      • Dependency Scanning and Management: Implement a robust dependency management process that includes regular scanning for known vulnerabilities in both direct and transitive dependencies of alerter. Tools like OWASP Dependency-Check or Snyk can automate this process.
      • Vulnerability Monitoring and Patching: Actively monitor security advisories and vulnerability databases for any reported vulnerabilities affecting alerter or its dependencies. Apply patches and updates promptly when vulnerabilities are identified and fixes are released.
      • Consider Library Alternatives (If Necessary): In extreme cases, if alerter or its dependencies are found to have unfixable or repeatedly occurring critical vulnerabilities, consider evaluating alternative UI notification libraries that may have a better security track record.