Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
119 lines (88 loc) · 15.3 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

119 lines (88 loc) · 15.3 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for mingrammer/diagrams

Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization for Diagram Definitions

  • Description: 1. Define Input Schema: If diagram definitions are received from external sources (e.g., user input, API calls), define a strict schema for the expected format and structure of the diagram definition data (e.g., using JSON Schema or similar). This schema should specify allowed node types, edge types, attributes, and overall structure. 2. Validate Input Against Schema: Before processing diagram definitions with the diagrams library, validate them against the defined schema. Reject any input that does not conform to the schema. This prevents unexpected data structures from causing errors or vulnerabilities. 3. Sanitize Input Data: Sanitize input data used within diagram definitions to remove or escape potentially harmful characters or code. This is crucial if diagram definitions are processed as code or templates by the diagrams library or underlying libraries. For example, if node labels are derived from user input, sanitize them to prevent injection attacks. 4. Limit Diagram Complexity: Impose limits on the complexity and size of diagrams that can be generated from external input. This can include limits on the number of nodes, edges, layers, or total elements in the diagram. This prevents resource exhaustion and potential Denial of Service (DoS) attacks through overly complex diagrams. 5. Error Handling: Implement robust error handling for invalid diagram definitions. Provide informative error messages to users or log errors for debugging, but avoid revealing sensitive internal information in error messages. Ensure error messages don't expose internal paths or configurations related to diagram generation.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Injection Attacks (High Severity): Prevents attackers from injecting malicious code or commands into diagram generation processes through manipulated diagram definitions, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution or data breaches.
      • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium to High Severity): Prevents resource exhaustion and DoS attacks by limiting diagram complexity and rejecting overly large or complex diagram requests that could overwhelm the diagram generation process.

    • Impact:

      • Injection Attacks: High reduction in risk by preventing malicious code execution within diagram generation.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Medium to High reduction in risk by limiting resource consumption during diagram generation.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Basic validation of diagram definition structure is performed to ensure required fields like node names and connection types are present.
      • Error handling is in place to catch invalid diagram definitions and log errors, preventing application crashes.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Formal schema definition and validation using a schema language (like JSON Schema) are not implemented. Validation is currently ad-hoc and less robust.
      • Input sanitization is not systematically applied to all user-provided data that becomes part of diagram elements (e.g., node labels, edge descriptions).
      • Limits on diagram complexity (node/edge count, layers) are not enforced, potentially leaving the application vulnerable to DoS via complex diagram requests.

Mitigation Strategy: Output Sanitization and Content Security Policy (CSP) for Web Display

  • Description: 1. Output Sanitization: Sanitize the generated diagram output (e.g., SVG, PNG) after it's produced by the diagrams library and before displaying it in a web application. Use a dedicated library or function specifically designed for sanitizing SVG or image formats. This process should remove or neutralize any potentially malicious code or scripts that might have been inadvertently included in the diagram output, or could be exploited by browser vulnerabilities. 2. Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strong Content Security Policy (CSP) for the web application where diagrams are displayed. Configure CSP directives to strictly control the sources from which the application can load resources, including images, scripts, and objects. This acts as a secondary defense layer against XSS. 3. CSP Directives for Diagrams: Carefully configure CSP directives specifically related to how diagrams are displayed. Pay close attention to img-src (for PNG, JPG diagrams), object-src (for SVG diagrams potentially embedded as <object>), and script-src (if diagrams might contain or load scripts, which should ideally be avoided). Ensure that only trusted sources are allowed for these directives, or use nonce or hash based CSP for inline styles or scripts if absolutely necessary (though generally avoid inline scripts and styles in diagrams). 4. Regular CSP Review: Regularly review and update the CSP to ensure it remains effective and aligned with the application's evolving security requirements and diagram display methods. As diagram generation or display methods change, the CSP might need adjustments.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (High Severity): Prevents attackers from injecting malicious scripts into diagrams. If a vulnerability exists in the diagrams library or a browser's SVG/image rendering engine, output sanitization and CSP can prevent those vulnerabilities from being exploited to execute malicious scripts in users' browsers when they view the diagrams.

    • Impact:

      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): High reduction in risk by sanitizing diagram output and enforcing a restrictive Content Security Policy.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Basic SVG sanitization is performed using a general-purpose HTML sanitization library before displaying SVG diagrams in the web application. This library might not be specifically designed for SVG and might miss some SVG-specific XSS vectors.
      • A Content Security Policy is implemented for the web application, but it might not be finely tuned for diagram display and might be overly permissive in certain directives related to image or object sources.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Using a dedicated SVG sanitization library specifically designed to handle SVG-specific XSS vulnerabilities would improve output sanitization robustness.
      • CSP directives are not specifically tailored and hardened for diagram display. For example, object-src and img-src might be too broad, allowing resources from unnecessarily wide ranges of sources.
      • Regular, scheduled reviews and updates of the CSP are not consistently performed as part of the development lifecycle.

Mitigation Strategy: Data Minimization in Diagrams

  • Description: 1. Review Diagram Content Requirements: Carefully analyze the purpose of each diagram and the information it needs to convey. Question whether sensitive data is truly necessary for the diagram to fulfill its intended purpose. 2. Identify and Remove Sensitive Data: Actively identify any sensitive data, secrets, or confidential information that is currently included in diagrams. Remove this information if it's not essential for the diagram's core function. 3. Abstract Representation and Anonymization: Where possible, replace sensitive details with abstract representations or anonymized data. Use generic labels, placeholders, or aggregated data instead of specific sensitive values. For example, instead of showing specific server names, show abstract service types or anonymized identifiers. 4. Data Masking/Redaction for Essential Sensitive Data: If sensitive data must be included in a diagram for it to be useful, apply data masking or redaction techniques to obscure or remove sensitive parts of the data before generating the diagram. For example, mask parts of IP addresses or redact portions of filenames. 5. Dynamic Data Filtering based on Sensitivity: If diagrams are generated from dynamic data sources, implement filtering mechanisms to explicitly exclude sensitive data fields from being included in the diagram generation process. Configure these filters based on data sensitivity classifications.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Information Disclosure (Medium to High Severity): Prevents unintentional or unnecessary exposure of sensitive data through diagrams. If diagrams are accidentally shared, publicly accessible, or compromised, data minimization reduces the potential for sensitive information leakage.

    • Impact:

      • Information Disclosure: High reduction in risk of sensitive data leaks by minimizing the presence of sensitive information within diagrams themselves.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Diagram generation logic is generally reviewed during development to avoid obvious inclusion of highly sensitive secrets like API keys directly in node labels or attributes.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • A systematic and documented review process specifically focused on data minimization in diagrams is not in place. There's no formal checklist or procedure to ensure sensitive data is consistently identified and removed or masked.
      • Data masking or redaction techniques are not implemented as a standard practice for diagram generation.
      • Dynamic data filtering based on sensitivity levels is not implemented. Diagram generation might inadvertently include sensitive data from underlying data sources if not explicitly prevented.

Mitigation Strategy: Resource Limits for Diagram Generation

  • Description: 1. CPU Time Limits: Configure CPU time limits for diagram generation processes. This prevents a single diagram generation request from consuming excessive CPU resources and potentially impacting other application components or causing server overload. 2. Memory Limits: Set memory limits for diagram generation processes. This prevents memory exhaustion and out-of-memory errors if a diagram generation request becomes excessively memory-intensive (e.g., due to a very complex diagram definition). 3. Timeout Limits: Implement timeouts for diagram generation operations. If diagram generation takes longer than a defined timeout period, terminate the process. This prevents indefinite processing and resource hanging if diagram generation gets stuck or becomes excessively slow due to complex input or library issues. 4. Concurrency Limits for Diagram Generation: Limit the number of concurrent diagram generation processes that can run simultaneously. This prevents overloading the system if multiple diagram generation requests arrive at the same time, especially if diagram generation is resource-intensive.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium to High Severity): Prevents DoS attacks caused by malicious or unintentional resource-intensive diagram generation requests. Resource limits ensure that diagram generation cannot consume all available system resources and bring down the application or server.

    • Impact:

      • Denial of Service (DoS): High reduction in risk of resource exhaustion and DoS attacks related to diagram generation.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • A basic timeout is configured for diagram generation operations to prevent indefinite processing. If diagram generation takes too long, it will eventually time out and stop.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • CPU and memory limits are not explicitly configured for diagram generation processes. The system relies on OS-level resource management, which might not be sufficient to prevent resource exhaustion in all scenarios.
      • Concurrency limits for diagram generation are not implemented. The application might be vulnerable to DoS if a large number of diagram generation requests are made concurrently.

Mitigation Strategy: Rate Limiting for Diagram Generation Requests (If Applicable)

  • Description: 1. Identify Diagram Generation Endpoints/Triggers: If diagram generation is triggered by external requests (e.g., API endpoints, web forms, user actions), clearly identify these entry points. 2. Implement Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting on these diagram generation entry points. This restricts the number of diagram generation requests allowed from a single source (e.g., IP address, user account, API key) within a defined time period. 3. Configure Rate Limits Appropriately: Carefully configure rate limits based on the expected legitimate usage patterns of diagram generation functionality and the system's capacity to handle diagram generation load. Set limits that are high enough for normal use but low enough to prevent abuse. 4. Response Handling for Rate Limits: When rate limits are exceeded, return appropriate HTTP status codes (e.g., 429 Too Many Requests) and informative error messages to clients. Clearly communicate to users that they have exceeded the rate limit and should retry later. Implement mechanisms for clients to understand and handle rate limit responses (e.g., using Retry-After headers).

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium to High Severity): Prevents DoS attacks caused by malicious actors or bots sending excessive diagram generation requests to overwhelm the system. Rate limiting makes it significantly harder to launch a successful DoS attack via diagram generation.
      • Abuse and Resource Squatting (Medium Severity): Prevents abuse of diagram generation functionality, such as users or automated scripts excessively generating diagrams and consuming resources unfairly.

    • Impact:

      • Denial of Service (DoS): High reduction in risk of DoS attacks targeting diagram generation.
      • Abuse and Resource Squatting: Medium reduction in risk of resource abuse.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Basic rate limiting is implemented on the primary diagram generation API endpoint. This rate limiting is based on IP address and limits the number of requests per minute from a single IP.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Rate limiting is not configured based on more granular criteria than IP address. For example, rate limiting per user account or API key is not implemented, which could be more effective in preventing abuse from authenticated users.
      • Rate limits might not be dynamically adjusted based on system load or usage patterns. Static rate limits might be too restrictive or too permissive at different times.
      • More sophisticated rate limiting algorithms (e.g., token bucket, leaky bucket) could be considered for improved fairness and burst handling compared to simple fixed-window rate limiting.