Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
55 lines (45 loc) · 5.99 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

55 lines (45 loc) · 5.99 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for abi/screenshot-to-code

Attack Surface: Malicious Image Input (Image Processing Exploits)

  • Attack Surface: Malicious Image Input (Image Processing Exploits)

    • Description: Exploitation of vulnerabilities in image processing libraries used by the backend to handle uploaded screenshots.
    • screenshot-to-code Contribution: The core functionality relies on processing user-provided image files, making this a primary entry point for attacks. This is directly related to the library's image handling.
    • Example: An attacker uploads a specially crafted PNG file that triggers a buffer overflow in the libpng library used by the backend, leading to arbitrary code execution.
    • Impact: Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the backend server, potentially leading to complete system compromise.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use a robust image processing library: Choose a well-maintained and security-focused image processing library (e.g., ImageMagick with security policies, or a memory-safe alternative).
      • Keep libraries up-to-date: Regularly update all image processing dependencies to patch known vulnerabilities.
      • Image Sanitization: Implement image sanitization techniques (e.g., re-encoding the image to a standard format, stripping metadata) to remove potentially malicious content.
      • Input Validation: Validate image dimensions, file size, and format before processing. Reject excessively large or malformed images.
      • Sandboxing: Run image processing in a sandboxed environment (e.g., a container with limited privileges) to contain potential exploits.
      • WAF (Web Application Firewall): Use a WAF with rules to detect and block known image exploit patterns.

Attack Surface: Indirect Prompt Injection (LLM Manipulation)

  • Attack Surface: Indirect Prompt Injection (LLM Manipulation)

    • Description: Manipulation of the LLM's output by crafting a screenshot with specific visual elements or text that influences the generated code.
    • screenshot-to-code Contribution: The image itself acts as the primary input (indirect prompt) to the LLM, making it the vector for this attack. This is the core mechanism of how screenshot-to-code works, and thus the attack is directly related.
    • Example: An attacker uploads a screenshot of a web form with a hidden field containing malicious JavaScript. The LLM includes this hidden field in the generated HTML, leading to an XSS vulnerability. Another example: a screenshot showing a button labeled "Grant Admin Access" might trick the LLM into generating code that performs that action.
    • Impact: XSS, CSRF, unauthorized actions, data exfiltration, generation of insecure or buggy code.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Output Sanitization: Always treat the LLM's output as untrusted. Thoroughly sanitize the generated HTML, CSS, and any other code using a robust HTML sanitizer and appropriate escaping techniques.
      • Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strict CSP to limit the execution of inline scripts and other potentially dangerous content, mitigating XSS.
      • LLM Input Filtering (Difficult but Important): Attempt to detect and filter potentially malicious visual patterns or text within the screenshot before sending it to the LLM. This is challenging but can reduce the attack surface. Examples include:
        • OCR and Text Analysis: Use OCR to extract text from the image and analyze it for potentially malicious keywords or patterns.
        • Object Detection: Use object detection to identify potentially sensitive UI elements (e.g., password fields, admin panels) and flag them for review or rejection.
      • Human Review (for High-Risk Scenarios): For applications where security is paramount, consider incorporating human review of the generated code before deployment.
      • Least Privilege for LLM: Ensure the LLM has absolutely minimal access to any sensitive data or backend systems.
      • Contextual Awareness (Ideal but Advanced): Ideally, the system should be designed to understand the context of the screenshot and the intended functionality.

Attack Surface: Data Leakage to Third-Party LLM Provider

  • Attack Surface: Data Leakage to Third-Party LLM Provider

    • Description: Sensitive information contained in screenshots is sent to a third-party LLM provider, potentially exposing it to unauthorized access or misuse.
    • screenshot-to-code Contribution: If a hosted LLM service is used, the screenshots are transmitted to that provider's servers. This is a direct consequence of using the screenshot-to-code library with a hosted LLM.
    • Example: A user uploads a screenshot of a dashboard containing confidential financial data. This data is sent to the LLM provider.
    • Impact: Data breach, privacy violation, regulatory non-compliance.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use a Local LLM: The best mitigation is to run the LLM locally.
      • Choose a Privacy-Focused Provider: If using a hosted service, carefully review the provider's privacy policy and security practices.
      • Data Minimization: Avoid uploading screenshots that contain sensitive information. Pre-process images to redact or blur sensitive areas.
      • Data Encryption: If possible, encrypt the image data before sending it to the LLM provider.
      • Contractual Agreements: Establish clear contractual agreements with the LLM provider regarding data handling.
      • User Awareness: Inform users about the potential risks.