Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
191 lines (143 loc) · 19 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

191 lines (143 loc) · 19 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Postal

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep analysis is to conduct a thorough security assessment of the Postal mail server project, focusing on its key components, architecture, and data flow. This analysis aims to identify potential security vulnerabilities, assess their impact, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will cover the following key areas:

  • Authentication and Authorization: How Postal handles user authentication and access control to various resources.
  • Input Validation and Sanitization: How Postal validates and sanitizes user inputs to prevent injection attacks.
  • Cryptography: How Postal uses cryptography to protect data in transit and at rest.
  • Data Storage and Management: How Postal stores and manages sensitive data, including email content and user credentials.
  • Networking and Communication: How Postal handles network communication and protects against network-based attacks.
  • Deployment and Configuration: How Postal's deployment and configuration options impact its security posture.
  • Dependency Management: How Postal manages its dependencies and mitigates risks associated with third-party libraries.
  • Spam and Abuse Prevention: How Postal prevents spam and abuse of the system.

Scope:

This analysis will focus on the Postal codebase, available documentation, and inferred architecture based on the provided security design review. The analysis will not include a live penetration test or dynamic analysis of a running instance. The scope is limited to the core Postal application and its immediate dependencies. External services (like Spam Filtering Services mentioned in the C4 Context diagram) are considered out of scope for deep analysis, but their interaction with Postal is in scope.

Methodology:

  1. Code Review (Inferred): Since we don't have direct access to execute code, we'll perform a "logical code review" based on the design document, common practices in Ruby/Rails applications, and the structure implied by the GitHub repository description. We'll infer the likely presence of security mechanisms and potential weaknesses.
  2. Architecture Analysis: We'll analyze the C4 diagrams and deployment descriptions to understand the system's components, their interactions, and potential attack surfaces.
  3. Data Flow Analysis: We'll trace the flow of sensitive data (email content, user credentials, etc.) through the system to identify potential points of exposure.
  4. Threat Modeling: We'll use the identified threats and vulnerabilities to create a threat model, assessing the likelihood and impact of each threat.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: We'll provide specific, actionable recommendations to mitigate the identified risks, tailored to the Postal project.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the C4 Container Diagram and descriptions, here's a breakdown of the security implications of each key component:

  • Web Interface (Ruby on Rails Application):

    • Threats: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), SQL Injection, Session Management vulnerabilities, Authentication bypass, Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR).
    • Implications: Compromise of user accounts, data breaches, defacement of the web interface, unauthorized access to emails and settings.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • Strict Content Security Policy (CSP): Postal's docker-compose.yml and any reverse proxy configuration (Nginx) should enforce a strict CSP to mitigate XSS. This should be reviewed to ensure it's not overly permissive.
      • CSRF Token Verification: Verify that Rails' built-in CSRF protection is enabled and properly configured for all forms and AJAX requests within the Postal web interface. Ensure no exceptions are made without strong justification.
      • Parameterized Queries/ORM: Confirm that all database interactions within the Rails application use parameterized queries or the ActiveRecord ORM (which inherently uses them) to prevent SQL injection. Raw SQL should be avoided.
      • Secure Session Management: Ensure session cookies are set with HttpOnly and Secure flags. Session IDs should be long, random, and expire appropriately. Consider using a secure session store (e.g., Redis) instead of the default cookie store.
      • Input Validation (Whitelist): Implement strict whitelist-based input validation for all user-supplied data, both on the client-side (for usability) and server-side (for security). This includes email addresses, usernames, passwords, and any other input fields.
      • Rate Limiting (Login): Implement rate limiting on login attempts to prevent brute-force attacks. This should be configurable within Postal's settings.
      • 2FA: Prioritize the implementation of Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) for web interface access, especially for administrative accounts.

  • API (Likely Ruby on Rails API):

    • Threats: Similar to the Web Interface, plus API-specific threats like injection attacks through API parameters, authentication bypass, unauthorized access to API endpoints, excessive data exposure, lack of rate limiting.
    • Implications: Compromise of user accounts, data breaches, unauthorized access to emails and settings, denial-of-service attacks.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • API Key Management: If Postal uses API keys, ensure they are generated securely, stored securely (not in the codebase), and can be easily revoked. Consider using a dedicated secrets management solution.
      • Authentication: Implement robust authentication for all API endpoints. Consider using OAuth 2.0 or JWT (JSON Web Tokens) for secure authentication and authorization.
      • Input Validation (API): Apply the same strict whitelist-based input validation principles as the web interface, specifically tailored to the API's expected input formats (e.g., JSON schema validation).
      • Rate Limiting (API): Implement granular rate limiting on all API endpoints to prevent abuse and denial-of-service attacks. Different rate limits may be needed for different endpoints and user roles.
      • Output Encoding: Ensure all API responses are properly encoded to prevent injection vulnerabilities. Use a consistent and secure encoding scheme (e.g., JSON).
      • Minimal Data Exposure: Design API endpoints to return only the necessary data, avoiding over-exposure of sensitive information.

  • SMTP Server (Likely Custom Ruby Code):

    • Threats: SMTP Injection, Buffer Overflow attacks, Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, Spam relaying, Eavesdropping (if TLS is not enforced).
    • Implications: Sending spam through the server, crashing the server, intercepting email communications, data breaches.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • Enforce TLS: Postal must enforce TLS encryption for all SMTP connections (both incoming and outgoing). Configuration options should make this mandatory and warn users if it's disabled. Support only strong TLS versions and cipher suites.
      • Input Validation (SMTP): Rigorously validate all SMTP commands and data (sender, recipient, headers, body) to prevent injection attacks and ensure compliance with RFC specifications. Reject malformed or suspicious input.
      • Rate Limiting (SMTP): Implement rate limiting on the number of connections, messages, and recipients per connection/user/IP address to prevent spam relaying and DoS attacks. These limits should be configurable.
      • Authentication (SMTP): Require authentication for all outgoing mail submissions (SMTP AUTH). Support strong authentication mechanisms (e.g., SASL).
      • Spam Filtering Integration: Ensure seamless integration with spam filtering solutions (SpamAssassin, Rspamd). Postal should allow administrators to configure these integrations easily.
      • Sender Verification: Implement strict checks on the sender's domain (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) to prevent spoofing. Postal should provide clear logging and reporting on these checks.
      • Recipient Verification: Before accepting a message, verify that the recipient exists. This prevents the server from being used to send spam to non-existent addresses.
      • Greylisting: Implement greylisting as a configurable option to help reduce spam.

  • IMAP Server (Likely Custom Ruby Code):

    • Threats: Authentication bypass, Brute-force attacks, Eavesdropping (if TLS is not enforced), Denial-of-Service attacks.
    • Implications: Unauthorized access to user mailboxes, data breaches, service disruption.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • Enforce TLS (IMAP): Similar to SMTP, enforce TLS encryption for all IMAP connections. Configuration options should make this mandatory.
      • Authentication (IMAP): Implement robust authentication mechanisms (e.g., SASL) and enforce strong password policies.
      • Rate Limiting (IMAP): Implement rate limiting on login attempts and connections to prevent brute-force attacks and DoS attacks.
      • Secure Password Storage: Store user passwords securely using a strong, one-way hashing algorithm (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2). Never store passwords in plain text.

  • Message Queue (e.g., RabbitMQ):

    • Threats: Unauthorized access to the queue, message tampering, denial-of-service attacks.
    • Implications: Interception or modification of email messages, service disruption.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • Secure Configuration: Ensure the message queue (RabbitMQ) is configured securely, with strong passwords, access controls, and TLS encryption for communication. Follow the principle of least privilege for queue access.
      • Message Integrity: Consider using message signing or encryption if the message queue is considered untrusted. This would protect the integrity and confidentiality of messages in transit within the queue.

  • Worker Processes (Ruby):

    • Threats: Code injection vulnerabilities (if processing untrusted data from the queue), privilege escalation, resource exhaustion.
    • Implications: Compromise of the server, data breaches, service disruption.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • Input Validation (Worker): Even though data comes from the message queue, treat it as potentially untrusted. Validate all data processed by worker processes.
      • Principle of Least Privilege: Run worker processes with the minimum necessary privileges. Avoid running them as root or with unnecessary system access.
      • Resource Limits: Implement resource limits (CPU, memory) on worker processes to prevent them from consuming excessive resources and causing denial-of-service.
      • Error Handling: Implement robust error handling and logging in worker processes to detect and respond to security-related issues.

  • Database (e.g., MySQL, PostgreSQL):

    • Threats: SQL Injection, unauthorized access, data breaches, data corruption.
    • Implications: Compromise of the entire system, data loss, data breaches.
    • Mitigation (Postal-Specific):
      • Parameterized Queries (Enforced): As mentioned earlier, strictly enforce the use of parameterized queries or a secure ORM for all database interactions. This is the primary defense against SQL injection.
      • Database User Permissions: Create dedicated database users with the minimum necessary privileges. The Postal application should not connect to the database as the root user.
      • Encryption at Rest: Enable encryption at rest for the database to protect data in case of physical theft or unauthorized access to the database server.
      • Regular Backups: Implement a robust backup and recovery plan for the database. Backups should be encrypted and stored securely.
      • Strong Passwords: Use strong, randomly generated passwords for all database users.
      • Network Access Control: Restrict network access to the database server to only the necessary hosts (e.g., the Postal application servers).

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

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

  • Architecture: Postal follows a fairly standard multi-tier architecture, with separate components for presentation (web interface), application logic (API, SMTP, IMAP), message queuing, background processing (workers), and data storage (database).

  • Components: The key components are as described in the C4 Container Diagram.

  • Data Flow:

    1. Sending Email:
      • User -> Web Interface/API -> SMTP Server -> Message Queue -> Worker Processes -> External Mail Servers.
      • Sensitive data: Email content, sender/recipient addresses, user credentials.
    2. Receiving Email:
      • External Mail Servers -> SMTP Server -> Message Queue -> Worker Processes -> Database -> IMAP Server -> Web Interface/API -> User.
      • Sensitive data: Email content, sender/recipient addresses.
    3. User Account Management:
      • User -> Web Interface/API -> Database.
      • Sensitive data: Usernames, passwords, email addresses, other profile information.

4. Postal-Specific Security Considerations

  • Email Content Security: Since Postal handles email content, which is inherently sensitive, special care must be taken to protect it throughout its lifecycle. This includes encryption in transit (TLS), encryption at rest (database encryption), and secure handling within the application (avoiding logging of sensitive data, proper sanitization).
  • Spam and Abuse Prevention: As a mail server, Postal is a prime target for spammers and abusers. Robust spam filtering, rate limiting, and sender/recipient verification are crucial.
  • Configuration Security: Postal's security relies heavily on proper configuration. The documentation should provide clear and comprehensive security hardening guides, and the default configuration should be secure by default.
  • Dependency Management: Regularly auditing and updating dependencies (Ruby gems, Node.js packages) is essential to mitigate vulnerabilities in third-party libraries.
  • Open Source Considerations: Being open-source, Postal is subject to public scrutiny. This is a double-edged sword: vulnerabilities may be discovered more easily, but they can also be fixed more quickly. A responsive security team and a clear vulnerability reporting process are essential.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to Postal)

In addition to the component-specific mitigations listed above, here are some overarching strategies:

  1. Security Auditing Program:

    • Regular Penetration Testing: Conduct regular penetration tests (at least annually) by an external security firm to identify vulnerabilities that may be missed by internal reviews.
    • Code Reviews: Implement a mandatory code review process for all code changes, with a focus on security. Use automated static analysis tools (like Rubocop, Brakeman for Ruby) to assist with code reviews.
    • Dynamic Analysis: While not part of this review's scope, consider incorporating dynamic analysis (e.g., using a web application scanner) into the testing process.

  2. Security Hardening Guides:

    • Provide detailed, step-by-step security hardening guides for users deploying Postal. These guides should cover all aspects of deployment, configuration, and maintenance.
    • Include specific recommendations for configuring TLS, firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and other security controls.

  3. Bug Bounty Program:

    • Implement a bug bounty program to incentivize security researchers to report vulnerabilities responsibly. This can help identify and fix vulnerabilities before they are exploited in the wild.

  4. Intrusion Detection and Prevention (IDS/IPS):

    • Recommend and document the use of IDS/IPS solutions (e.g., Snort, Suricata) to detect and prevent network-based attacks. Provide guidance on configuring these systems for Postal.

  5. Two-Factor Authentication (2FA):

    • Prioritize the implementation of 2FA for administrative access to the web interface. This is a critical control to protect against compromised administrator accounts.

  6. Data Loss Prevention (DLP):

    • While full DLP may be complex, consider implementing basic DLP measures, such as monitoring for large outgoing emails or unusual email patterns that may indicate data exfiltration.

  7. Dedicated, Hardened Operating System:

    • Recommend the use of a dedicated, hardened operating system for the Postal server. This could be a minimal Linux distribution with unnecessary services disabled and security patches applied regularly.

  8. Network Segmentation:

    • Recommend network segmentation to isolate the Postal server from other systems. This can limit the impact of a potential compromise.

  9. Regular Threat Model Updates:

    • Review and update the threat model for Postal at least annually, or whenever significant changes are made to the architecture or functionality.

  10. Secret Management:

    • Implement a robust secret management solution. Do not store secrets (API keys, database passwords, etc.) directly in the codebase or configuration files. Use environment variables or a dedicated secrets management tool (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Doppler).

  11. Dependency Auditing:

    • Integrate automated dependency auditing tools (e.g., bundler-audit, npm audit, Dependabot) into the build process to identify and address known vulnerabilities in dependencies.

  12. Security Training:

    • Provide security training for the development team to ensure they are aware of common security vulnerabilities and best practices.

  13. Incident Response Plan:

    • Develop and document a clear incident response plan to handle security incidents effectively. This plan should outline the steps to be taken in case of a data breach, service disruption, or other security event.

  14. SIEM Integration (Optional):

    • Consider integrating Postal with a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system to centralize logging and monitoring and improve threat detection capabilities.

  15. GDPR/CCPA Compliance:

    • Ensure Postal provides the necessary features and documentation to allow users to comply with data privacy regulations like GDPR and CCPA. This includes features for data access, rectification, erasure, and portability.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the Postal project can significantly improve its security posture and protect its users from a wide range of threats. The focus should be on a layered approach, combining secure coding practices, robust configuration, regular security testing, and proactive monitoring.