Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
191 lines (141 loc) · 169 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

191 lines (141 loc) · 169 KB

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

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the Capybara password manager, focusing on the key components identified in the security design review. This includes identifying potential vulnerabilities, assessing their impact, and recommending mitigation strategies. The primary goal is to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of user data, particularly passwords. We will analyze the architecture, data flow, and security controls to identify weaknesses and propose improvements.

  • Scope: The analysis will cover the following components:

    • Flutter Client (Mobile App)
    • Supabase API
    • Supabase Database (PostgreSQL)
    • Supabase Auth
    • CI/CD Pipeline (GitHub Actions)
    • Deployment to Mobile App Stores (iOS and Android)
    • Key Management (as inferred and explicitly mentioned)
    • Data Flow and Encryption/Decryption Processes

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Data Flow Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions to understand the system's architecture, components, and how data flows between them.
    2. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the architecture, data flow, and identified business risks. 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. Security Control Analysis: Evaluate the existing and recommended security controls to determine their effectiveness against identified threats.
    4. Vulnerability Identification: Based on the threat modeling and security control analysis, pinpoint specific vulnerabilities in each component.
    5. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose actionable and tailored mitigation strategies to address the identified vulnerabilities. These recommendations will be specific to the Capybara project and its technologies (Flutter, Supabase).
    6. Prioritization: Classify recommendations based on their criticality (High, Medium, Low) to guide implementation efforts.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

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

  • Flutter Client (Mobile App):

    • Threats:

      • Reverse Engineering: Attackers could decompile the app to analyze its code, potentially discovering vulnerabilities or hardcoded secrets.
      • Data Leakage (Local Storage): Improper storage of encryption keys or decrypted data on the device could expose sensitive information.
      • Input Validation Issues: Lack of proper input validation could lead to injection attacks or other vulnerabilities.
      • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks: If SSL/TLS is not properly implemented or certificate pinning is not used, attackers could intercept communication with the Supabase API.
      • Malware/Compromised Device: If the user's device is compromised, the attacker could gain access to the app and its data.
      • Insecure Dependencies: Vulnerabilities in third-party Flutter packages could be exploited.
      • Weak Encryption Implementation: Bugs or weaknesses in the encryption/decryption logic could compromise data confidentiality.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Hardcoded API keys or secrets in the codebase.
      • Using insecure storage mechanisms for encryption keys (e.g., SharedPreferences without encryption).
      • Insufficient input validation on user-provided data.
      • Lack of certificate pinning, making MitM attacks easier.
      • Using outdated or vulnerable Flutter packages.
      • Errors in implementing encryption algorithms or key derivation functions.

  • Supabase API:

    • Threats:

      • Authentication Bypass: Attackers could bypass authentication mechanisms to access the API.
      • Authorization Flaws: Improper authorization checks could allow users to access data they shouldn't.
      • Injection Attacks (SQL, NoSQL): If input is not properly sanitized, attackers could inject malicious code into database queries.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Attackers could flood the API with requests, making it unavailable to legitimate users.
      • API Abuse: Attackers could exploit API functionalities in unintended ways.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Weak or default API keys.
      • Insufficient rate limiting on API endpoints.
      • Lack of input validation on API requests.
      • Improperly configured CORS settings, allowing unauthorized websites to access the API.
      • Vulnerabilities in the underlying Supabase infrastructure.

  • Supabase Database (PostgreSQL):

    • Threats:

      • SQL Injection: If parameterized queries are not used consistently, attackers could inject malicious SQL code.
      • Data Breach: Unauthorized access to the database could expose encrypted user data.
      • Data Tampering: Attackers could modify or delete data in the database.
      • Privilege Escalation: Exploiting database vulnerabilities to gain higher privileges.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Misconfigured Row Level Security (RLS) policies, allowing users to access data belonging to other users.
      • Weak database user passwords.
      • Unpatched database vulnerabilities.
      • Insufficient logging and monitoring of database activity.

  • Supabase Auth:

    • Threats:

      • Brute-Force Attacks: Attackers could try to guess user passwords.
      • Credential Stuffing: Attackers could use credentials stolen from other breaches to try to access user accounts.
      • Account Takeover: Attackers could gain control of user accounts through various means (e.g., phishing, session hijacking).
      • Session Fixation: Attackers could manipulate session IDs to hijack user sessions.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Lack of rate limiting on authentication attempts.
      • Weak password policies.
      • Absence of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA).
      • Vulnerabilities in Supabase Auth's implementation.

  • CI/CD Pipeline (GitHub Actions):

    • Threats:

      • Compromised Credentials: Attackers could steal GitHub Actions secrets (e.g., API keys, deployment credentials).
      • Malicious Code Injection: Attackers could inject malicious code into the build process.
      • Dependency Tampering: Attackers could compromise dependencies used in the build process.
      • Unauthorized Access: Attackers could gain access to the GitHub repository or the CI/CD pipeline.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Storing secrets directly in the repository instead of using GitHub Actions secrets.
      • Using outdated or vulnerable actions or dependencies.
      • Insufficient access controls on the repository and pipeline.
      • Lack of code signing or integrity checks.

  • Deployment to Mobile App Stores (iOS and Android):

    • Threats:

      • App Tampering: Attackers could modify the app after it's been downloaded from the app store.
      • Fake App Distribution: Attackers could create fake versions of the app and distribute them through unofficial channels.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Lack of code obfuscation, making reverse engineering easier.
      • Not using app store security features (e.g., code signing, app attestation).

  • Key Management:

    • Threats:

      • Key Compromise: Attackers could steal or guess the encryption keys.
      • Key Loss: If encryption keys are lost, user data becomes inaccessible.
      • Weak Key Generation: Using weak random number generators or predictable key derivation functions.

    • Vulnerabilities:

      • Storing encryption keys in insecure locations (e.g., hardcoded in the app, in unencrypted device storage).
      • Using weak key derivation functions (e.g., PBKDF2 with low iteration counts).
      • Lack of key rotation.

  • Data Flow and Encryption/Decryption Processes:

    • Threats:
      • Eavesdropping: If data is transmitted unencrypted, attackers can intercept and read it.
      • Data Modification: Attackers can alter data in transit if integrity checks are not in place.
      • Replay Attacks: Attackers can capture and retransmit valid data to perform unauthorized actions.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Using weak encryption algorithms or modes of operation.
      • Improper initialization vector (IV) handling.
      • Lack of authentication of encrypted data (e.g., using CBC mode without HMAC).

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

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

  • Architecture: Client-Server (with a serverless backend). The Flutter client acts as the primary interface, handling user interaction and encryption/decryption. Supabase provides the backend services (database, authentication, API).

  • Components: As detailed in the C4 diagrams and descriptions.

  • Data Flow:

    1. User interacts with the Flutter client.
    2. Data is encrypted client-side using a key derived from the user's master password.
    3. Encrypted data is sent to the Supabase API.
    4. The Supabase API authenticates the request (using Supabase Auth).
    5. The Supabase API interacts with the Supabase Database (PostgreSQL) to store or retrieve encrypted data.
    6. Encrypted data is returned to the Flutter client.
    7. The Flutter client decrypts the data using the user's master password-derived key.

4. Specific Security Considerations for Capybara

  • Master Password Handling: The security of the entire system hinges on the user's master password. This password must be strong and protected. The application must not store the master password directly. It should be used to derive a strong encryption key using a key derivation function (KDF) like Argon2id.

  • Key Derivation Function (KDF): The choice of KDF is crucial. Argon2id is the recommended choice, as it's resistant to both GPU and ASIC cracking. The KDF parameters (memory cost, time cost, parallelism) must be configured appropriately to balance security and performance. These parameters should be configurable and potentially adaptable based on the device's capabilities.

  • Encryption Algorithm and Mode: AES-256 with GCM mode is a good choice, providing both confidentiality and authenticity. Avoid ECB and CBC modes without proper MAC (Message Authentication Code).

  • Secure Storage (Flutter): Flutter provides secure storage options (e.g., flutter_secure_storage package). This should be used to store the encrypted key material (the key derived from the master password, not the master password itself). The platform-specific secure storage mechanisms (Keychain on iOS, Keystore on Android) should be leveraged.

  • Supabase Row Level Security (RLS): RLS is critical for data isolation. The RLS policies must be carefully designed and tested to ensure that users can only access their own data. Any misconfiguration here could lead to a major data breach. The policies should be reviewed regularly.

  • Input Validation: Strict input validation is required on both the client-side (Flutter) and the server-side (Supabase API). This is to prevent injection attacks and other vulnerabilities. Use a whitelist approach whenever possible (define what's allowed, reject everything else).

  • Rate Limiting: Rate limiting must be implemented on all authentication endpoints (Supabase Auth) and potentially on other API endpoints to prevent brute-force attacks and denial-of-service attacks.

  • Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): MFA should be strongly encouraged (and ideally, eventually required) for all users. This adds a significant layer of security, even if the master password is compromised.

  • Dependency Management: Regularly update all dependencies (Flutter packages, Supabase client libraries) to address security vulnerabilities. Use tools like Dependabot or Snyk to automate this process.

  • Code Obfuscation: Obfuscate the Flutter code before releasing the app to make reverse engineering more difficult.

  • Certificate Pinning: Implement certificate pinning to prevent MitM attacks. The app should only trust specific certificates for the Supabase API.

  • Data Recovery: Implement a secure and user-friendly mechanism for data recovery in case the user forgets their master password. This is a complex problem, and there's no perfect solution. Options include:

    • Recovery Codes: Generate a set of one-time recovery codes that the user can store securely.
    • Account Recovery Questions: Use security questions (but be aware of their limitations and potential for social engineering).
    • Trusted Contacts: Allow users to designate trusted contacts who can help them recover their account.
    • Key Escrow (with extreme caution): This involves storing a copy of the encryption key with a trusted third party, but it introduces significant risks.

  • Logging and Monitoring: Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring on both the client-side (to detect suspicious activity on the device) and the server-side (Supabase). Logs should be securely stored and regularly reviewed.

  • Vulnerability Disclosure Program: Establish a vulnerability disclosure program to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to Capybara)

| Vulnerability | Mitigation Strategy