mitigations.md

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for dingo/api

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Route Definition and Validation (using dingo/api)

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Route Definition and Validation

• Description:
  1. dingo/api Route Definitions: Use dingo/api's routing mechanisms (api.Group, api.POST, api.GET, etc.) to explicitly define all routes. Avoid any "magic" routing or undocumented endpoints.
  2. Consistent Naming: Maintain a consistent and well-documented naming convention for all routes within the dingo/api framework.
  3. Code Reviews (Focus on dingo/api Usage): Mandate code reviews, specifically checking for:
     • Correct use of dingo/api's routing functions.
     • Adherence to the naming convention.
     • Proper application of middleware (authentication, authorization, validation) within the dingo/api route definitions.
     • No "shadow" routes or workarounds that bypass dingo/api.
  4. Automated Route Testing (Targeting dingo/api): Implement automated tests that:
     • Use dingo/api's testing utilities (if available) or directly interact with the defined routes.
     • Verify that all dingo/api-defined routes are accessible and return expected responses.
     • Attempt to access routes not defined within dingo/api and verify rejection.
     • Test different HTTP methods against dingo/api routes.
• Threats Mitigated:
  • Unintended Endpoint Exposure (Severity: High): Prevents exposure of endpoints not explicitly defined within dingo/api.
  • Bypassing Authentication/Authorization (Severity: High): Ensures that dingo/api's middleware for authentication/authorization is correctly applied to all intended routes.
  • Inconsistent API Behavior (Severity: Medium): Ensures that all API interactions go through the defined dingo/api routes, providing a consistent interface.
• Impact:
  • Unintended Endpoint Exposure: Risk significantly reduced by strictly defining routes within dingo/api.
  • Bypassing Authentication/Authorization: Risk significantly reduced by ensuring consistent middleware application.
  • Inconsistent API Behavior: Risk minimized by enforcing the use of dingo/api for all API interactions.
• Currently Implemented:
  • Basic route definitions using dingo/api are in place.
  • Code reviews are mandatory.
• Missing Implementation:
  • Comprehensive negative tests specifically targeting dingo/api routes are missing.
  • Formalized audits of dingo/api route definitions are not in place.

Mitigation Strategy: Explicit Versioning Control (within dingo/api)

Mitigation Strategy: Explicit Versioning Control

• Description:
  1. dingo/api Versioning Features: Exclusively use dingo/api's built-in versioning mechanisms (e.g., route prefixes like /v1, /v2, or versioning headers). Do not rely on any custom versioning schemes outside of dingo/api.
  2. Deprecation Policy (Tied to dingo/api): Define a clear deprecation policy that leverages dingo/api's features:
     • Use dingo/api's mechanisms (if available) to mark routes as deprecated.
     • Communicate deprecation through dingo/api-provided means (e.g., deprecation headers, if supported).
  3. dingo/api Deprecation Middleware: Implement middleware within the dingo/api framework that:
     • Detects requests to deprecated routes (using dingo/api's routing information).
     • Logs these requests.
     • Returns deprecation warnings using dingo/api's response handling (if supported).
  4. dingo/api Version Enforcement Middleware: Implement middleware within dingo/api that rejects requests to unsupported or invalid API versions, using dingo/api's versioning information.
• Threats Mitigated:
  • Information Disclosure via Deprecated Routes (Severity: Medium-High): Prevents exploitation of vulnerabilities in older API versions managed by dingo/api.
  • Compatibility Issues (Severity: Medium): Provides a consistent versioning mechanism within dingo/api.
  • Unintentional Use of Old Versions (Severity: Low-Medium): Enforces the use of supported dingo/api versions.
• Impact:
  • Information Disclosure: Risk reduced over time as dingo/api versions are deprecated and removed.
  • Compatibility: Risk minimized by using dingo/api's versioning consistently.
  • Unintentional Use of Old Versions: Risk largely eliminated by enforcing versioning within dingo/api's middleware.
• Currently Implemented:
  • dingo/api versioning (route prefixes) is used.
• Missing Implementation:
  • dingo/api-specific deprecation middleware is not implemented.
  • dingo/api-specific version enforcement middleware is not implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Comprehensive Request Validation (using dingo/api features)

Mitigation Strategy: Comprehensive Request Validation

• Description:
  1. dingo/api Validation Mechanisms: Utilize dingo/api's built-in request validation features exclusively. This likely involves:
     • Struct tags on request models (e.g., validate:"required,email").
     • Custom validators registered with dingo/api.
     • dingo/api's mechanisms for binding request data to models.
  2. Validate All Input Sources (within dingo/api): Ensure that all input sources handled by dingo/api are validated:
     • Request bodies (JSON, XML, etc.) parsed by dingo/api.
     • Query parameters accessed through dingo/api.
     • Headers accessed through dingo/api.
     • Path parameters extracted by dingo/api.
  3. dingo/api Error Handling: Leverage dingo/api's error handling to automatically reject requests with invalid data before any custom application logic is executed. Ensure dingo/api is configured to return appropriate HTTP status codes (e.g., 400 Bad Request).
  4. Automated Testing (Targeting dingo/api Validation): Implement tests that specifically exercise dingo/api's validation rules:
     • Send valid and invalid data to dingo/api endpoints.
     • Verify that dingo/api correctly validates the input and returns appropriate responses.
  5. dingo/api Transformers: Utilize dingo/api transformers to perform data type conversions and basic sanitization before the validation logic within dingo/api is executed.
• Threats Mitigated:
  • Injection Attacks (Severity: High): dingo/api's validation (when properly configured) can help prevent injection attacks by ensuring data conforms to expected types and patterns.
  • Data Type Mismatches (Severity: Medium): dingo/api's validation enforces data types.
  • Business Logic Errors (Severity: Low-Medium): dingo/api's validation ensures data is valid before reaching application logic.
• Impact:
  • Injection Attacks: Risk reduced, provided dingo/api's validation is comprehensive and correctly configured.
  • Data Type Mismatches: Risk largely eliminated.
  • Business Logic Errors: Risk reduced.
• Currently Implemented:
  • Some request models use struct tags for validation within dingo/api.
• Missing Implementation:
  • Validation is not consistently applied to all input sources handled by dingo/api.
  • More comprehensive validation rules (regular expressions, custom validators) are needed within dingo/api's configuration.
  • Automated tests specifically targeting dingo/api's validation are limited.
  • Transformers are not consistently used.

Mitigation Strategy: Custom Error Handling (within dingo/api)

Mitigation Strategy: Custom Error Handling

• Description:
  1. dingo/api Error Handler Override: Implement a custom error handler that completely overrides dingo/api's default error handling. This handler should be registered with dingo/api.
  2. Internal Logging (Separate from dingo/api): While the custom handler is part of dingo/api, the logging should be handled separately (using a dedicated logging library). Log detailed error information, including stack traces, outside of dingo/api's response handling.
  3. Generic Client Responses (via dingo/api): Use dingo/api's response mechanisms to return generic, user-friendly error messages to the client. Never expose internal error details or stack traces through dingo/api.
  4. Standardized Error Format (using dingo/api): If dingo/api supports it, use a standardized error format (e.g., JSON API error objects) for consistency.
  5. dingo/api Integration: Ensure the custom error handler is correctly integrated with dingo/api's request lifecycle.
• Threats Mitigated:
  • Information Disclosure (Severity: Medium-High): Prevents dingo/api from leaking sensitive information in error responses.
  • Consistent User Experience (Severity: Low): Provides a consistent error experience through dingo/api.
• Impact:
  • Information Disclosure: Risk significantly reduced by preventing dingo/api from exposing internal details.
  • Consistent User Experience: Improved user experience.
• Currently Implemented:
  • A basic custom error handler is defined, but it's not fully integrated with dingo/api and still leaks some information.
• Missing Implementation:
  • The custom error handler needs to be fully integrated with dingo/api and completely prevent information disclosure.
  • A standardized error format (using dingo/api's features, if available) is not used.

Mitigation Strategy: Authentication and Authorization (using dingo/api Middleware)

Mitigation Strategy: Authentication and Authorization (using dingo/api Middleware)

• Description:
  1. dingo/api Authentication Middleware: Use dingo/api's middleware system to implement authentication. This likely involves:
     • Registering authentication middleware with dingo/api.
     • Using dingo/api's mechanisms for accessing authenticated user information within request handlers.
  2. dingo/api Authorization Middleware: Use dingo/api's middleware system to implement authorization after authentication. This involves:
     • Registering authorization middleware with dingo/api.
     • Applying authorization checks to specific routes or groups of routes within dingo/api.
     • Using dingo/api's context to access user roles or permissions.
  3. Route-Specific Middleware: Apply authentication and authorization middleware specifically to the dingo/api routes that require it. Avoid global middleware that might unintentionally affect other parts of the application.
  4. Rate Limiting (within dingo/api Auth context): If dingo/api provides mechanisms, implement rate limiting within the authentication middleware or logic to protect authentication endpoints.
• Threats Mitigated:
  • Unauthorized Access (Severity: High): dingo/api's middleware enforces authentication and authorization.
  • Brute-Force Attacks (Severity: Medium-High): Rate limiting within dingo/api's authentication context mitigates these attacks.
  • Privilege Escalation (Severity: High): dingo/api's authorization middleware prevents unauthorized privilege escalation.
• Impact:
  • Unauthorized Access: Risk significantly reduced by using dingo/api's middleware.
  • Brute-Force Attacks: Risk mitigated if rate limiting is implemented within dingo/api.
  • Privilege Escalation: Risk significantly reduced.
• Currently Implemented:
  • JWT authentication is used, with some integration with dingo/api's middleware.
• Missing Implementation:
  • Authorization middleware within dingo/api is not consistently applied.
  • Rate limiting within the dingo/api authentication context is not implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Response Handling (Leveraging dingo/api)

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Response Handling

• Description:
  1. Content-Type with dingo/api: Always use dingo/api's response methods to explicitly set the Content-Type header.
  2. Accept Header Validation (within dingo/api): Use dingo/api's request handling to validate the Accept header and ensure the response Content-Type is compatible.
  3. Security Headers (via dingo/api Middleware): Implement a middleware within dingo/api to automatically add security-related HTTP headers to all responses handled by dingo/api:
     • Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS)
     • X-Content-Type-Options
     • X-Frame-Options
     • Content-Security-Policy (CSP)
     • X-XSS-Protection
  4. Response Sanitization (Before dingo/api Response): Ensure that any data being returned through dingo/api's response methods is properly sanitized before it's passed to dingo/api. This is crucial for preventing XSS.
• Threats Mitigated:
  • MIME-Sniffing (Severity: Medium): X-Content-Type-Options (set via dingo/api middleware) prevents this.
  • Clickjacking (Severity: Medium): X-Frame-Options (set via dingo/api middleware) prevents this.
  • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (Severity: High): CSP (set via dingo/api middleware) and pre-response sanitization mitigate XSS.
  • Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) (Severity: High): HSTS (set via dingo/api middleware) enforces HTTPS.
• Impact:
  • MIME-Sniffing: Risk eliminated.
  • Clickjacking: Risk significantly reduced.
  • XSS: Risk significantly reduced.
  • MITM: Risk significantly reduced (with proper HTTPS configuration).
• Currently Implemented:
  • dingo/api is used to set Content-Type, but validation against Accept is inconsistent.
• Missing Implementation:
  • dingo/api middleware for security headers is not implemented.
  • Consistent sanitization before using dingo/api's response methods is missing.