Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
196 lines (163 loc) · 17.2 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

196 lines (163 loc) · 17.2 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the geocoder project based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: The primary objective is to conduct a thorough security analysis of the geocoder application, focusing on identifying vulnerabilities in its key components, data flow, and deployment model. This analysis aims to pinpoint specific security weaknesses related to the application's use of the github.com/alexreisner/geocoder library and its overall architecture. We will assess the risks associated with these vulnerabilities and propose actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will cover authentication, authorization, input validation, data protection, denial-of-service, and the security of the data update process.

  • Scope: The scope of this analysis includes:

    • The Go code of the geocoder application itself.
    • The interaction with the github.com/alexreisner/geocoder library.
    • The use of SQLite as the data store for OpenStreetMap data.
    • The proposed Docker/Kubernetes deployment model.
    • The build process using GitHub Actions.
    • The identified "Accepted Risks" and "Recommended Security Controls" from the Security Design Review.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Data Flow Review: We will analyze the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions to understand the application's architecture, components, and data flow. We'll infer details about the geocoder library's usage based on the context.
    2. Component-Specific Threat Modeling: We will break down each key component (Web Server, Geocoding Engine, Database) and identify potential threats specific to each, considering the geocoder library's role.
    3. Vulnerability Identification: Based on the threat modeling and understanding of the geocoder library's likely functionality (geocoding and reverse geocoding), we will identify specific vulnerabilities.
    4. Risk Assessment: We will assess the likelihood and impact of each identified vulnerability.
    5. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: We will provide specific, actionable recommendations to mitigate the identified vulnerabilities, tailored to the geocoder project and its deployment environment.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's analyze each component from the C4 Container diagram, focusing on security implications related to the geocoder library and overall architecture:

  • User (External): No direct security controls within the system. The security of the user's environment is outside the scope, but it's crucial to assume users might be malicious or compromised.

  • Web Server (Go net/http):

    • Threats:
      • Unauthenticated Access: The biggest threat, as identified in the review. Anyone can send requests to the server.
      • Denial of Service (DoS/DDoS): The server is vulnerable to resource exhaustion attacks without rate limiting. Malicious users could flood the server with requests, making it unavailable to legitimate users.
      • Injection Attacks (Indirect): While net/http is generally robust, if the Geocoding Engine doesn't properly sanitize inputs passed from the web server, there's a risk of indirect injection attacks (e.g., SQL injection into the SQLite database).
      • Parameter Tampering: Attackers could manipulate query parameters (latitude, longitude) to try to access unauthorized data or cause unexpected behavior.
      • Lack of HTTPS: If TLS is not enforced, communications are vulnerable to eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks.
    • geocoder Library Implications: The web server is the entry point for all requests that will utilize the geocoder library. Therefore, any vulnerabilities in how the web server handles input will directly impact the security of the library's usage.

  • Geocoding Engine (Go):

    • Threats:
      • SQL Injection (Primary Threat): This is the most critical threat specific to the geocoder library and its interaction with SQLite. If the library, or the application code using the library, doesn't properly sanitize inputs before constructing SQL queries, an attacker could inject malicious SQL code. This could lead to data breaches, data modification, or even complete database takeover. We must assume the library itself might have vulnerabilities, and the application must defend against them.
      • Logic Errors: Bugs in the geocoding logic (either within the library or the application) could lead to incorrect results or unexpected behavior, potentially exploitable.
      • Resource Exhaustion (within the library): The geocoder library might have internal limitations or vulnerabilities that could lead to excessive memory or CPU usage when processing specific inputs. This could be triggered by specially crafted requests.
      • Data Validation Issues: If the library doesn't properly validate the OpenStreetMap data it reads from the database, it could be vulnerable to attacks that involve manipulating the database file itself (if an attacker gains write access to the file).
    • geocoder Library Implications: This component directly uses the geocoder library. Therefore, all security considerations of the library are relevant here. The engine's responsibility is to safely interface with the library, sanitizing inputs and handling potential errors gracefully.

  • Database (SQLite Database):

    • Threats:
      • Unauthorized Access (via SQL Injection): As mentioned above, SQL injection is the primary threat to the database.
      • File System Access: If an attacker gains access to the server's file system (through another vulnerability), they could directly read or modify the SQLite database file, bypassing any application-level security controls.
      • Data Corruption: If the database file is corrupted (due to a bug, hardware failure, or malicious activity), the service could become unavailable or produce incorrect results.
      • Denial of Service (Database-Level): Extremely large or complex queries (potentially through SQL injection) could overwhelm the database, making it unresponsive.
    • geocoder Library Implications: The geocoder library interacts directly with the SQLite database. The library's internal SQL queries are critical to review (if source code is available) or to treat as a black box and assume potential vulnerabilities.

3. Inferring Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

Based on the provided information and the nature of the geocoder library, we can infer the following:

  • Data Flow:

    1. A user sends an HTTP request (e.g., /geocode?q=... or /reverse?lat=...&lon=...) to the Web Server.
    2. The Web Server parses the request parameters.
    3. The Web Server passes the relevant parameters (address string, latitude, longitude) to the Geocoding Engine.
    4. The Geocoding Engine uses the geocoder library to perform the geocoding or reverse geocoding operation.
    5. The geocoder library likely constructs and executes SQL queries against the SQLite database containing OpenStreetMap data.
    6. The database returns the results to the geocoder library.
    7. The geocoder library returns the results to the Geocoding Engine.
    8. The Geocoding Engine formats the results (likely as JSON) and returns them to the Web Server.
    9. The Web Server sends the response back to the user.

  • geocoder Library's Role: The library acts as an intermediary between the application logic and the SQLite database. It likely abstracts away the details of SQL query construction and database interaction, providing a higher-level API for geocoding and reverse geocoding.

4. Specific Security Considerations and Recommendations

Given the inferred architecture and the identified threats, here are specific security considerations and recommendations, tailored to the geocoder project:

  • 4.1. Authentication and Authorization:

    • Consideration: The lack of authentication and authorization is a major vulnerability.
    • Recommendation: Implement API key authentication as a minimum first step.
      • Generate unique API keys for each user/application.
      • Store API keys securely (hashed and salted) in a separate database (not the OpenStreetMap data database).
      • Require an API key to be included in each request (e.g., as a header: Authorization: Bearer <API_KEY>).
      • Validate the API key on each request before processing it.
      • Consider using a more robust solution like OAuth 2.0 if finer-grained access control is needed in the future.

  • 4.2. Input Validation (Crucial for Preventing SQL Injection):

    • Consideration: The most critical vulnerability is potential SQL injection through the geocoder library.
    • Recommendation: Implement strict input validation at multiple levels:

      • Web Server Level:

        • Validate that latitude and longitude parameters are valid floating-point numbers within the expected ranges (-90 to +90 for latitude, -180 to +180 for longitude). Reject requests with invalid values.
        • If an address string is used for geocoding, use a regular expression to limit the allowed characters and length. Be very restrictive. Do not simply try to escape special characters; instead, whitelist allowed characters.

      • Geocoding Engine Level:

        • Before passing any data to the geocoder library, perform the same validation checks as above. This provides defense in depth.
        • If possible, use a parameterized query or prepared statement mechanism provided by the geocoder library or the underlying SQLite driver. This is the best defense against SQL injection. If the library doesn't support this, strongly consider modifying the library or choosing a different one.
        • If you must construct SQL queries manually (highly discouraged), use a dedicated SQL escaping function provided by the SQLite driver. Never build SQL queries by directly concatenating user-provided strings.

      • Example (Conceptual Go Code - Illustrative):

        func handleGeocodeRequest(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    latStr := r.URL.Query().Get("lat")
    lonStr := r.URL.Query().Get("lon")

    // Web Server Level Validation
    lat, err := strconv.ParseFloat(latStr, 64)
    if err != nil || lat < -90 || lat > 90 {
        http.Error(w, "Invalid latitude", http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }
    lon, err := strconv.ParseFloat(lonStr, 64)
    if err != nil || lon < -180 || lon > 180 {
        http.Error(w, "Invalid longitude", http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }

    // Geocoding Engine Level Validation (Defense in Depth)
    // ... (repeat validation) ...

    // Use Parameterized Query (Ideal) - Example with a hypothetical library function
    result, err := geocoder.ReverseGeocode(lat, lon) // Assume this uses parameterized queries
    if err != nil {
        // Handle error (log, return error response)
    }

    // ... (format and send response) ...
}

  • 4.3. Rate Limiting:

    • Consideration: The service is vulnerable to DoS attacks.
    • Recommendation: Implement rate limiting at the web server level.
      • Use a library like golang.org/x/time/rate to limit the number of requests per IP address or API key.
      • Configure appropriate rate limits based on expected usage patterns.
      • Return a 429 Too Many Requests error when a client exceeds the rate limit.

  • 4.4. Data Protection (SQLite Database):

    • Consideration: Protect the SQLite database file from unauthorized access.
    • Recommendation:
      • Use strong file system permissions to restrict access to the database file. Only the user running the geocoder application should have read/write access.
      • In the Kubernetes deployment, use a Persistent Volume with appropriate access controls. Ensure that only the geocoder pod can access the volume.
      • Consider using SQLite's built-in encryption features (e.g., SEE - SQLite Encryption Extension) if the data is considered sensitive. However, this adds complexity and might impact performance. Given that OpenStreetMap data is public, this is likely not necessary.

  • 4.5. Error Handling and Logging:

    • Consideration: Proper error handling and logging are crucial for debugging and security auditing.
    • Recommendation:
      • Handle all errors gracefully. Do not expose internal error messages to the user.
      • Log all errors, including failed requests, invalid inputs, and database errors.
      • Use structured logging (as already mentioned in the review) to make logs easier to parse and analyze.
      • Include relevant context in log messages (e.g., IP address, API key, request parameters).

  • 4.6. Dependency Management:

    • Consideration: Keep dependencies up to date to address security vulnerabilities.
    • Recommendation:
      • Use Go modules to manage dependencies.
      • Regularly run go get -u ./... to update dependencies.
      • Use a vulnerability scanner like Snyk (as mentioned in the build process) to identify and fix vulnerabilities in dependencies. This is especially important for the geocoder library itself.

  • 4.7. Deployment (Kubernetes):

    • Consideration: Secure the Kubernetes deployment.
    • Recommendation:
      • Use Network Policies to restrict network traffic between pods. Only allow necessary communication.
      • Use Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to limit the permissions of the geocoder pod.
      • Use Pod Security Policies (or a Pod Security Admission controller) to enforce security best practices for pods (e.g., running as non-root, read-only root filesystem).
      • Use a minimal base image for the Docker container (e.g., scratch or distroless).
      • Configure TLS termination at the Load Balancer. Use a valid TLS certificate.
      • Implement DDoS protection at the Load Balancer or using a cloud provider's DDoS mitigation service.

  • 4.8. Build Process (GitHub Actions):

    • Consideration: Automate security checks in the build pipeline.
    • Recommendation:
      • Use the GitHub Actions workflow described in the design review.
      • Ensure that the workflow includes:
        • Static code analysis (e.g., golangci-lint).
        • Dependency vulnerability scanning (e.g., Snyk).
        • Unit tests.
      • Consider adding container image signing to ensure the integrity of the deployed image.

  • 4.9 Data Update Process:

    • Consideration: Securely updating OpenStreetMap data.
    • Recommendation:
      • Define a clear process for updating the data. This should involve downloading the data from a trusted source (e.g., the official OpenStreetMap website or a reputable mirror).
      • Verify the integrity of the downloaded data using checksums or digital signatures, if available.
      • Automate the update process as much as possible, but include manual checks to ensure data quality and prevent accidental or malicious corruption.
      • Consider using a separate, secured server or process for downloading and preparing the data before deploying it to the production environment.
      • Implement a rollback mechanism to revert to a previous version of the data if problems are detected.
      • Store old database in case of rollback.

5. Risk Assessment Summary

Vulnerability Likelihood Impact Overall Risk Mitigation Priority
SQL Injection High High Critical Highest
Unauthenticated Access High High Critical High
Denial of Service (DoS) Medium Medium High High
Data Breach (via SQL Injection) High High Critical Highest
Data Corruption (Database File) Low High Medium Medium
Dependency Vulnerabilities Medium Medium Medium Medium
Insecure Deployment (Kubernetes) Medium High High High

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the geocoder project. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, the development team can significantly improve the security posture of the application and protect it from a wide range of threats. The most critical areas to address are SQL injection prevention, authentication, and rate limiting. The use of a secure build process and a well-configured Kubernetes deployment are also essential.