Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
230 lines (181 loc) · 24.4 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

230 lines (181 loc) · 24.4 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Fat-Free Framework

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep security analysis is to thoroughly evaluate the security posture of the Fat-Free Framework (FFF) and applications built upon it. This analysis will focus on identifying potential security vulnerabilities stemming from the framework's design, architecture, and the shared responsibility model for security between the framework and application developers. The ultimate goal is to provide actionable, framework-specific recommendations and mitigation strategies to enhance the security of both FFF itself and applications leveraging it.

Scope:

This analysis encompasses the following areas based on the provided Security Design Review:

  • Architecture and Components: Analyzing the C4 Context and Container diagrams to understand the framework's architecture, key components (Routing, Templating, Database Abstraction), and their interactions.
  • Data Flow: Inferring the data flow within applications built using FFF, from user requests to database interactions and responses.
  • Security Controls and Responsibilities: Examining the defined security controls, accepted risks, and recommended security controls for both the framework and applications.
  • Deployment and Build Processes: Considering the security implications of the proposed cloud-based deployment using Docker and Kubernetes, and the CI/CD build pipeline.
  • Identified Security Requirements: Analyzing the security requirements outlined (Authentication, Authorization, Input Validation, Cryptography) and how FFF addresses or should address them.

This analysis will primarily focus on the Fat-Free Framework as described in the provided documentation and will not involve a live code audit or penetration testing.

Methodology:

The methodology for this deep analysis will involve the following steps:

  1. Document Review: In-depth review of the provided Security Design Review document, including business and security posture, C4 diagrams, deployment and build descriptions, risk assessment, and questions/assumptions.
  2. Architecture and Component Analysis: Deconstructing the C4 diagrams to identify key components, their functionalities, and interdependencies. Inferring the data flow based on component interactions.
  3. Threat Modeling: Applying threat modeling principles to identify potential security threats and vulnerabilities associated with each component and data flow, considering common web application attack vectors (e.g., OWASP Top 10).
  4. Security Control Mapping: Mapping the identified security controls (both existing and recommended) to the components and potential threats to assess their effectiveness and coverage.
  5. Gap Analysis: Identifying gaps in security controls and areas where the framework or application development practices might be vulnerable.
  6. Recommendation and Mitigation Strategy Development: Formulating specific, actionable, and Fat-Free Framework-tailored security recommendations and mitigation strategies to address the identified threats and vulnerabilities. These strategies will be practical and consider the framework's design and the developer's responsibilities.
  7. Documentation and Reporting: Documenting the analysis process, findings, recommendations, and mitigation strategies in a structured report.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the C4 Container diagram and descriptions, the key components of a Fat-Free Framework application architecture are:

  • Web Server Container (Nginx/Apache):

    • Security Implications: Vulnerable to web server misconfiguration, DDoS attacks, and exposure of sensitive information if not hardened properly. Improper TLS/SSL configuration can lead to man-in-the-middle attacks.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: While not directly part of FFF, the web server configuration is crucial for the overall security of FFF applications. FFF applications rely on the web server for handling initial requests and TLS termination.

  • PHP Container (PHP-FPM):

    • Security Implications: PHP itself can have vulnerabilities. Misconfiguration of PHP (e.g., enabling dangerous functions) can create significant security risks. Outdated PHP versions are a major vulnerability.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: FFF runs on PHP. Vulnerabilities in PHP directly impact FFF applications. FFF's performance and security are tied to the underlying PHP environment.

  • Fat-Free Framework Container:

    • Security Implications: Vulnerabilities within the framework code itself (e.g., in routing, templating, database abstraction) can directly impact all applications built on it. Lack of built-in security features or insecure defaults can lead to widespread vulnerabilities in applications.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: This is the core of the analysis. The security of FFF directly determines the baseline security posture of applications built with it. The framework's design choices regarding security are critical.

  • Web Application Code Container:

    • Security Implications: Application-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., business logic flaws, insecure data handling, lack of input validation) are the responsibility of the application developer.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: While FFF aims to simplify development, it doesn't automatically guarantee secure application code. Developers must use FFF securely and implement necessary security controls within their application logic. The framework's ease of use could also lead to developers overlooking security best practices in favor of rapid development.

  • Template Engine Container:

    • Security Implications: Template injection vulnerabilities are a significant risk if user-controlled data is directly embedded into templates without proper sanitization. Output encoding is crucial to prevent XSS.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: FFF's template engine must be designed to prevent template injection and encourage secure output encoding. Developers using the template engine need to understand and apply secure templating practices.

  • Routing Component Container:

    • Security Implications: Insecure routing configurations can lead to unauthorized access to application functionalities or information disclosure. Vulnerabilities in the routing logic itself could be exploited.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: FFF's routing mechanism must be robust and secure. Developers need to define routes securely and avoid exposing sensitive endpoints unintentionally.

  • Database Abstraction Container:

    • Security Implications: SQL injection vulnerabilities are a major concern if the database abstraction layer is not properly implemented or if developers bypass it and write raw queries insecurely.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: FFF's database abstraction layer should strongly encourage or enforce parameterized queries/prepared statements to prevent SQL injection. Developers should be guided to use the abstraction layer securely.

  • Database Container (MySQL/PostgreSQL):

    • Security Implications: Database vulnerabilities, weak access controls, unencrypted data at rest or in transit, and lack of proper backups can lead to data breaches and loss.
    • Specific Fat-Free Context: While not directly part of FFF, the security of the database is paramount for FFF applications. FFF applications rely on the database for persistent data storage, and database security is a shared responsibility between DevOps/DBAs and application developers (regarding secure database interactions).

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow Inference

Based on the C4 diagrams and descriptions, we can infer the following architecture, components, and data flow for a typical Fat-Free Framework application:

Architecture:

The architecture is a standard three-tier web application architecture, containerized and deployed on Kubernetes:

  1. Presentation Tier: Web Server Container (Nginx/Apache) handles user requests and serves static content.
  2. Application Tier: PHP Container (PHP-FPM) executes the Fat-Free Framework and Web Application Code. This tier includes:
    • Fat-Free Framework Container: Provides core functionalities (Routing, Templating, Database Abstraction).
    • Web Application Code Container: Contains the custom application logic.
    • Template Engine Container: Renders dynamic views.
    • Routing Component Container: Maps URLs to application logic.
    • Database Abstraction Container: Facilitates database interactions.
  3. Data Tier: Database Container (MySQL/PostgreSQL) stores application data.

Data Flow:

  1. User Request: A user (User A, User B) sends an HTTP request via their web browser over the Internet to the Load Balancer.
  2. Load Balancing: The Load Balancer distributes the request to one of the Web Application Pods in the Kubernetes cluster.
  3. Web Server Handling: The Web Server Container (Nginx/Apache) in the Web Application Pod receives the request. It may serve static files directly or forward dynamic requests to the PHP Container.
  4. PHP-FPM Processing: The PHP Container (PHP-FPM) receives the request. It executes the Web Application Code, leveraging the Fat-Free Framework.
  5. Framework Routing: The Fat-Free Framework's Routing Component maps the request URL to the appropriate controller or handler within the Web Application Code.
  6. Application Logic Execution: The Web Application Code processes the request, potentially interacting with the Database Abstraction Container to query or modify data in the Database Container.
  7. Template Rendering: The Template Engine Container renders dynamic views by combining templates and data from the application logic.
  8. Response Generation: The Web Application Code, with the help of the Fat-Free Framework, generates an HTTP response.
  9. Response Delivery: The PHP Container sends the response back to the Web Server Container, which then sends it back through the Load Balancer to the user's web browser.
  10. Database Interaction: The Database Abstraction Container communicates with the Database Container to perform database operations (CRUD - Create, Read, Update, Delete) as requested by the Web Application Code.

Data Sensitivity:

Data sensitivity is application-dependent, but potentially includes:

  • User Data: Personal information, credentials, session data, application-specific user data.
  • Application Code and Configuration: Source code, configuration files, database connection strings, API keys.
  • Database Data: All data stored in the database, which could be highly sensitive depending on the application.

4. Specific Security Recommendations for Fat-Free Framework

Based on the analysis, here are specific security recommendations tailored to the Fat-Free Framework and applications built with it:

For Fat-Free Framework Developers:

  • Security-Focused Development:
    • Recommendation: Integrate security considerations into every stage of the framework development lifecycle (Security by Design).
    • Mitigation: Conduct regular security code reviews, threat modeling for new features, and penetration testing of the framework itself.
  • Secure Defaults:
    • Recommendation: Implement secure defaults for framework configurations and features. For example, enable CSRF protection by default, enforce strong password hashing algorithms, and default to secure session management.
    • Mitigation: Review current defaults and identify areas for improvement. Provide clear documentation on secure configuration options and best practices.
  • Input Handling and Output Encoding:
    • Recommendation: Provide built-in mechanisms or utilities to simplify input validation and output encoding for application developers.
    • Mitigation: Develop helper functions or middleware for common input validation tasks (e.g., sanitizing user inputs, validating data types). Ensure the template engine automatically escapes output by default to prevent XSS.
  • Database Abstraction Security:
    • Recommendation: Enforce parameterized queries or prepared statements in the database abstraction layer to prevent SQL injection. Make it difficult for developers to write raw, insecure queries.
    • Mitigation: Thoroughly review the database abstraction layer code. Provide clear documentation and examples on how to use it securely. Consider static analysis tools to detect potential SQL injection vulnerabilities.
  • Session Management Security:
    • Recommendation: Provide secure session management features, including options for secure session storage, HTTP-only and secure flags for session cookies, and session fixation protection.
    • Mitigation: Review the current session management implementation. Offer guidance on secure session configuration and best practices.
  • Error Handling and Logging:
    • Recommendation: Implement secure error handling practices that avoid revealing sensitive information in error messages. Provide robust logging capabilities for security auditing and incident response.
    • Mitigation: Ensure error messages are generic in production environments. Implement comprehensive logging that includes security-relevant events (authentication attempts, authorization failures, etc.).
  • Dependency Management:
    • Recommendation: Maintain up-to-date dependencies for the framework itself and encourage application developers to do the same.
    • Mitigation: Implement automated dependency scanning for the framework's dependencies in the CI/CD pipeline. Provide guidance and tools for application developers to manage their dependencies securely.
  • Security Documentation and Guidelines:
    • Recommendation: Create comprehensive security documentation and best practices guidelines for developers using Fat-Free Framework.
    • Mitigation: Develop dedicated security sections in the framework documentation. Provide examples of secure coding practices within FFF applications. Consider creating security-focused tutorials or workshops.
  • Vulnerability Disclosure and Patching Process:
    • Recommendation: Establish a clear and public process for reporting and patching security vulnerabilities in the framework.
    • Mitigation: Set up a security mailing list or dedicated channel for vulnerability reports. Define a process for triaging, patching, and releasing security updates promptly.

For Application Developers using Fat-Free Framework:

  • Input Validation and Output Encoding (Developer Responsibility - Emphasize this):
    • Recommendation: Implement robust input validation for all user inputs at every entry point of the application. Enforce output encoding for all dynamic content displayed to users.
    • Mitigation: Utilize FFF's provided tools (if any) for input validation and output encoding. Follow secure coding practices and refer to security guidelines. Perform code reviews focusing on input and output handling.
  • Secure Authentication and Authorization:
    • Recommendation: Implement secure authentication and authorization mechanisms. Utilize FFF's features or integrate with established security libraries for authentication and authorization.
    • Mitigation: Choose appropriate authentication methods (e.g., multi-factor authentication). Implement role-based access control (RBAC) or other authorization models as needed. Securely manage user credentials and session data.
  • Secure Database Interactions:
    • Recommendation: Always use parameterized queries or prepared statements provided by FFF's database abstraction layer to prevent SQL injection. Avoid writing raw SQL queries directly.
    • Mitigation: Strictly adhere to FFF's database abstraction guidelines. Perform code reviews to ensure secure database query practices.
  • Secure Session Management:
    • Recommendation: Configure session management securely. Use secure session storage, HTTP-only and secure flags for session cookies, and implement session fixation protection.
    • Mitigation: Follow FFF's documentation and best practices for session management. Regularly review session management configurations.
  • Error Handling and Logging (Application Level):
    • Recommendation: Implement application-level error handling that prevents sensitive information leakage. Log security-relevant events within the application.
    • Mitigation: Customize error pages to avoid displaying stack traces or sensitive data in production. Implement application-specific logging for security auditing.
  • Dependency Management (Application Level):
    • Recommendation: Actively manage application dependencies and keep them up-to-date to patch known vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation: Use dependency management tools (e.g., Composer) and regularly scan dependencies for vulnerabilities. Implement a process for updating dependencies promptly.
  • Regular Security Testing:
    • Recommendation: Conduct regular security testing of applications built with Fat-Free Framework, including SAST, DAST, and penetration testing.
    • Mitigation: Integrate security scanning tools into the CI/CD pipeline. Perform periodic penetration testing by security professionals.
  • Secure Configuration Management:
    • Recommendation: Securely manage application configurations, especially sensitive information like database credentials and API keys. Avoid hardcoding secrets in code.
    • Mitigation: Use environment variables or secure configuration management tools (e.g., Kubernetes Secrets, HashiCorp Vault) to store and manage sensitive configurations.

For DevOps/System Administrators:

  • Web Server and PHP Hardening:
    • Recommendation: Harden the Web Server (Nginx/Apache) and PHP environments. Disable unnecessary modules and functions, configure secure TLS/SSL settings, and apply security patches promptly.
    • Mitigation: Follow security hardening guides for Web Servers and PHP. Implement regular patching and vulnerability scanning for these components.
  • Container Security:
    • Recommendation: Secure container images and runtime environments. Use minimal base images, perform container image scanning, and apply least privilege principles for container configurations.
    • Mitigation: Implement container security best practices. Use security scanning tools for container images and runtime environments.
  • Kubernetes Security:
    • Recommendation: Secure the Kubernetes cluster. Implement RBAC, network policies, pod security policies/admission controllers, and regularly audit Kubernetes configurations.
    • Mitigation: Follow Kubernetes security best practices. Use Kubernetes security auditing tools and regularly review cluster configurations.
  • Network Security:
    • Recommendation: Implement network security controls to protect the application and database. Use network policies in Kubernetes to restrict network traffic, and consider using a Web Application Firewall (WAF).
    • Mitigation: Configure network policies to limit communication between pods and external networks. Deploy and configure a WAF to protect against common web attacks.
  • Monitoring and Logging (Infrastructure Level):
    • Recommendation: Implement comprehensive monitoring and logging for the infrastructure components (Web Server, PHP, Database, Kubernetes). Monitor for security events and anomalies.
    • Mitigation: Set up centralized logging and monitoring systems. Configure alerts for security-relevant events.

5. Actionable and Tailored Mitigation Strategies

Here are actionable and tailored mitigation strategies for identified threats, applicable to Fat-Free Framework:

Threat 1: SQL Injection Vulnerabilities

  • Threat: Developers might write insecure database queries, leading to SQL injection vulnerabilities.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Framework Level):
    • Strategy: Enforce Parameterized Queries in Database Abstraction Layer.
    • Implementation: Modify the FFF database abstraction layer to only support parameterized queries or prepared statements. Remove or deprecate any methods that allow developers to easily construct raw SQL queries without parameterization. Provide clear examples and documentation emphasizing parameterized queries.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Application Developer Level):
    • Strategy: Mandatory Use of FFF Database Abstraction Layer with Parameterized Queries.
    • Implementation: Application developers should be strictly trained and guided to always use the FFF database abstraction layer and its parameterized query features. Code reviews should specifically check for any instances of raw SQL queries. Static analysis tools can be integrated into the CI/CD pipeline to detect potential SQL injection vulnerabilities.

Threat 2: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Vulnerabilities

  • Threat: Developers might fail to properly encode output, leading to XSS vulnerabilities.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Framework Level):
    • Strategy: Automatic Output Encoding in Template Engine.
    • Implementation: Configure the FFF template engine to automatically escape output by default. Provide clear documentation on how to handle cases where raw output is intentionally needed (and the associated security risks). Consider using a template engine that inherently encourages or enforces secure output encoding.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Application Developer Level):
    • Strategy: Leverage Automatic Output Encoding and Perform Context-Specific Encoding When Necessary.
    • Implementation: Developers should rely on the framework's automatic output encoding. For cases where raw output is required, they must understand context-specific encoding techniques and apply them correctly. Code reviews should verify proper output encoding practices.

Threat 3: Insecure Session Management

  • Threat: Applications might use insecure session management practices, leading to session hijacking or fixation attacks.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Framework Level):
    • Strategy: Provide Secure Session Management Defaults and Configuration Options.
    • Implementation: Set secure defaults for session management (e.g., secure session storage, HTTP-only and secure flags for session cookies). Provide clear configuration options for developers to customize session security settings (e.g., session timeout, session regeneration). Document best practices for secure session management.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Application Developer Level):
    • Strategy: Configure and Utilize Secure Session Management Features Provided by FFF.
    • Implementation: Developers should carefully configure session management settings based on their application's security requirements, following FFF's documentation and best practices. Regularly review session management configurations and ensure they are aligned with security guidelines.

Threat 4: Dependency Vulnerabilities

  • Threat: Both the framework and applications might rely on vulnerable dependencies.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Framework Level):
    • Strategy: Automated Dependency Scanning and Regular Updates for Framework Dependencies.
    • Implementation: Integrate automated dependency scanning tools (e.g., OWASP Dependency-Check) into the FFF CI/CD pipeline. Establish a process for regularly updating framework dependencies and patching vulnerabilities promptly. Communicate dependency updates and security advisories to the community.
  • Actionable Mitigation Strategy (Application Developer Level):
    • Strategy: Dependency Scanning and Management in Application Development Workflow.
    • Implementation: Application developers should integrate dependency scanning tools into their application CI/CD pipelines. Use dependency management tools (e.g., Composer) to track and update dependencies. Establish a process for regularly reviewing and updating application dependencies to address known vulnerabilities.

By implementing these specific and actionable mitigation strategies, both the Fat-Free Framework and applications built upon it can significantly enhance their security posture, addressing key threats and promoting secure development practices. The shared responsibility model requires both framework developers and application developers to actively participate in securing the overall ecosystem.