Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
95 lines (72 loc) · 8.38 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

95 lines (72 loc) · 8.38 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for roots/sage

Mitigation Strategy: Proactive Dependency Management and Monitoring (Sage-Specific Aspects)

1. Mitigation Strategy: Proactive Dependency Management and Monitoring (Sage-Specific Aspects)

  • Description:

    1. Establish a Schedule: Create a recurring calendar event (e.g., monthly) to review and update Sage's front-end dependencies.
    2. Identify Outdated Packages: Run npm outdated (or yarn outdated) in the theme directory. This lists Node.js packages with newer versions available. Sage heavily relies on these for its build process and front-end functionality.
    3. Update Packages: Run npm update (or yarn upgrade) to update packages to their latest compatible versions. Pay close attention to updates for:
      • Webpack and its loaders/plugins: These are crucial for Sage's asset compilation.
      • Bootstrap (if used): Sage 9 often includes older versions. Update to the latest supported version within Sage 9's compatibility range.
      • jQuery (if used): Similar to Bootstrap, update to the latest compatible version. Consider migrating away from jQuery if possible, as newer versions of Sage (v10+) move away from it.
      • Any other front-end libraries: Font Awesome, Slick Slider, etc.
    4. Audit for Vulnerabilities: Run npm audit (or yarn audit) to check for known vulnerabilities in your Node.js dependencies. Address any reported issues.
    5. Lock Dependency Versions: Ensure package-lock.json (npm) or yarn.lock (Yarn) are committed to version control. This is critical for Sage to ensure consistent builds across environments.
    6. Automated Scanning: Integrate a vulnerability scanning tool (e.g., Snyk, Dependabot) into your CI/CD pipeline to automatically scan for vulnerabilities in your Node.js dependencies on every commit/pull request. This is particularly important for Sage's build process.
    7. Vendor Security Advisories: Subscribe to security mailing lists or follow the social media accounts of the vendors of your key dependencies (Bootstrap, jQuery, Webpack, etc.).

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Front-End Dependency Vulnerabilities (Severity: High to Critical): Exploitation of known vulnerabilities in outdated front-end dependencies (e.g., XSS in an old jQuery version, vulnerabilities in Webpack loaders).
    • Build Process Vulnerabilities (Severity: High): Vulnerabilities in Webpack or its plugins could allow attackers to inject malicious code during the build process.
    • Inconsistent Builds (Severity: Medium): Different dependency versions across environments leading to inconsistent builds and unexpected behavior.

  • Impact:

    • Front-End Dependency Vulnerabilities: Risk reduced significantly (70-90%) by keeping dependencies updated and using vulnerability scanning.
    • Build Process Vulnerabilities: Risk reduced (50-70%) by keeping Webpack and related tools updated.
    • Inconsistent Builds: Risk eliminated (100%) by using dependency locking.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • package-lock.json is committed to version control.
    • Occasional npm update.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • No scheduled dependency update process.
    • No automated vulnerability scanning.
    • npm audit is not regularly used.
    • Not subscribed to vendor security advisories.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Build Process (Sage-Specific Aspects)

2. Mitigation Strategy: Secure Build Process (Sage-Specific Aspects)

  • Description:

    1. Review webpack.config.js: Regularly (e.g., with each major code change) review webpack.config.js and any other build configuration files (e.g., Gulpfile if used).
      • Ensure no sensitive information (API keys, credentials) is hardcoded. Use environment variables instead (often via a .env file, which should not be committed to version control).
      • Verify that any Webpack plugins or loaders used are from trusted sources and are up-to-date. Outdated loaders can have vulnerabilities.
      • Check for any misconfigurations that could expose source maps or other sensitive information in production.
    2. Avoid Inline Scripts/Styles (where possible): While Sage's structure encourages separating concerns, be mindful of any inline scripts or styles introduced during development within Blade templates. These can be harder to audit and may bypass some security mechanisms. Prefer external files managed by Sage's Webpack build process.
    3. Content Security Policy (CSP) with Webpack Consideration: When defining your CSP, be aware of how Sage's Webpack build process handles assets. You might need to configure script-src and style-src directives to allow for hashed or nonced scripts/styles generated by Webpack. This is crucial for Sage, as it heavily relies on Webpack for asset management.

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Exposure of Sensitive Information (Severity: High): API keys or credentials leaked through webpack.config.js.
    • Build-Time Code Injection (Severity: High): Attackers modifying the Webpack configuration to include malicious scripts or styles during the build.
    • Bypass of CSP (Severity: Medium): Inline scripts or styles violating the Content Security Policy, or Webpack-generated assets not being allowed by the CSP.

  • Impact:

    • Exposure of Sensitive Information: Risk eliminated (100%) by removing sensitive information from webpack.config.js.
    • Build-Time Code Injection: Risk reduced (40-60%) by reviewing webpack.config.js and keeping build tools updated.
    • Bypass of CSP: Risk eliminated (100%) by correctly configuring CSP to work with Webpack-generated assets and avoiding inline scripts/styles where possible.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Sensitive information is stored in environment variables.
    • Basic CSP is implemented.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Infrequent review of webpack.config.js.
    • Some inline styles are present in Blade templates.
    • CSP is not fully optimized for Webpack-generated assets (hashes/nonces).

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Use of Blade (Sage-Specific Aspects)

3. Mitigation Strategy: Secure Use of Blade (Sage-Specific Aspects)

  • Description:

    1. Automatic Escaping Awareness: Understand that Blade's {{ $variable }} syntax automatically escapes HTML entities. This is a core feature of Blade and a key part of Sage's security.
    2. Raw Output Caution: Be extremely cautious when using the {!! $variable !!} syntax, which outputs raw, unescaped data. Only use this when absolutely necessary and when you are certain the data is safe (e.g., after manually sanitizing it using appropriate WordPress functions). Never use it directly with user-supplied data. This is a common source of XSS vulnerabilities in Blade templates.
    3. Custom Directive Security: If you create custom Blade directives (using @directive), ensure they handle escaping correctly. If the directive outputs HTML, use Blade's e() helper function to escape variables within the directive's output.
    4. Blade Component Escaping: When passing data to Blade components (Sage 9's way of creating reusable UI elements), ensure that the data is escaped within the component's template if it's displayed. Don't assume that data passed to a component is automatically safe.

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via Blade Templates (Severity: High): Injection of malicious scripts through Blade templates, specifically due to misuse of raw output or insecure custom directives/components.

  • Impact:

    • XSS: Risk significantly reduced (70-90%) by using Blade's automatic escaping correctly, being extremely cautious with raw output, and securing custom directives and components.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • {{ }} is used for most output.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Some instances of {!! !!} are used without proper sanitization.
    • No specific security review of custom Blade directives or components.