Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
59 lines (49 loc) · 5.63 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

59 lines (49 loc) · 5.63 KB

Threat Model Analysis for abi/screenshot-to-code

Threat: Malicious Screenshot Injection (XSS via Image)

  • Threat: Malicious Screenshot Injection (XSS via Image)

    • Description: An attacker crafts a screenshot that visually appears benign but, when processed by screenshot-to-code, generates code containing malicious JavaScript (XSS payload). This payload could steal cookies, redirect users, or otherwise compromise the application. The core vulnerability lies in screenshot-to-code's inability to distinguish between visually harmless and semantically malicious content within the image.
    • Impact:
      • Compromise of user accounts.
      • Data theft (session cookies, user input).
      • Defacement of the application.
      • Redirection to phishing sites.
      • Loss of user trust.
    • Affected Component:
      • screenshot-to-code's image processing and code generation engine (specifically the AI model and the code generation logic that translates the model's output into HTML/CSS/JS).
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Output Sanitization: Employ a robust HTML/CSS/JS sanitization library (e.g., DOMPurify) to remove all potentially dangerous elements and attributes from the generated code before it is used or rendered. This is the primary defense.
      • Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strict CSP to limit the sources from which scripts can be loaded, providing a secondary layer of defense against XSS.
      • Limited UI Element Generation: Configure screenshot-to-code (if possible) or modify its output to strictly limit the types of HTML elements generated. Forbid <script>, <form>, <input type="password">, and other high-risk elements.
      • Code Review (Automated/Manual): Implement a review process (preferably automated) for all generated code before deployment.

Threat: API Request/Response Tampering

  • Threat: API Request/Response Tampering

    • Description: An attacker intercepts the network communication between the application and the screenshot-to-code backend (e.g., OpenAI API). They modify the request (altering the screenshot data) or the response (injecting malicious code into the generated HTML/CSS/JS). This relies on a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack, exploiting vulnerabilities in the communication channel.
    • Impact:
      • Similar to Malicious Screenshot Injection, but the attack vector is network-based.
      • Potential for complete control over the generated code.
      • Bypass of client-side security measures.
    • Affected Component:
      • The network communication layer between the application and the screenshot-to-code backend API. This is a direct threat because the application relies on this external service.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • HTTPS with Strict Certificate Validation: Use HTTPS for all communication with the backend. Ensure the application rigorously validates the server's certificate to prevent MitM attacks. Never disable certificate verification.
      • Request Signing (If Supported): If the backend API supports request signing or other authentication mechanisms, implement them to guarantee the integrity and authenticity of requests.
      • Response Validation: Perform basic sanity checks on the response from the backend. Look for unexpected data types, sizes, or structures. While comprehensive validation is difficult, basic checks can detect some tampering.

Threat: Denial of Service (DoS) via Backend Overload

  • Threat: Denial of Service (DoS) via Backend Overload

    • Description: An attacker submits a large volume of screenshots, excessively large images, or computationally complex screenshots to the screenshot-to-code service. This overwhelms the backend, making it unavailable to legitimate users. This directly impacts the availability of the screenshot-to-code service, which the application depends on.
    • Impact:
      • Application downtime due to the unavailability of the screenshot-to-code service.
      • Loss of functionality.
      • Potential financial losses.
      • Reputational damage.
    • Affected Component:
      • The screenshot-to-code backend service (e.g., OpenAI API, image processing servers).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Rate Limiting: Implement strict rate limiting on screenshot submissions, both per user and globally, to prevent abuse.
      • Input Size Limits: Enforce limits on the maximum file size and dimensions of screenshots that can be processed.
      • Complexity Analysis (Advanced): Ideally, estimate the computational complexity of processing a screenshot before sending it to the backend. Reject screenshots that are likely to be too resource-intensive. This is a complex mitigation.
      • Backend Monitoring and Scaling: Monitor the backend service for signs of overload and scale resources (e.g., increase server capacity) as needed. This is the responsibility of the screenshot-to-code provider, but the application should have monitoring in place to detect issues.
      • Queueing System: Use a message queue (e.g., RabbitMQ, Kafka) to handle screenshot processing asynchronously. This prevents a surge of requests from overwhelming the backend.