Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
54 lines (45 loc) · 8.35 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

54 lines (45 loc) · 8.35 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for alexreisner/geocoder

Attack Surface: External Geocoding API Key Exposure

  • Description: Sensitive API keys, necessary for accessing external geocoding services through geocoder, are exposed due to insecure management practices.
  • Geocoder Contribution: geocoder is designed to utilize various external geocoding services, many of which require API keys for authentication. The library's configuration relies on developers to provide and manage these keys. Insecure handling directly leads to exposure.
  • Example: A developer hardcodes a Google Maps API key directly into the application's codebase, which is then committed to a public repository. Attackers discover the key and exploit it to make unauthorized requests, leading to quota exhaustion and financial charges for the application owner.
  • Impact: Financial loss due to API abuse, denial of service for application's geocoding features due to quota exhaustion, potential misuse of the API for malicious activities under the compromised application's credentials.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Utilize Environment Variables: Store API keys exclusively as environment variables, ensuring they are kept separate from the application's source code.
    • Implement Secrets Management Systems: Employ dedicated secrets management solutions (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager) for robust storage, access control, and auditing of API keys.
    • Apply API Key Restrictions: Configure API keys with service provider restrictions to limit their usage to specific domains, IP addresses, or applications, minimizing the impact of a potential compromise.
    • Establish API Key Rotation Policies: Implement a process for regular rotation of API keys to reduce the window of opportunity should a key become compromised.
    • Conduct Secure Code Reviews: Enforce code reviews to actively prevent accidental hardcoding or insecure logging of API keys within the application.

Attack Surface: Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks on Geocoding API Requests

  • Description: Communication between the application (via geocoder) and external geocoding services is intercepted by an attacker, allowing for eavesdropping and potential manipulation of data in transit.
  • Geocoder Contribution: geocoder facilitates the sending of HTTP requests to external geocoding APIs. If HTTPS is not strictly enforced for these communications, the library becomes a pathway for MitM attacks.
  • Example: An application using geocoder is configured to communicate with an OpenStreetMap Nominatim instance over plain HTTP. An attacker positioned on the network intercepts the request and response, gaining access to user location data being transmitted or injecting fabricated geocoding results back to the application.
  • Impact: Data breaches involving sensitive location information, corruption of application logic due to manipulated geocoding data leading to incorrect functionality or security bypasses, potential for redirection or further attacks based on falsified location information.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Mandatory HTTPS Enforcement: Ensure that both the geocoder library's configuration and the application's overall setup strictly enforce HTTPS for all communication with external geocoding services.
    • Strict SSL/TLS Certificate Verification: Configure the HTTP client used by geocoder (or the application) to rigorously verify SSL/TLS certificates of geocoding service endpoints, preventing certificate-based MitM attacks.
    • Employ Secure Network Practices: Implement robust network security measures to minimize the likelihood of MitM attacks within the network environment where the application operates (e.g., secure Wi-Fi, VPNs, network segmentation).

Attack Surface: Denial of Service through API Abuse (Quota Exhaustion)

  • Description: Malicious actors generate a high volume of geocoding requests through the application, intentionally exhausting the API quota of the external geocoding service, resulting in a denial of service for legitimate users and potentially incurring unexpected costs.
  • Geocoder Contribution: geocoder simplifies the process of making requests to external geocoding APIs. Without proper rate limiting and request management implemented in the application using geocoder, it becomes susceptible to API abuse.
  • Example: An attacker develops a bot to repeatedly send geocoding requests to the application, rapidly consuming the allocated API quota for the chosen geocoding service. Consequently, legitimate users are unable to utilize geocoding features due to the exhausted quota, and the application owner faces unexpected API usage charges.
  • Impact: Denial of service specifically for geocoding functionality within the application, financial repercussions due to exceeding API usage quotas, degraded user experience and potential business disruption.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement Rate Limiting and Throttling: Integrate robust rate limiting and throttling mechanisms within the application to control the volume and frequency of geocoding requests sent to external services, preventing abuse.
    • Utilize Request Queuing Mechanisms: Employ request queues to manage and prioritize geocoding requests, effectively preventing overwhelming the API service and allowing for controlled processing.
    • Establish API Usage Monitoring and Alerting: Implement comprehensive monitoring of API usage patterns and configure alerts to trigger upon detection of unusual spikes in geocoding requests, enabling early detection of potential abuse attempts.
    • Employ CAPTCHA or Bot Detection: Integrate CAPTCHA challenges or other bot detection mechanisms, particularly for geocoding-intensive features exposed to user input, to differentiate between legitimate users and automated abuse attempts.

Attack Surface: Vulnerabilities in geocoder Library or Dependencies

  • Description: Security vulnerabilities present within the geocoder library's codebase itself or in its underlying dependencies could be exploited by attackers to compromise the application.
  • Geocoder Contribution: By incorporating geocoder, the application inherits the security posture of the library and its entire dependency chain. Vulnerabilities in these components directly extend the application's attack surface.
  • Example: A critical vulnerability, such as a remote code execution flaw, is discovered in a specific version of the geocoder library. Applications utilizing this vulnerable version become susceptible to remote exploitation, potentially allowing attackers to gain control of the application server.
  • Impact: Impacts can range from sensitive information disclosure and data breaches to complete remote code execution on the server, depending on the nature and severity of the vulnerability.
  • Risk Severity: Critical (in cases of RCE or significant data breach potential)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Conduct Regular Dependency Audits: Implement a process for regularly auditing the geocoder library and all its dependencies for known security vulnerabilities using automated tools like bundler audit (for Ruby projects).
    • Maintain Up-to-Date Dependencies: Proactively keep the geocoder library and all its dependencies updated to the latest versions to ensure timely patching of known vulnerabilities and benefit from security improvements.
    • Integrate Security Scanning in CI/CD: Incorporate security vulnerability scanning tools into the Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipeline to automatically detect and flag vulnerable dependencies before deployment.
    • Stay Informed on Security Advisories: Subscribe to security advisories, mailing lists, and vulnerability databases relevant to Ruby and the geocoder library to remain informed about newly discovered vulnerabilities and recommended mitigation steps.