Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
215 lines (172 loc) · 17.7 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

215 lines (172 loc) · 17.7 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for yiiguxing/translationplugin

Mitigation Strategy: Validate Translation Service URLs

Description:

  1. Create a Whitelist: Define a list of fully qualified domain names (FQDNs) and, if necessary, specific URL paths for only the trusted translation services the plugin is permitted to use (e.g., https://translation.googleapis.com, https://api.cognitive.microsofttranslator.com). Do not use wildcards in the domain part of the URL.
  2. Configuration: Store this whitelist in a secure configuration file accessible to the plugin (ideally, one that is read-only for the application's runtime user). Avoid hardcoding the whitelist directly in the plugin's code.
  3. Validation Function: Create a function within the plugin's codebase (e.g., isValidTranslationServiceURL(url)) that takes a URL string as input. This function should:
    • Parse the URL to extract the hostname and path.
    • Compare the extracted hostname (and path, if applicable) against the whitelist. Perform a strict string comparison (case-sensitive, if appropriate).
    • Return true if the URL is found in the whitelist, and false otherwise.
  4. Integration: Modify the plugin's code (wherever the translation service URL is set or used) to always call the isValidTranslationServiceURL() function before making any API requests. If the function returns false, the plugin should:
    • Log an error (including the attempted URL) to the application's logging system.
    • Prevent the API request from being made.
    • Use a fallback mechanism (e.g., return the untranslated text or a predefined error message to the application).
  5. Regular Review: The application's maintenance process should include regular reviews (e.g., quarterly) of the whitelist to ensure it remains up-to-date.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Translation Service Redirection (High Severity): Prevents an attacker from configuring the plugin to use a rogue service that could return malicious content (XSS, HTML injection, etc.).
    • Data Exfiltration (Medium Severity): Reduces the risk of the plugin sending sensitive data (the text being translated) to an unauthorized third-party service.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks (Medium Severity): Makes it harder for an attacker to silently redirect the plugin's traffic.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Translation Service Redirection: Risk significantly reduced (almost eliminated if the configuration file is properly secured).
    • Data Exfiltration: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks: Risk moderately reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Partially Implemented] - The whitelist exists in config/translation_services.json, but the validation function is only applied to new configurations, not existing ones within the plugin's settings.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - The validation function is not called for URLs loaded from the plugin's internal storage (e.g., user-specific configurations within the plugin). This needs to be added to the plugin's loadSettings() method (or equivalent).
    • [Example] - No regular review process for the whitelist is currently part of the application's maintenance.

Mitigation Strategy: Handle API Errors and Timeouts Gracefully

Description:

  1. Timeout Configuration: Within the plugin's code, for every API request made to a translation service, set a reasonable timeout value (e.g., 5-10 seconds). Use the HTTP client library used by the plugin.
  2. Error Handling: Within the plugin, wrap each API request in a try-catch block (or equivalent). Specifically catch:
    • Network connection errors.
    • HTTP status code errors.
    • API-specific errors.
  3. Fallback Mechanism: Within the catch block in the plugin's code:
    • Log the error details (including the URL, error code, and any error message from the service, but sanitize the error message before logging). Use the application's logging facilities.
    • Implement a fallback strategy within the plugin:
      • Option 1 (Preferred): Return the original, untranslated text to the calling application code.
      • Option 2: Return a predefined, user-friendly error message (e.g., "Translation unavailable") to the calling application code. Never directly expose raw error messages from the translation service.
  4. Circuit Breaker (Optional, Advanced): If the plugin supports multiple translation services, consider implementing a circuit breaker pattern within the plugin.
  5. Retry Mechanism (Optional): Implement a retry mechanism within the plugin with exponential backoff for transient errors.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium Severity): Prevents a slow or unresponsive translation service from causing the plugin, and potentially the entire application, to become unresponsive.
    • Information Disclosure (Low Severity): Prevents internal error messages from the translation service (which might contain sensitive information) from being passed through to the application and potentially displayed to the user.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Low Severity): Prevents the plugin from consuming excessive resources.

  • Impact:

    • Denial of Service (DoS): Risk significantly reduced.
    • Information Disclosure: Risk eliminated (if raw errors are not passed through).
    • Resource Exhaustion: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Partially Implemented] - Timeouts are set for most API requests within the plugin, but error handling is inconsistent. Some error messages are passed directly to the application.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - Consistent error handling needs to be implemented across all API calls within the plugin's TranslationService classes (or equivalent).
    • [Example] - A fallback mechanism to return the original text is not consistently implemented in all plugin components.
    • [Example] - No circuit breaker or retry mechanism is currently in place within the plugin.

Mitigation Strategy: API Key Protection

  • Description:

    1. Identify API Keys: Locate all API keys used by the plugin to access translation services.
    2. Remove from Plugin Code & Config: Ensure these keys are not stored directly in the plugin's source code, the plugin's configuration files that are part of its distribution, or the version control system.
    3. Environment Variables/Application Configuration:
      • The application should be responsible for providing the API keys to the plugin. This can be done via:
        • Environment variables.
        • A secure application configuration mechanism (e.g., a configuration file outside the plugin's directory, a secrets management service).
      • The plugin should be designed to read API keys from these external sources, not from its own internal configuration files.
    4. Plugin Configuration Interface: The plugin should provide a clear and secure way for the application to configure the API keys (e.g., through a settings panel, API calls, or a configuration object).
    5. Rotation and Monitoring: The application, not the plugin, is responsible for API key rotation and monitoring.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • API Key Compromise (High Severity): Prevents attackers from gaining access to the API keys if the plugin's code or configuration is compromised.
    • Unauthorized API Usage (High Severity): Reduces the risk of unauthorized use of the translation services.
    • Credential Theft (High Severity): Protects against credential theft.

  • Impact:

    • API Key Compromise: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Unauthorized API Usage: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Credential Theft: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Partially Implemented] - The plugin can read API keys from environment variables, but also has a default configuration file (within the plugin) that contains placeholder keys.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - The plugin's default configuration file should be completely removed or clearly marked as not for production use.
    • [Example] - The plugin's documentation should clearly state that API keys must be provided by the application and should never be stored within the plugin's files.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Local Storage (If Applicable)

  • Description: (This section assumes the plugin caches translations locally.)

    1. Identify Storage Location: Determine where within the plugin's code translations are cached (files, database).
    2. File System Permissions (If Applicable):
      • If the plugin stores translations in files, the plugin should, during installation or initialization, ensure that the file permissions are set to restrict access. Ideally, only the application's user should have read/write access. The plugin should use appropriate system calls to set these permissions.
    3. Database Security (If Applicable):
      • If the plugin uses a database, the plugin should use parameterized queries or an ORM to prevent SQL injection. The application is responsible for providing the database connection details, and the plugin should not store database credentials directly.
    4. Encryption (Optional, but Recommended):
      • The plugin could offer an option to encrypt cached translations. If implemented, the plugin should use a strong encryption algorithm, and the application should be responsible for providing and managing the encryption key.
    5. Cache Expiration:
      • The plugin should implement a cache expiration policy.
    6. Cache Invalidation:
      • The plugin should implement a mechanism to invalidate the cache when it detects that the source translations (on the remote service) might have changed. This could involve checking timestamps or using webhooks if supported by the translation service.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Unauthorized Access to Cached Translations (Medium Severity): Prevents unauthorized access to the plugin's cache.
    • Modification of Cached Translations (Medium Severity): Prevents attackers from tampering with the plugin's cached translations.
    • SQL Injection (High Severity - If using a database): Parameterized queries prevent SQL injection attacks targeting the plugin's database interactions.
    • Data Breach (Medium Severity - If translations contain sensitive data): Encryption protects the confidentiality of the cached translations.

  • Impact:

    • Unauthorized Access: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Modification: Risk significantly reduced.
    • SQL Injection: Risk eliminated (with proper use of parameterized queries).
    • Data Breach: Risk significantly reduced (with encryption).

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Partially Implemented] - The plugin uses a file-based cache, but does not automatically set secure file permissions during installation.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - The plugin's installation script needs to be modified to set appropriate file permissions on the cache directory.
    • [Example] - Encryption of cached translations is not an option within the plugin.
    • [Example] - The cache expiration policy is too long (30 days).

Mitigation Strategy: Output Encoding and Sanitization

  • Description:

    1. Identify Display Points: Within the plugin's code, identify all points where translated text is returned to the calling application. This is where the plugin hands off the translated string.
    2. Plugin Responsibility: The plugin should not perform output encoding or sanitization itself. The plugin's responsibility is to return the raw translated text.
    3. Documentation: The plugin's documentation must clearly and emphatically state that the returned translated text is untrusted and must be properly encoded and sanitized by the application before being displayed to the user. The documentation should provide examples of how to do this correctly in various contexts (HTML, JavaScript, etc.).
    4. No "Safe" Options: The plugin should not offer any options or functions that claim to return "safe" or "pre-encoded" HTML. This creates a false sense of security and encourages developers to bypass proper output encoding in the application.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (Critical Severity): By not doing output encoding itself, the plugin forces the application to handle this crucial security measure, reducing the risk of XSS.
    • HTML Injection (High Severity): Same as above.
    • Other Injection Attacks (Variable Severity): Same as above.

  • Impact:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): Risk is managed by the application, not the plugin. The plugin's design enforces secure practices in the application.
    • HTML Injection: Same as above.
    • Other Injection Attacks: Same as above.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Partially Implemented] - The plugin returns raw translated text, but the documentation does not adequately emphasize the need for output encoding in the application.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - The plugin's documentation needs to be significantly improved to clearly explain the security responsibilities of the application developer. Include code examples.
    • [Example] - Remove any functions or options in the plugin that suggest they provide "safe" output.

Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization (If Applicable - User Input to the Plugin)

  • Description: (This section applies only if the plugin itself accepts user input that directly affects the translation process, not general application input.)

    1. Identify Input Points: Determine all locations within the plugin where user input related to translations is accepted (e.g., a plugin-specific suggestion form).
    2. Input Validation:
      • Define strict validation rules within the plugin's code for each input field.
      • Use server-side validation (within the plugin).
    3. Input Sanitization:
      • After validation, sanitize the input within the plugin to remove any potentially harmful code.
      • Use a context-appropriate sanitizer.
    4. Length Limits:
      • Enforce strict length limits within the plugin.
    5. Moderation (Optional):
      • If the plugin allows users to suggest translations, consider implementing a moderation system within the plugin (or, preferably, delegate this to the application).
    6. Rate Limiting:
      • Implement rate limiting within the plugin to prevent abuse.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (Critical Severity): Prevents XSS if the plugin somehow displays user-provided input without proper encoding (this should be avoided; see Strategy V).
    • HTML Injection (High Severity): Same as above.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium Severity): Length limits and rate limiting help prevent DoS attacks against the plugin.
    • Data Corruption (Medium Severity): Input validation prevents invalid data from affecting the plugin's internal state.

  • Impact:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): Risk reduced within the plugin's context.
    • HTML Injection: Risk reduced within the plugin's context.
    • Denial of Service (DoS): Risk reduced.
    • Data Corruption: Risk reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Not Implemented] - The plugin does not currently accept any direct user input that influences translations.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - If such features are added to the plugin, all of the above steps must be implemented within the plugin's code.

Mitigation Strategy: Keep the Plugin Updated

  • Description:

    1. Dependency Management: The application should use a dependency management tool to manage the plugin.
    2. Regular Checks: The application's build/deployment process should include checking for updates to the plugin.
    3. Alerting: The application's development team should be alerted to new plugin versions.
    4. Testing: Before updating the plugin in a production environment, the application should thoroughly test the new version.
    5. Monitoring: The application's development team should monitor the plugin's GitHub repository (or other official source) for security advisories.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Known Vulnerabilities (Variable Severity): Updating the plugin addresses any known security vulnerabilities in the plugin itself.

  • Impact:

    • Known Vulnerabilities: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • [Example: Partially Implemented] - The plugin is managed as a dependency, but automatic update checks are not enabled in the application's build process.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • [Example] - Configure the application's dependency management tool to automatically check for updates.
    • [Example] - Set up notifications for new plugin versions within the application's development workflow.