Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
46 lines (39 loc) · 5.85 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

46 lines (39 loc) · 5.85 KB

Threat Model Analysis for intervention/image

Threat: Image Bomb / Resource Exhaustion

  • Threat: Image Bomb / Resource Exhaustion
    • Description: An attacker uploads a maliciously crafted image (e.g., highly compressed, extremely large dimensions, or a "zip bomb" disguised as an image) designed to consume excessive server resources (CPU, memory, disk space) during processing by the image processing libraries. The attacker aims to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition, making the application unavailable. The core issue is the image content itself causing the problem.
    • Impact: Denial of service; application becomes unresponsive; potential server crash; financial losses due to downtime.
    • Affected Component: Core image processing functions within Intervention/Image that interact with underlying libraries (ImageMagick or GD): Image::make(), resize(), crop(), and encoding functions like encode(), save(). The underlying libraries (ImageMagick or GD) are the direct targets of the malicious image data.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Input Validation: Enforce maximum file size limits (e.g., 2MB), maximum image dimensions (e.g., 4096x4096), and validate the image type before processing (using more than just the file extension – use MIME type detection and potentially magic number checks). This is crucial to prevent obviously oversized or malformed images from even reaching the processing stage.
      • Resource Limits: Set PHP's memory_limit and max_execution_time to reasonable values. This limits the damage a single image can do.
      • Asynchronous Processing: Use a queue system (e.g., Redis, RabbitMQ) to process images asynchronously. This prevents a single malicious upload from blocking the main web server.
      • Timeout Handling: Implement timeouts for image processing. If an operation takes too long, terminate it.
      • Image Re-encoding: Re-encode all uploaded images to a standard format and quality (e.g., JPEG with 80% quality). This can normalize images and mitigate some decompression bomb attacks.
      • Rate Limiting: Limit image uploads per user/IP address.
      • Web Application Firewall (WAF): A WAF can sometimes detect and block known image bomb patterns.
      • Monitoring: Monitor server resource usage and set up alerts.

Threat: Code Injection via Image Processing Library Vulnerability

  • Threat: Code Injection via Image Processing Library Vulnerability
    • Description: An attacker exploits a known or zero-day vulnerability in the underlying image processing libraries (ImageMagick or GD) through a specially crafted image. The attacker uploads this image, designed to trigger the vulnerability, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution on the server. The vulnerability is triggered by the image data itself.
    • Impact: Remote code execution (RCE); complete server compromise; data theft; data modification; installation of malware.
    • Affected Component: The underlying image processing libraries (ImageMagick or GD) that Intervention/Image uses. Intervention/Image is the conduit, but the vulnerability lies in the libraries' handling of the malicious image content.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Keep Software Updated: Crucially, regularly update Intervention/Image, ImageMagick, GD, and all system libraries. This is the primary defense against known vulnerabilities.
      • Least Privilege: Run the web server and image processing with the least privileges necessary.
      • Sandboxing: Consider a sandboxed environment (e.g., Docker) to isolate image processing.
      • Vulnerability Scanning: Regularly scan for vulnerabilities.
      • Web Application Firewall (WAF): A WAF might detect and block some exploit attempts.
      • Input Validation (Defense in Depth): Strict input validation (as in the "Image Bomb" threat) can reduce the attack surface, though it's not a complete solution. This helps prevent obviously malformed images from reaching the vulnerable code.

Threat: Metadata Exploitation / Information Disclosure (Focus on malicious injection)

  • Threat: Metadata Exploitation / Information Disclosure (Focus on malicious injection)
    • Description: An attacker uploads an image and attempts to inject malicious metadata (EXIF, XMP) to mislead the application or other users. This differs from simple leakage; the attacker is actively trying to modify or add harmful metadata. This is a high risk because the attacker is actively manipulating the image data.
    • Impact: Misleading application behavior; potential for social engineering if metadata is displayed to users; potential for vulnerabilities if the application uses the metadata in insecure ways (e.g., displaying it without sanitization).
    • Affected Component: Intervention/Image's metadata handling functions (exif(), and any code that reads or writes image metadata). The attacker is targeting how the application interprets the image's metadata.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Metadata Stripping: Remove all metadata by default. This is the safest approach. Use $image->destroy() after processing.
      • Whitelist Approach: If specific metadata is needed, use a strict whitelist and only retain those fields.
      • Sanitization: If retaining any metadata, thoroughly sanitize it to remove any potentially harmful characters or values before using or displaying it.