Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
80 lines (61 loc) · 9.62 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

80 lines (61 loc) · 9.62 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for facebook/relay

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Storage of Cached Data (Client-Side)

Description:

  1. Identify Cached Sensitive Data: Determine what sensitive data (e.g., personal information, financial details, authentication tokens) is being cached by Relay on the client-side. This includes data stored in Relay's normalized cache and any custom caching mechanisms you might be using with Relay.
  2. Evaluate Storage Mechanisms: Understand how Relay is storing cached data in the browser. By default, Relay uses in-memory storage, but it can be configured to use persistent storage like localStorage or IndexedDB. Persistent storage poses a greater security risk if not handled carefully.
  3. Minimize Caching of Sensitive Data: Reduce the amount of sensitive data cached client-side whenever possible. Consider fetching sensitive data only when needed and avoiding caching it for extended periods.
  4. Implement Encryption for Persistent Storage (If Necessary): If you must cache sensitive data persistently (e.g., using localStorage or IndexedDB), implement client-side encryption to protect the data at rest. Use robust encryption libraries and ensure proper key management. Note: Client-side encryption has inherent risks if the encryption key is also stored client-side. Consider the trade-offs carefully.
  5. Clear Cache on Logout/Session Termination: Ensure that Relay's cache, especially persistent storage, is cleared when a user logs out or their session expires. This prevents sensitive data from lingering in the browser after the user is no longer authenticated.
  6. Consider In-Memory Storage for Sensitive Data: For highly sensitive data, prefer using Relay's default in-memory cache, which is cleared when the browser tab or window is closed. This offers better security than persistent storage, although it may impact application performance if data needs to be refetched frequently.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Client-Side Data Breach (High Severity if sensitive data is cached): If sensitive data is stored insecurely in the browser's cache (especially persistent storage), attackers who gain access to the user's device or browser profile could potentially extract this data.
  • Data Leakage through Browser Storage (Medium Severity): Less sophisticated attackers or malware might be able to access data stored in browser storage if it's not properly protected.

Impact:

  • Client-Side Data Breach: High Risk Reduction (if encryption and proper cache management are implemented)
  • Data Leakage through Browser Storage: Medium Risk Reduction (with encryption and cache clearing)

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Relay uses in-memory cache by default. Persistent storage is not explicitly used for highly sensitive data, but the potential exists if developers inadvertently configure Relay to use persistent storage without considering security implications.

Missing Implementation:

  • Formal policy and guidelines on handling sensitive data in Relay's client-side cache.
  • Explicit checks and warnings against accidentally enabling persistent storage for sensitive data without encryption.
  • Implementation of client-side encryption if persistent storage of sensitive data becomes necessary in the future.
  • Automated cache clearing on logout/session termination needs to be verified and potentially enhanced.

Mitigation Strategy: Cache Invalidation Strategies

Description:

  1. Define Cache Invalidation Policies: Establish clear policies for when and how Relay's client-side cache should be invalidated. This should be based on data update frequency, data sensitivity, and application requirements.
  2. Implement Mutation-Based Invalidation: Leverage Relay's mutation response handling to automatically invalidate relevant parts of the cache when data is modified through mutations. Ensure your mutations correctly specify edges and connections to update the cache effectively.
  3. Use gcReleaseBufferSize and gcScheduler (Relay Modern): In Relay Modern, configure gcReleaseBufferSize and gcScheduler to control garbage collection and cache eviction. Tune these settings to balance memory usage and cache freshness.
  4. Implement Time-Based Invalidation (If Necessary): For data that changes infrequently but needs to be refreshed periodically, consider implementing time-based cache invalidation. This could involve setting cache expiration times or using techniques to trigger cache refreshes after a certain duration.
  5. Manual Cache Invalidation (For Edge Cases): Provide mechanisms for manual cache invalidation when necessary, such as when data is updated outside of Relay mutations or when inconsistencies are detected. Relay's Environment API provides methods for cache invalidation.
  6. Monitor Cache Consistency: Implement monitoring and logging to track cache invalidation events and detect potential cache inconsistencies. This helps ensure that users are consistently presented with up-to-date data.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Stale Data Exposure (Medium Severity): If cache invalidation is not properly implemented, users may be presented with outdated information, which could lead to incorrect decisions or actions based on stale data. While not directly a security vulnerability in the traditional sense, it can have security implications if stale data leads to security-relevant misconfigurations or actions.
  • Authorization Bypass due to Stale Cache (Potentially High Severity in specific scenarios): In certain scenarios, if authorization rules change, but the client-side cache is not invalidated, a user might retain access to data they are no longer authorized to view based on the stale cached authorization state. This is highly context-dependent but can be a serious issue.

Impact:

  • Stale Data Exposure: Medium Risk Reduction
  • Authorization Bypass due to Stale Cache: Potentially High Risk Reduction (depending on the application's authorization model and data sensitivity)

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Mutation-based invalidation is used in some mutations, but cache invalidation policies are not consistently defined or enforced across the application. Time-based or manual invalidation strategies are not explicitly implemented.

Missing Implementation:

  • Comprehensive cache invalidation policy document.
  • Systematic review and implementation of mutation-based invalidation for all relevant mutations.
  • Exploration and potential implementation of time-based or manual cache invalidation strategies where needed.
  • Monitoring and logging of cache invalidation events.
  • Testing and validation of cache invalidation logic to ensure consistency and prevent stale data issues.

Mitigation Strategy: Consider the viewer Pattern for Authorization Context

Description:

  1. Implement the viewer Field: In your GraphQL schema, consistently use the viewer field at the root query level to represent the currently authenticated user. The viewer field should return a Viewer type object containing information about the user and their permissions.
  2. Populate viewer Context in Resolvers: In your GraphQL resolvers, ensure that the viewer context is correctly populated with authentication and authorization information based on the user's session or token.
  3. Use viewer for Authorization Checks: Within your resolvers, especially for fields and mutations that require authorization, access the viewer object from the context to perform authorization checks. Base authorization decisions on the user's roles, permissions, or other attributes available in the viewer context.
  4. Centralize Authorization Logic within viewer Resolvers (Optional): Consider centralizing authorization logic within the resolvers for the Viewer type itself or related helper functions. This can improve code organization and maintainability.
  5. Ensure Consistent viewer Usage: Promote consistent usage of the viewer pattern throughout your GraphQL schema and resolvers to ensure uniform authorization enforcement.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Inconsistent Authorization Enforcement (Medium Severity): Without a consistent pattern like viewer, authorization checks might be implemented inconsistently across different parts of the GraphQL API, leading to potential gaps in security.
  • Authorization Logic Duplication (Low to Medium Severity): Without a centralized approach, authorization logic might be duplicated across resolvers, making it harder to maintain and increasing the risk of errors or inconsistencies.

Impact:

  • Inconsistent Authorization Enforcement: Medium Risk Reduction
  • Authorization Logic Duplication: Low to Medium Risk Reduction (primarily improves maintainability and reduces the chance of introducing authorization bugs)

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. The viewer pattern is used in some parts of the GraphQL schema, but its adoption is not consistent across all resolvers and data access points.

Missing Implementation:

  • Full and consistent adoption of the viewer pattern throughout the GraphQL schema and resolvers.
  • Refactoring existing resolvers to utilize the viewer context for authorization checks.
  • Documentation and guidelines for developers on how to use the viewer pattern for authorization in Relay applications.
  • Code reviews to ensure consistent and correct usage of the viewer pattern.