Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
121 lines (84 loc) · 10.3 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

121 lines (84 loc) · 10.3 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for kkuchta/css-only-chat

Mitigation Strategy: Avoid User Input for Styling

Description:

  1. Static Content: Generate all chat content (messages, user states, etc.) statically, either as pre-built HTML files or through a build process. This is the core principle of a secure css-only-chat.
  2. Trusted Source: If dynamic content is absolutely necessary (strongly discouraged), ensure it comes from a completely trusted source (e.g., a controlled database, a static JSON file) and is not influenced by user input in any way. No part of the HTML or CSS should be constructed based on user-provided data.
  3. No Form Input for Messages: Do not use form elements (even hidden ones, styled to look like other elements) to accept user-provided messages that directly modify the displayed HTML or CSS. The chat's appearance should be entirely determined by pre-defined structures.
  4. Predefined States: Define all possible chat states (e.g., user online/offline, typing indicators, message visibility) as pre-defined CSS classes or HTML structures. Switching between states should be done by manipulating these pre-defined structures, not by generating new CSS or HTML based on user input.

Threats Mitigated:

  • CSS Injection: (Severity: High) - Eliminates the primary vector for CSS injection, as no user input is used to construct the CSS or HTML.
  • Layout Manipulation: (Severity: High) - Eliminates the risk, as the layout is pre-defined and not modifiable by users.
  • Information Disclosure (Limited): (Severity: Medium) - Significantly reduces the risk, as hidden elements are part of the pre-defined structure and not revealed through user input.
  • Phishing (Limited): (Severity: Medium) - Significantly reduces the risk, as the chat's appearance cannot be altered by user input.
  • Denial of Service (DoS): (Severity: High) - Eliminates the risk related to CSS injection causing browser crashes.
  • Selector-Based State Manipulation: (Severity: Medium) - Makes it significantly harder, as the state is controlled by pre-defined structures.

Impact:

  • All listed threats: Risk is virtually eliminated if implemented correctly and consistently. This is the most effective mitigation.

Currently Implemented:

  • Mostly implemented. The project's core concept is based on this principle. The example code relies on pre-defined HTML and CSS.

Missing Implementation:

  • The project needs to explicitly and strongly emphasize this principle in its documentation and guidelines. Any future development must adhere to this to maintain security. A clear statement prohibiting any user input that affects HTML/CSS generation is crucial.

Mitigation Strategy: Obfuscate Form Element Names and IDs (Limited Effectiveness)

Description:

  1. Avoid Predictable Names: Do not use easily guessable names for form elements used for state management (e.g., message1, userStatus, checkbox_typing). These are easy targets for attackers trying to manipulate the chat's state.
  2. Use Random or Hashed Names: Generate names using a random string generator or a hashing algorithm. This makes it harder for attackers to target specific elements by guessing their names. For example, instead of msg-1, use something like a8f9g7h2k.
  3. Consistent Obfuscation: Ensure the obfuscation method is consistent across the entire application. If you use random names, use them everywhere. Don't mix random and predictable names.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Selector-Based State Manipulation: (Severity: Medium) - Makes it slightly harder for attackers to understand and manipulate the chat's state by directly targeting form elements. It's not a strong defense, but adds a small layer of obscurity.

Impact:

  • Selector-Based State Manipulation: Risk is slightly reduced. This is security through obscurity and should not be relied upon as the primary defense. It's a supplementary measure.

Currently Implemented:

  • Partially implemented. The example code uses somewhat descriptive names (e.g., msg-1, msg-2). These are better than completely obvious names, but still predictable.

Missing Implementation:

  • The project should use more random and less predictable names for all form elements involved in state management. A consistent naming scheme using random strings or hashes is recommended.

Mitigation Strategy: Minimize Timing-Dependent CSS

Description:

  1. Avoid Complex Animations: Limit or completely avoid the use of CSS animations and transitions, especially complex ones. These can potentially introduce timing variations.
  2. Simple Transitions (If Necessary): If transitions are absolutely necessary for visual feedback, keep them very simple, short, and consistent. Avoid complex easing functions or long durations.
  3. No State-Dependent Timing: Ensure that the timing of animations or transitions does not depend on the chat's state. For example, don't use different animation durations based on who is "typing" or the content of a message. The timing should be constant and predictable.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Information Leakage via CSS Timing Attacks (Highly Theoretical): (Severity: Low) - Reduces the risk of this very unlikely and advanced attack. This is a precautionary measure.

Impact:

  • Information Leakage via CSS Timing Attacks: Risk is reduced, but this threat is already very low in practical terms for a simple chat application.

Currently Implemented:

  • Mostly implemented. The example code uses simple transitions, but doesn't explicitly address the (highly theoretical) risk of timing attacks.

Missing Implementation:

  • The project should explicitly discourage the use of complex animations and transitions in its documentation, highlighting the potential (though small) risk of timing-based information leakage.

Mitigation Strategy: Readonly and disabled attributes

Description:

  1. Add readonly attribute to all input fields within the css-only-chat structure that are used solely for displaying information or controlling the visual state, and are not intended for user interaction. This prevents modification of their values, even through browser developer tools.
  2. Add disabled attribute to all input fields (checkboxes, radio buttons) that are part of the chat's internal state management and are not meant to be directly toggled by the user. This prevents them from being interacted with, further securing the chat's state.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Selector-Based State Manipulation: (Severity: Medium) - Prevents direct manipulation of form element values, which are used to control the chat's appearance and state.

Impact:

  • Selector-Based State Manipulation: Risk is significantly reduced, as it prevents direct user interaction with the underlying state-control elements.

Currently Implemented:

  • Partially implemented. The example code might implicitly rely on the fact that hidden inputs are less likely to be manipulated, but doesn't explicitly use readonly or disabled.

Missing Implementation:

  • Project should add readonly and disabled attributes to all relevant form elements within the chat structure. This should be a clearly documented best practice for anyone extending or modifying the chat.

Mitigation Strategy: Avoid dangerous CSS features

Description:

  1. Review all CSS code used in the css-only-chat project and identify any potentially dangerous CSS features.
  2. Specifically avoid using pointer-events: none in a way that could create deceptive layering. For example, do not place an element with pointer-events: none on top of a clickable element (like a link) to make the underlying element appear non-interactive while still being clickable.
  3. Avoid using overly complex CSS selectors, especially those that rely on intricate combinations of attribute selectors, pseudo-classes, and sibling combinators, as these can sometimes lead to unexpected behavior or browser-specific vulnerabilities.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Abuse of CSS features: (Severity: Medium) - Prevents the misuse of CSS features to create deceptive or malicious behavior within the chat interface.

Impact:

  • Abuse of CSS features: Risk is reduced by eliminating or carefully controlling the use of potentially exploitable CSS features.

Currently Implemented:

  • Partially implemented. The example code is relatively simple, but a thorough review for potentially dangerous features is still recommended.

Missing Implementation:

  • Project documentation should explicitly advise against the use of potentially dangerous CSS features and provide examples of safe alternatives.

Mitigation Strategy: Keep CSS simple and test on different browsers

Description:

  1. Avoid using complex, experimental, or deprecated CSS features within the css-only-chat project. Stick to well-supported and widely understood CSS properties and selectors.
  2. Thoroughly test the application on a variety of different web browsers, including older versions and less common browsers, to identify any browser-specific rendering issues or vulnerabilities.
  3. Use a CSS validator (like the W3C CSS Validator) to check for any syntax errors or potential compatibility problems in the CSS code.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Browser-Specific Vulnerabilities: (Severity: Low) - Reduces the risk of exploiting vulnerabilities that might exist in specific browser implementations of CSS parsing and rendering.

Impact:

  • Browser-Specific Vulnerabilities: Risk is reduced by ensuring the CSS is simple, valid, and compatible across a wide range of browsers.

Currently Implemented:

  • Partially implemented. The example code is relatively simple, but explicit testing across multiple browsers and CSS validation are not documented.

Missing Implementation:

  • Project documentation should emphasize the importance of cross-browser testing and CSS validation as part of the development and maintenance process.