Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
220 lines (186 loc) · 18.7 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

220 lines (186 loc) · 18.7 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the Mozilla Addons Server, building upon the provided security design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the key components of the addons-server application, identifying potential vulnerabilities, assessing their impact, and recommending specific, actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will focus on the architectural design, data flow, and security controls inferred from the provided documentation and the nature of the project. We aim to identify weaknesses that could lead to the compromise of user data, the distribution of malicious add-ons, or service disruption.

  • Scope: The analysis will cover the following key components and their interactions, as outlined in the C4 diagrams and element lists:

    • Web Application (front-end)
    • API (backend)
    • Database (PostgreSQL)
    • Background Tasks (Celery)
    • Cache (Redis/Memcached)
    • Interactions with external services (Mozilla Accounts, Signing Service, Static Analysis Service, Manual Review System, External Storage, Notification Service)
    • Deployment infrastructure (AWS components)
    • Build and deployment pipeline.

    We will not delve into the internal security of external services (like Mozilla Accounts) themselves, but we will analyze the security of the interactions between addons-server and these services. We will also not perform a full code review, but will infer potential code-level vulnerabilities based on the architecture and design.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture Review: Analyze the C4 diagrams and element lists to understand the system's architecture, components, and data flow.
    2. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the business risks, accepted risks, and the system's design. We'll use a combination of STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) and attack trees to systematically identify threats.
    3. Vulnerability Analysis: For each identified threat, assess the likelihood and impact of potential vulnerabilities. We'll consider the existing security controls and accepted risks.
    4. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies to address the identified vulnerabilities. These recommendations will be tailored to the addons-server project and its technology stack.
    5. Prioritization: Prioritize the recommendations based on the severity of the associated risks.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component, considering potential threats and vulnerabilities:

  • Web Application (Django/Python - Frontend):

    • Threats: XSS, CSRF, Clickjacking, Session Hijacking, Open Redirects, Injection attacks (HTML, JavaScript).
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Insufficiently escaped user input in templates (leading to XSS).
      • Improperly configured CSRF protection.
      • Missing or weak X-Frame-Options header (Clickjacking).
      • Predictable session IDs or insecure session storage (Session Hijacking).
      • Unvalidated redirects (Open Redirects).
      • Failure to sanitize user-supplied HTML or JavaScript (Injection).
    • Mitigation:
      • Strictly enforce CSP: Regularly review and update the CSP to minimize the impact of XSS. Use a nonce-based CSP for dynamic content.
      • Verify CSRF tokens on all state-changing requests: Ensure Django's CSRF protection is correctly implemented and enabled.
      • Set X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN: Prevent the application from being embedded in malicious iframes.
      • Use Django's secure session management: Ensure session cookies are marked as HttpOnly and Secure. Use a strong session secret key. Consider using signed cookies.
      • Validate all redirect URLs: Ensure redirects only go to trusted destinations (ideally, a whitelist of allowed URLs).
      • Sanitize all user-supplied HTML and JavaScript: Use a robust HTML sanitization library (e.g., Bleach) to remove potentially malicious code.
      • Implement Subresource Integrity (SRI): Ensure that externally loaded scripts and stylesheets haven't been tampered with.

  • API (Django/Python - Backend):

    • Threats: Authentication Bypass, Authorization Bypass, Injection (SQL, Command, etc.), Rate Limiting Bypass, Data Exposure, Business Logic Flaws, Improper Error Handling.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Weak authentication mechanisms or improper integration with Mozilla Accounts.
      • Insufficient authorization checks (e.g., allowing a regular user to access admin endpoints).
      • SQL injection vulnerabilities due to improperly parameterized queries.
      • Command injection vulnerabilities due to unsanitized input used in shell commands.
      • Insufficient rate limiting, allowing attackers to brute-force credentials or perform DoS attacks.
      • Exposure of sensitive data in API responses (e.g., internal IDs, error messages).
      • Flaws in the add-on submission or review process that could be exploited to bypass security checks.
      • Leaking sensitive information through error messages or stack traces.
    • Mitigation:
      • Delegate authentication to Mozilla Accounts: Use OAuth 2.0 or OpenID Connect for secure authentication. Do not handle passwords directly.
      • Implement robust RBAC: Use Django's built-in authorization mechanisms or a dedicated authorization library. Enforce the principle of least privilege.
      • Use parameterized queries (ORM) for all database interactions: Avoid constructing SQL queries using string concatenation. Django's ORM provides good protection if used correctly.
      • Avoid using shell commands if possible: If necessary, use Python's subprocess module with proper input sanitization and escaping. Never use shell=True.
      • Implement strict rate limiting at the API level: Use a library like django-ratelimit to limit the number of requests from a single IP address or user.
      • Filter API responses: Ensure that only the necessary data is returned to the client. Avoid exposing internal IDs or implementation details.
      • Thoroughly validate all add-on submissions: Implement multiple layers of validation, including static analysis, manual review, and checks for known malicious patterns.
      • Implement custom error handling: Return generic error messages to the client and log detailed error information internally. Never expose stack traces to the user.
      • Validate all input using a whitelist approach: Define allowed characters and patterns for each input field.
      • Use API Gateway features for security: Leverage AWS API Gateway features like request validation, throttling, and authorization.

  • Database (PostgreSQL):

    • Threats: SQL Injection, Data Breach, Unauthorized Access, Data Corruption.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • SQL injection vulnerabilities in the API (as discussed above).
      • Weak database user passwords or overly permissive access controls.
      • Lack of encryption at rest.
      • Insufficient database auditing and logging.
    • Mitigation:
      • Prevent SQL injection (as discussed above).
      • Use strong, unique passwords for all database users.
      • Enforce the principle of least privilege for database users: Grant only the necessary permissions to each user.
      • Enable encryption at rest using AWS RDS encryption features.
      • Enable database auditing and logging: Monitor database activity for suspicious events. Use PostgreSQL's auditing features or AWS CloudTrail.
      • Regularly back up the database: Use AWS RDS automated backups and point-in-time recovery.
      • Implement network-level access control: Restrict access to the database to only authorized EC2 instances using security groups.

  • Background Tasks (Celery/Python):

    • Threats: Similar to the API, plus vulnerabilities related to asynchronous task processing. Code Injection, Task Queue Poisoning.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Vulnerabilities in the code executed by Celery workers (e.g., injection, insecure deserialization).
      • Unauthenticated or unauthorized access to the Celery task queue (e.g., Redis).
      • Malicious tasks injected into the queue.
    • Mitigation:
      • Apply the same security principles as for the API: Validate input, sanitize data, avoid insecure operations.
      • Secure the Celery broker (Redis): Use authentication and access controls. Consider using TLS for communication between Celery workers and the broker.
      • Validate and sanitize task inputs: Ensure that tasks only receive trusted data.
      • Use a message signing mechanism: Celery supports message signing to ensure the integrity and authenticity of tasks.
      • Monitor the task queue: Detect and respond to suspicious activity.

  • Cache (Redis/Memcached):

    • Threats: Data Exposure, Cache Poisoning, Denial of Service.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Unauthenticated or unauthorized access to the cache.
      • Injection of malicious data into the cache.
      • Cache exhaustion due to excessive data storage.
    • Mitigation:
      • Secure the cache server: Use authentication and access controls. Consider using TLS for communication.
      • Validate data stored in the cache: Ensure that only trusted data is cached.
      • Implement cache size limits: Prevent attackers from filling the cache and causing a denial of service.
      • Use separate cache instances for different types of data: Isolate sensitive data from less sensitive data.

  • External Service Interactions:

    • Mozilla Accounts:
      • Threat: Compromise of Mozilla Accounts credentials.
      • Mitigation: Use OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect. Do not store Mozilla Accounts credentials in the addons-server database. Implement proper redirect URI validation.
    • Signing Service:
      • Threat: Compromise of the signing keys. Unauthorized signing of malicious add-ons.
      • Mitigation: Securely manage the signing keys (e.g., using AWS KMS or a dedicated HSM). Implement strict access controls. Audit all signing requests. Use a dedicated Lambda function with minimal permissions.
    • Static Analysis Service:
      • Threat: Bypass of static analysis checks. Submission of malicious code that evades detection.
      • Mitigation: Regularly update the static analysis rules. Use multiple static analysis tools. Combine static analysis with manual review. Use a sandboxed environment for analysis.
    • Manual Review System:
      • Threat: Insider threat (malicious reviewer). Human error in the review process.
      • Mitigation: Implement strong access controls and audit trails. Require multiple reviewers for high-risk add-ons. Provide training to reviewers.
    • External Storage (S3):
      • Threat: Unauthorized access to add-on files. Data leakage.
      • Mitigation: Use S3 bucket policies and IAM roles to restrict access. Enable server-side encryption. Use versioning and lifecycle policies. Monitor S3 access logs.
    • Notification Service (SES):
      • Threat: Email spoofing. Spamming.
      • Mitigation: Use SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to authenticate outgoing emails. Implement rate limiting. Monitor SES sending activity.

  • Deployment Infrastructure (AWS):

    • Threats: Compromise of AWS credentials. Misconfigured security groups. Vulnerable EC2 instances.
    • Mitigation:
      • Use IAM roles and policies to grant least privilege access to AWS resources.
      • Regularly rotate IAM access keys.
      • Use security groups to restrict network access to EC2 instances and other resources.
      • Regularly patch and update EC2 instances.
      • Use a WAF (AWS WAF) to protect against common web attacks.
      • Enable CloudTrail and CloudWatch for logging and monitoring.
      • Use AWS Config to monitor and enforce compliance with security policies.
      • Use AWS Security Hub to get a centralized view of security alerts and compliance status.

  • Build and Deployment Pipeline:

    • Threats: Compromised build tools, malicious dependencies, unauthorized code changes.
    • Mitigation:
      • Use a secure CI/CD system (GitHub Actions).
      • Sign and verify all build artifacts.
      • Scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities (pip-audit, Snyk).
      • Use static analysis (SAST) and dynamic analysis (DAST) tools.
      • Implement a secure software supply chain.
      • Use Infrastructure as Code (IaC) to manage infrastructure securely and consistently.

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

Based on the provided information, we can infer the following:

  • Architecture: Microservices-based, with a clear separation between the web frontend, API backend, background tasks, and external services.
  • Components: As described in the C4 diagrams and element lists.
  • Data Flow:
    1. User interacts with the web application.
    2. Web application sends requests to the API.
    3. API interacts with the database, cache, and background tasks.
    4. Background tasks interact with external services (signing, analysis, storage, notifications).
    5. Data flows back through the API to the web application and the user.

4. Tailored Security Considerations

Here are some specific security considerations tailored to the addons-server project:

  • Add-on Sandboxing: Consider implementing a sandboxing mechanism for add-on execution within the browser. This is a complex undertaking, but it would significantly reduce the impact of malicious add-ons. This is mentioned as a "Recommended Security Control" but deserves special emphasis due to its importance. Explore technologies like WebAssembly and browser-specific sandboxing APIs.
  • Add-on Permission System: Implement a granular permission system for add-ons, allowing users to control what resources an add-on can access. This should be enforced by the browser, but the addons-server can provide metadata and UI elements to support this.
  • Add-on Reputation System: Develop a reputation system for add-ons and developers, based on factors like user reviews, download counts, and security audit results. This can help users make informed decisions about which add-ons to install.
  • Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) for Developers: Require 2FA for all developer accounts, especially those submitting add-ons. This is crucial to prevent account takeovers.
  • Supply Chain Security: Implement rigorous checks on third-party libraries and dependencies used by the addons-server. Use tools like pip-audit and Snyk to identify and remediate vulnerabilities. Consider using a software bill of materials (SBOM) to track all dependencies.
  • Threat Intelligence: Integrate with threat intelligence feeds to identify and block known malicious add-ons and developers.
  • Regular Penetration Testing: Conduct regular penetration testing by external security experts to identify vulnerabilities that might be missed by automated tools and internal reviews.
  • Secret Management: Use a dedicated secret management solution like AWS Secrets Manager or HashiCorp Vault to store and manage sensitive credentials (database passwords, API keys, etc.). Never store secrets in code or configuration files.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Prioritized)

Here's a prioritized list of actionable mitigation strategies, combining the recommendations from previous sections:

  • High Priority:

    1. Enforce 2FA for all developer accounts. (Authentication)
    2. Implement robust RBAC and principle of least privilege throughout the system. (Authorization)
    3. Use parameterized queries (ORM) for all database interactions. (SQL Injection Prevention)
    4. Implement strict input validation and sanitization (whitelist approach). (Injection Prevention)
    5. Regularly scan dependencies for vulnerabilities and apply updates promptly. (Supply Chain Security)
    6. Securely manage secrets using a dedicated secret management solution. (Secret Management)
    7. Implement and strictly enforce a comprehensive Content Security Policy (CSP). (XSS Mitigation)
    8. Delegate authentication to Mozilla Accounts using OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect. (Authentication)
    9. Enable encryption at rest for the database (RDS) and external storage (S3). (Data Protection)
    10. Implement robust logging and monitoring across all components (CloudWatch, CloudTrail, database auditing). (Detection and Response)

  • Medium Priority:

    1. Implement rate limiting at the API level. (DoS Prevention)
    2. Secure the Celery broker (Redis) with authentication and access controls. (Background Task Security)
    3. Use message signing for Celery tasks. (Background Task Security)
    4. Implement custom error handling to avoid exposing sensitive information. (Information Disclosure Prevention)
    5. Set X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN. (Clickjacking Prevention)
    6. Validate all redirect URLs. (Open Redirect Prevention)
    7. Use a WAF (AWS WAF) to protect against common web attacks. (Web Application Security)
    8. Conduct regular penetration testing. (Vulnerability Identification)
    9. Develop a comprehensive incident response plan. (Incident Response)

  • Low Priority:

    1. Implement Subresource Integrity (SRI). (Tampering Prevention)
    2. Develop an add-on reputation system. (User Trust)
    3. Integrate with threat intelligence feeds. (Threat Detection)
    4. Explore add-on sandboxing mechanisms. (Advanced Security)

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the Mozilla Addons Server. By implementing these mitigation strategies, Mozilla can significantly reduce the risk of security breaches and maintain the trust of its users and developers. The prioritization helps focus efforts on the most critical vulnerabilities first. Remember that security is an ongoing process, and regular reviews and updates are essential.