Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
61 lines (48 loc) · 7.34 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

61 lines (48 loc) · 7.34 KB

Threat Model Analysis for teamcapybara/capybara

Threat: Accidental Production Modification

  • Threat: Accidental Production Modification

    • Description: A developer or tester misconfigures Capybara (e.g., Capybara.app_host) to point to the production environment instead of the intended testing or staging environment. They then execute tests that include actions like creating, updating, or deleting data. This is a direct result of how Capybara is used, not an underlying application vulnerability.
    • Impact: Data loss, data corruption, service disruption, and potential reputational damage in the production environment. Unauthorized changes to live data.
    • Capybara Component Affected: The Capybara.app_host configuration setting (or the equivalent mechanism for specifying the target URL) and any methods that interact with the application, such as visit, click_button, fill_in, etc. The core issue is misconfiguration, but these functions are the means of interaction.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Environment Configuration: Use distinct and clearly named environment variables (e.g., RAILS_ENV, CAPYBARA_APP_HOST) to differentiate between testing, staging, and production. Never hardcode the production URL in test code.
      • Pre-Flight Checks: Implement checks within the test setup (e.g., before(:all) blocks) to verify the target URL or environment variables before any tests are executed. Abort the test run if the environment is incorrect.
      • Restricted Test Accounts: Use separate, dedicated user accounts for testing with limited privileges. These accounts should not have access to modify critical production data.
      • Confirmation Prompts/Dry Runs: For particularly sensitive actions (e.g., deleting data), consider adding confirmation prompts or a "dry run" mode to the test code.
      • CI/CD Pipeline Safeguards: Configure the CI/CD pipeline to enforce environment separation and prevent deployments of test code to production.

Threat: Hardcoded Secrets in Test Code

  • Threat: Hardcoded Secrets in Test Code

    • Description: A developer hardcodes sensitive information (passwords, API keys, database credentials) directly into Capybara test scripts. These scripts are then committed to a version control system. This is a direct threat because the test code itself contains the vulnerability, and Capybara is the tool used to interact with the application using those secrets.
    • Impact: Exposure of sensitive credentials, potentially leading to unauthorized access to the application, databases, or other services. Compromise of the application and its data.
    • Capybara Component Affected: Any Capybara methods that interact with form fields or other input elements where sensitive data might be entered (e.g., fill_in, choose, select). The issue is the presence of secrets in the test code, not a specific function, but these functions are how the secrets are used.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Environment Variables: Use environment variables to store sensitive data. Access these variables within the test code (e.g., ENV['TEST_PASSWORD']).
      • Secure Configuration Management: Use a dedicated configuration management system (e.g., a secrets manager) to store and retrieve sensitive data.
      • Secrets Scanning: Implement secrets scanning tools in the CI/CD pipeline to detect and prevent the commit of hardcoded secrets.
      • Code Reviews: Conduct regular code reviews to check for hardcoded secrets in test code.
      • .gitignore: Ensure that any files containing sensitive data (e.g., local configuration files) are added to the .gitignore file.

Threat: Test-Induced Denial of Service (DoS) [If misconfigured to run against production]

  • Threat: Test-Induced Denial of Service (DoS) [If misconfigured to run against production]

    • Description: While primarily a risk in the test environment, if Capybara is misconfigured to run against production (as in the "Accidental Production Modification" threat), poorly designed tests that make excessive requests can cause a DoS. This makes it a direct threat of Capybara's misconfiguration and use.
    • Impact: Application unavailability, performance degradation, and potential resource exhaustion (CPU, memory, database connections) on the production server.
    • Capybara Component Affected: Any Capybara methods that interact with the application, particularly those used within loops or repeated calls (e.g., visit, click_link, find). The issue is the pattern of use combined with incorrect configuration.
    • Risk Severity: High (Potentially Critical if against production)
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • All mitigations from "Accidental Production Modification" apply. This is crucial to prevent this scenario.
      • Realistic Test Scenarios: Design tests to mimic realistic user behavior, including appropriate delays and pauses.
      • Rate Limiting (Even in Testing): Implement rate limiting or throttling, even in the test environment, as a good practice.
      • Avoid Unnecessary Loops: Carefully review test code for unnecessary loops or repeated actions.
      • Monitoring: Monitor application performance during test execution.

Threat: Bypassing Security Controls (Indirectly) [High due to potential for misuse]

  • Threat: Bypassing Security Controls (Indirectly) [High due to potential for misuse]

    • Description: Developers use Capybara to directly manipulate the application's state (e.g., setting session cookies, modifying internal state) bypassing normal security controls. While this is done within the test, the techniques used could be copied into production code, creating a vulnerability. This is a direct threat because it involves the misuse of Capybara's capabilities.
    • Impact: If these testing techniques are inadvertently or maliciously used in production code, it could allow attackers to bypass security controls, gain unauthorized access, or manipulate data.
    • Capybara Component Affected: Capybara methods that allow direct manipulation of the browser's state, such as execute_script (for executing arbitrary JavaScript), page.driver.browser.manage.add_cookie (for setting cookies directly), or methods interacting with hidden form fields or internal APIs.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Test Realistic User Flows: Focus on testing the application through the UI, as a real user would. Avoid "backdoor" methods.
      • Code Separation: Maintain a clear separation between test code and production code. Avoid sharing code or techniques.
      • Code Reviews: Thorough code reviews to ensure test code is not influencing production code insecurely.
      • Principle of Least Privilege: Test accounts should have minimal privileges.