attack-surface.md

Attack Surface Analysis for dingo/api

Attack Surface: 1. Unsecured or Unintended Endpoint Exposure

Description: Exposing API endpoints without proper access controls or unintentionally exposing routes due to misconfiguration.

• How API Contributes: dingo/api's routing mechanism defines how URLs are mapped to handlers. Incorrect route definitions, lack of authentication/authorization middleware in route configurations, or overly permissive route patterns directly lead to this exposure.
• Example: Defining a route like /admin/{entity} with a wildcard without proper authorization middleware allows unauthorized access to administrative functions for any entity.
• Impact: Unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification of critical data, execution of administrative functionalities, potentially leading to full application compromise.
• Risk Severity: Critical
• Mitigation Strategies:
  • Implement Authentication and Authorization Middleware: Mandatory use of dingo/api's middleware for authentication and authorization on all sensitive routes.
  • Principle of Least Privilege in Route Definition: Define routes with specific paths and methods, avoiding broad wildcards unless strictly necessary and secured.
  • Regular Route Audits: Periodically review and audit all defined routes in dingo/api configuration to ensure intended exposure and proper security measures.

Attack Surface: 2. Lack of Input Validation leading to Injection Attacks

Description: Failure to validate user input processed by API endpoints, leading to vulnerabilities like SQL injection, command injection, etc.

• How API Contributes: While dingo/api itself doesn't enforce input validation, its request handling mechanisms (parameter parsing, request body handling) provide the entry points for user input. If developers don't implement validation within dingo/api handlers or middleware, the framework facilitates the vulnerability.
• Example: An API endpoint /users/{id} retrieves user data based on the id path parameter. If the handler directly uses the id in a database query without validation, SQL injection is possible.
• Impact: Data breaches, data manipulation, unauthorized access, potentially remote code execution depending on the injection type and application context.
• Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the type of injection and its exploitability).
• Mitigation Strategies:
  • Implement Input Validation Middleware: Create and apply dingo/api middleware to validate all incoming request data (parameters, headers, body) before processing in handlers.
  • Use Secure Data Handling Practices: Employ parameterized queries or ORMs to prevent SQL injection. Sanitize or escape user input when necessary for other contexts.
  • Strict Input Type Checking: Enforce expected data types and formats for all API inputs within dingo/api handlers.

Attack Surface: 3. Missing or Weak Authentication and Authorization

Description: Absence of proper mechanisms to verify user identity (authentication) and control access to resources (authorization) within the API.

• How API Contributes: dingo/api relies on developers to implement authentication and authorization using its middleware capabilities. If these are not implemented or are implemented weakly within the dingo/api application, the framework becomes a conduit for unauthorized access.
• Example: An API for managing user profiles lacks any authentication middleware in dingo/api configuration. Anyone can access endpoints like /api/profile/update without proving their identity, leading to unauthorized profile modifications.
• Impact: Unauthorized access to sensitive data, data manipulation, privilege escalation, complete compromise of user accounts and application data.
• Risk Severity: Critical
• Mitigation Strategies:
  • Mandatory Authentication Middleware: Enforce authentication for all protected API endpoints using robust methods like OAuth 2.0, JWT, or API keys within dingo/api middleware.
  • Fine-Grained Authorization Logic: Implement authorization checks within dingo/api handlers or middleware to control access based on user roles and permissions.
  • Regular Security Audits of Access Control: Periodically review and test authentication and authorization implementations within the dingo/api application.

Attack Surface: 4. Dependency Vulnerabilities in dingo/api and its Dependencies

Description: Vulnerabilities present in dingo/api itself or in the underlying Go packages it depends on.

• How API Contributes: Applications directly rely on dingo/api and its dependencies. If vulnerabilities exist in these components, they become part of the application's attack surface through the use of dingo/api.
• Example: A critical security flaw is discovered in a specific version of a library used by dingo/api for JSON parsing. Applications using that version of dingo/api are vulnerable to exploits targeting this flaw.
• Impact: Remote code execution, denial of service, data breaches, or other impacts depending on the nature of the dependency vulnerability.
• Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the severity of the vulnerability).
• Mitigation Strategies:
  • Regularly Update dingo/api: Keep dingo/api updated to the latest stable version to receive security patches and bug fixes.
  • Dependency Scanning and Management: Implement dependency scanning tools to identify vulnerabilities in dingo/api's dependencies and manage dependency updates proactively.
  • Monitor Security Advisories: Subscribe to security advisories for dingo/api and its ecosystem to stay informed about new vulnerabilities.