Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
183 lines (143 loc) · 17.7 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

183 lines (143 loc) · 17.7 KB

Deep Analysis of Security Considerations for jsonkit

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The primary objective of this deep analysis is to conduct a thorough security assessment of the jsonkit library (https://github.com/johnezang/jsonkit), focusing on its key components and their potential security implications. This analysis aims to identify potential vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in the library's design and implementation, specifically related to its handling of JSON data. The analysis will cover:

  • Parsing and Validation: How jsonkit handles potentially malformed or malicious JSON input.
  • Resource Management: How jsonkit manages memory and other resources to prevent denial-of-service vulnerabilities.
  • Data Handling: How jsonkit interacts with potentially sensitive data represented in JSON format.
  • Dependencies: The security implications of jsonkit's dependencies (or lack thereof).
  • Conformance to Standards: How well jsonkit adheres to the JSON specification (RFC 8259).

Scope:

This analysis focuses solely on the jsonkit library itself, as a self-contained Go module. It does not cover the security of applications that use jsonkit, except to the extent that jsonkit's behavior might impact those applications. The analysis is based on the provided security design review and the publicly available source code on GitHub. It does not include dynamic testing or penetration testing.

Methodology:

  1. Code Review: A manual review of the jsonkit source code will be performed, focusing on areas identified as potentially security-relevant.
  2. Design Review: The provided security design review document will be analyzed to understand the intended functionality, security posture, and accepted risks.
  3. Threat Modeling: Potential threats will be identified based on the library's functionality and the ways it might be used. This will be informed by the STRIDE threat model (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege).
  4. Vulnerability Analysis: Potential vulnerabilities will be identified based on the code review, design review, and threat modeling.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: Specific, actionable recommendations will be provided to mitigate the identified vulnerabilities and improve the overall security of the library.
  6. Inference of Architecture: Based on the code and documentation, the architecture, components, and data flow will be inferred and documented.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the repository and design review, we can break down jsonkit into these key functional areas, each with security implications:

  • Lexer/Parser: This component is responsible for reading the raw JSON input (likely as a byte stream) and converting it into a structured representation (e.g., a tree of Go objects, or a stream of tokens).

    • Security Implications:
      • Malformed Input Handling: The lexer/parser is the first line of defense against malformed or malicious JSON input. Vulnerabilities here could lead to crashes, unexpected behavior, or even code execution (though less likely in Go due to memory safety). Specifically, buffer overflows, out-of-bounds reads, and excessive memory allocation are potential concerns. The parser must correctly handle all valid JSON constructs and gracefully reject invalid ones.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): An attacker could craft a malicious JSON input that causes the parser to consume excessive resources (CPU, memory), leading to a denial-of-service condition. Examples include deeply nested objects, extremely long strings, or large numbers of keys in an object.
      • Conformance to RFC 8259: The parser must strictly adhere to the JSON specification (RFC 8259). Deviations from the standard could lead to interoperability problems and potential security vulnerabilities.

  • Marshaler (Encoding): This component converts Go data structures into JSON text.

    • Security Implications:
      • Valid JSON Generation: The marshaler must always produce valid JSON output. Invalid output could cause problems for downstream consumers of the JSON data.
      • Data Sanitization (Indirect): While the marshaler itself doesn't typically perform explicit sanitization, it's crucial that the application using jsonkit provides correctly sanitized data to the marshaler. jsonkit should not be relied upon to sanitize data; that's the application's responsibility.
      • Resource Exhaustion: While less likely than in the parser, the marshaler could potentially be vulnerable to resource exhaustion if it attempts to marshal extremely large or deeply nested Go data structures.

  • Unmarshaler (Decoding): This component converts JSON text into Go data structures.

    • Security Implications:
      • Malformed Input Handling: Similar to the lexer/parser, the unmarshaler must be robust against malformed or malicious JSON input. It should gracefully handle errors and avoid panicking or crashing.
      • Type Safety: The unmarshaler must correctly map JSON types to Go types. Incorrect type handling could lead to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Similar to the parser, the unmarshaler could be vulnerable to DoS attacks using deeply nested objects, large strings, or other techniques to consume excessive resources.
      • Data Injection: If the unmarshaler uses reflection or other dynamic techniques to populate Go data structures, there's a potential risk of data injection vulnerabilities if the JSON input is not properly validated. This is less of a concern if jsonkit uses a more controlled, type-safe approach.
      • Over-Unmarshalling: If the unmarshaler populates structs, it should be careful not to unmarshal into fields that should not be controlled by external input. This is a common vulnerability.

  • API (User Interface): This is the set of functions and types that developers use to interact with the library.

    • Security Implications:
      • Usability: A clear, well-documented API reduces the likelihood of developers making mistakes that could lead to security vulnerabilities.
      • Error Handling: The API should provide clear and informative error messages to help developers diagnose and fix problems.
      • Configuration Options: The API might provide options to control the behavior of the library, such as limits on input size or nesting depth. These options can be crucial for mitigating DoS attacks.

  • Dependencies: jsonkit aims to minimize external dependencies.

    • Security Implications:
      • Reduced Attack Surface: Fewer dependencies mean a smaller attack surface and a lower risk of vulnerabilities introduced by third-party code.
      • Supply Chain Security: Even with minimal dependencies, it's important to ensure that those dependencies are well-maintained and secure. Go modules help with this, but it's still a consideration.

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

Based on the design review and a typical JSON library structure, we can infer the following:

Architecture:

jsonkit is likely a single-module Go library with a layered architecture. The layers would likely include:

  1. API Layer: The public interface exposed to developers.
  2. Marshalling/Unmarshalling Layer: Handles the conversion between Go data structures and JSON text.
  3. Lexing/Parsing Layer: Processes the raw JSON input and generates a structured representation.
  4. Utility Layer (Potentially): May contain helper functions for tasks like string manipulation, error handling, and buffer management.

Components:

  • Marshal Function(s): Functions for converting Go data to JSON.
  • Unmarshal Function(s): Functions for converting JSON to Go data.
  • Lexer: A component that breaks the JSON input into tokens.
  • Parser: A component that builds a structured representation from the tokens.
  • Error Types: Custom error types to provide specific information about parsing or validation errors.
  • Configuration Options (Likely): Structs or functions to configure the library's behavior (e.g., maximum input size, maximum nesting depth).

Data Flow (Unmarshalling):

  1. Input: JSON data (as a []byte or io.Reader) is provided to an Unmarshal function.
  2. Lexing: The lexer reads the input and generates a stream of tokens (e.g., START_OBJECT, STRING, NUMBER, END_OBJECT).
  3. Parsing: The parser consumes the tokens and builds an internal representation of the JSON data (e.g., a tree of Go values).
  4. Type Mapping: The parser maps JSON types to Go types.
  5. Data Population: The parser populates the provided Go data structure with the parsed values.
  6. Output: If successful, the function returns nil error. If an error occurs, it returns an error object.

Data Flow (Marshalling):

  1. Input: A Go data structure is provided to a Marshal function.
  2. Traversal: The marshaler traverses the Go data structure.
  3. Type Conversion: The marshaler converts Go types to JSON types.
  4. Output Generation: The marshaler writes the JSON text to a []byte or io.Writer.
  5. Output: If successful, the function returns the JSON data (as []byte) and a nil error. If an error occurs, it returns an error object.

4. Specific Security Considerations for jsonkit

Based on the above analysis, here are specific security considerations for jsonkit:

  • Lack of Fuzzing: The "Accepted Risks" section correctly identifies the lack of fuzzing tests as a significant issue. Malformed JSON input is a primary attack vector for JSON libraries. Without fuzzing, it's highly likely that edge cases and vulnerabilities exist that could be exploited.
  • No Security Documentation: The absence of a SECURITY.md file and security guidance is a major concern. Developers using the library need clear instructions on how to use it securely, especially when handling untrusted input.
  • Missing Input Limits: The "Recommended Security Controls" and "Security Requirements" sections highlight the need for mechanisms to limit the size and depth of JSON documents. This is critical for preventing DoS attacks. The library should provide configurable limits, and these limits should be documented clearly.
  • Potential for Over-Unmarshalling: The library needs to be carefully designed to prevent attackers from controlling fields in Go structs that they shouldn't have access to. This is a common vulnerability in applications that use reflection-based unmarshalling. jsonkit should either avoid reflection entirely or use it very carefully, with appropriate safeguards.
  • Error Handling: The library should return informative error messages that help developers understand why a parsing or validation error occurred. Generic error messages are not helpful. The error types should be specific and well-documented.
  • No Static Analysis: The lack of static analysis tools in the build process is a missed opportunity to catch potential vulnerabilities early.
  • No Supply Chain Security: While the library has minimal dependencies, implementing supply chain security measures (e.g., signing releases) is still a good practice.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies for jsonkit

Here are specific, actionable mitigation strategies for jsonkit, addressing the identified security considerations:

  1. Implement Comprehensive Fuzzing:

    • Action: Use go-fuzz (https://github.com/dvyukov/go-fuzz) or the built-in Go fuzzing capabilities (introduced in Go 1.18) to create fuzzing tests for the Unmarshal functions.
    • Rationale: Fuzzing will automatically generate a wide variety of malformed and unexpected JSON inputs, helping to identify edge cases and vulnerabilities that might be missed by manual testing.
    • Specifics: Create fuzzing targets that cover different JSON data types (objects, arrays, strings, numbers, booleans, null) and different nesting levels. Run the fuzzing tests regularly as part of the CI process.

  2. Add a SECURITY.md File:

    • Action: Create a SECURITY.md file in the root of the repository.
    • Rationale: This file provides a central location for security-related information.
    • Specifics:
      • Security Policy: Describe the project's security policy, including how vulnerabilities should be reported.
      • Vulnerability Disclosure Process: Provide clear instructions on how to report security vulnerabilities (e.g., email address, PGP key).
      • Handling Untrusted Input: Provide specific guidance on how to use the library securely when processing untrusted JSON input. Emphasize the importance of input validation and the use of configuration options to limit input size and depth.
      • Known Limitations: Document any known security limitations or areas of concern.

  3. Implement Input Limits:

    • Action: Add configuration options to the library to limit the maximum size and depth of JSON documents.
    • Rationale: This is crucial for preventing DoS attacks.
    • Specifics:
      • MaxDepth: Add an option to limit the maximum nesting depth of objects and arrays. A reasonable default value might be 32 or 64.
      • MaxInputSize: Add an option to limit the maximum size (in bytes) of the JSON input. A reasonable default value would depend on the expected usage, but something in the range of 1MB to 10MB might be appropriate.
      • MaxStringLength: Add an option to limit the maximum length of strings.
      • API Integration: Expose these options through the library's API (e.g., as fields in a configuration struct, or as optional arguments to the Unmarshal function).
      • Error Handling: If any of these limits are exceeded, the library should return a clear and informative error.

  4. Address Potential Over-Unmarshalling:

    • Action: Carefully review the unmarshalling code to ensure that it does not allow attackers to control fields in Go structs that they shouldn't have access to.
    • Rationale: This prevents data injection vulnerabilities.
    • Specifics:
      • Avoid Reflection (If Possible): If possible, avoid using reflection for unmarshalling. A hand-written, type-safe parser is generally more secure.
      • Use Field Tags Carefully: If reflection is used, use field tags (e.g., json:"fieldname") to explicitly control which fields can be unmarshaled. Do not automatically unmarshal all fields.
      • Whitelist Fields: Consider using a whitelist approach, where only explicitly allowed fields can be unmarshaled.
      • Validate After Unmarshalling: After unmarshalling, perform additional validation to ensure that the populated data is within expected bounds.

  5. Improve Error Handling:

    • Action: Define custom error types for different parsing and validation errors.
    • Rationale: This provides more specific information to developers.
    • Specifics:
      • ErrInvalidJSON: A general error for invalid JSON.
      • ErrMaxDepthExceeded: Returned when the maximum nesting depth is exceeded.
      • ErrMaxInputSizeExceeded: Returned when the maximum input size is exceeded.
      • ErrUnexpectedToken: Returned when an unexpected token is encountered during parsing.
      • ErrUnsupportedType: Returned when an unsupported JSON type is encountered.
      • Include Context: Include information about the location of the error in the JSON input (e.g., line number, column number) in the error message.

  6. Integrate Static Analysis:

    • Action: Add static analysis tools to the CI pipeline.
    • Rationale: This helps catch potential vulnerabilities early.
    • Specifics:
      • go vet: The standard Go vet tool, which checks for common errors.
      • staticcheck: A more advanced static analysis tool (https://staticcheck.io/).
      • gosec: A security-focused static analysis tool (https://github.com/securego/gosec).
      • Configure CI: Configure the CI system (e.g., GitHub Actions) to run these tools on every commit and fail the build if any issues are found.

  7. Implement Supply Chain Security:

    • Action: Sign releases and consider using the SLSA framework.
    • Rationale: This helps ensure the integrity of the library.
    • Specifics:
      • Sign Releases: Use a tool like gpg to sign releases of the library. Publish the public key so that users can verify the signatures.
      • SLSA: Explore the SLSA framework (https://slsa.dev/) to improve the security of the software supply chain.

  8. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST):

    • Action: While primarily focused on applications, incorporating DAST principles can help.
    • Rationale: DAST can identify vulnerabilities that might be missed by static analysis and unit/fuzz testing.
    • Specifics: Since jsonkit is a library, DAST would involve creating a small test application that uses jsonkit to process various JSON inputs, and then using a DAST tool to scan that application. This is less direct than fuzzing, but can still be valuable.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the jsonkit library can significantly improve its security posture and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities that could be exploited in applications that use it. The most critical improvements are fuzzing, input limits, and security documentation.