Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
200 lines (153 loc) · 24.2 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

200 lines (153 loc) · 24.2 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Hyper HTTP Library

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep security analysis is to thoroughly evaluate the security posture of the hyperium/hyper HTTP library. This analysis aims to identify potential security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for improvement within the library's design, implementation, and build process. The focus is on providing actionable, hyper-specific security recommendations to enhance the library's robustness and protect applications that depend on it from HTTP-related threats.

Scope:

This analysis encompasses the following aspects of the hyperium/hyper project, as outlined in the provided Security Design Review and C4 diagrams:

  • Core Components: Analysis of the security implications of each key component within the hyper library, including Core HTTP Abstractions, HTTP Client, HTTP Server, Connection Management, TLS Integration, HTTP/1.1 Implementation, HTTP/2 Implementation, and WebSockets Support.
  • Data Flow and Architecture: Examination of the data flow within hyper and its interaction with external systems (Operating System, TLS Libraries, Network Infrastructure) to identify potential attack vectors and data exposure risks.
  • Security Controls: Review of existing and recommended security controls, assessing their effectiveness and identifying gaps.
  • Build and Deployment Processes: Analysis of the build pipeline and typical deployment scenarios for applications using hyper to identify security considerations in these phases.
  • Security Requirements: Evaluation of how hyper addresses the defined security requirements (Input Validation, Cryptography) and its support for Authentication and Authorization in applications built upon it.

This analysis is limited to the hyper library itself and its immediate dependencies and interactions. It does not extend to the security of applications built using hyper, except where the library's design directly impacts the security of those applications.

Methodology:

This deep security analysis will employ the following methodology:

  1. Document Review: In-depth review of the provided Security Design Review document, including business posture, security posture, C4 diagrams (Context, Container, Deployment, Build), risk assessment, questions, and assumptions.
  2. Codebase Inference (Limited): While direct codebase review is not explicitly requested, the analysis will infer architectural and component details based on the provided documentation and the known nature of an HTTP library. This will involve understanding the responsibilities of each component and how they interact.
  3. Threat Modeling (Component-Based): For each key component identified in the C4 Container diagram, potential threats and vulnerabilities will be identified based on common HTTP security risks and the component's function. This will consider input validation, data handling, protocol implementation, and interactions with external systems.
  4. Security Control Gap Analysis: Comparison of existing security controls with recommended controls and industry best practices to identify gaps and areas for improvement.
  5. Actionable Recommendation Generation: Based on the identified threats and vulnerabilities, specific, actionable, and hyper-tailored mitigation strategies will be developed for the hyper project. These recommendations will be practical and focused on enhancing the library's security.
  6. Risk-Based Prioritization: Recommendations will be implicitly prioritized based on the severity of the identified risks and their potential impact on the hyper library and its users.

This methodology focuses on a design-level security review, leveraging the provided documentation to infer security implications and recommend targeted improvements.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the C4 Container diagram and component descriptions, the following security implications are identified for each key component of the hyper library:

A. Core HTTP Abstractions:

  • Security Implications: This component is foundational and handles core HTTP data structures. Vulnerabilities here can have cascading effects.
    • Input Validation Weaknesses: If parsing and serialization logic in core abstractions is flawed, it can lead to vulnerabilities across the entire library. For example, improper parsing of headers could lead to header injection attacks.
    • Data Structure Integrity: Corruption or manipulation of core HTTP data structures (requests, responses, headers, bodies) due to memory safety issues (though mitigated by Rust) or logical errors could lead to unexpected behavior and potential vulnerabilities.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Header Parsing Robustness: Ensure rigorous parsing of HTTP headers, handling various encodings, delimiters, and edge cases to prevent header injection and related attacks.
    • Body Handling Security: Securely manage HTTP body data, especially when dealing with streaming bodies. Prevent potential buffer overflows or excessive memory consumption when handling large bodies.
    • Error Handling in Parsing: Implement robust error handling during HTTP parsing to gracefully handle malformed requests and prevent denial-of-service or unexpected behavior.

B. HTTP Client:

  • Security Implications: The client component is responsible for initiating requests and handling responses. Client-side vulnerabilities can expose applications to risks when interacting with malicious servers.
    • Request Smuggling/Splitting: If the client incorrectly constructs requests, it could be vulnerable to request smuggling or splitting attacks if interacting with a vulnerable intermediary or server.
    • Redirect Handling Vulnerabilities: Improper handling of redirects could lead to open redirects, where an attacker can redirect a client to a malicious site.
    • TLS/HTTPS Misconfiguration: Client-side TLS configuration errors (e.g., weak cipher suites, improper certificate validation) can compromise the confidentiality and integrity of communication.
    • Client-Side Request Forgery (CSRF) (Indirect): While hyper client doesn't directly prevent CSRF, its API should not inadvertently make it easier to introduce CSRF vulnerabilities in applications using it.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Strict Request Construction: Provide APIs that encourage secure request construction and minimize the risk of request smuggling.
    • Secure Redirect Policy: Implement a secure default redirect policy and allow developers to configure it appropriately, preventing open redirects.
    • Robust TLS Client Configuration: Offer clear and secure defaults for TLS client configuration, including strong cipher suites and proper certificate validation. Provide options for customization while guiding developers towards secure choices.
    • Timeout Management: Implement and enforce timeouts for requests to prevent indefinite hangs and potential denial-of-service scenarios.

C. HTTP Server:

  • Security Implications: The server component handles incoming requests and generates responses. Server-side vulnerabilities are critical as they can directly expose the server and backend systems to attacks.
    • Injection Attacks (SQL, Command, etc.): While hyper itself doesn't directly interact with databases or execute commands, vulnerabilities in request parsing or handling could make applications built on hyper susceptible to injection attacks if they process request data unsafely.
    • Denial of Service (DoS): Server implementations are prime targets for DoS attacks. Vulnerabilities in connection handling, request parsing, or resource management could be exploited to overwhelm the server.
    • Path Traversal: If request path handling is not secure, it could lead to path traversal vulnerabilities, allowing attackers to access unauthorized files or resources.
    • Header Injection/Response Splitting: Improper handling of request headers or response header construction could lead to header injection or response splitting attacks.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Rigorous Input Validation: Implement comprehensive input validation for all parts of the HTTP request (headers, method, URL, body) to prevent injection attacks and other input-related vulnerabilities.
    • DoS Protection Mechanisms: Implement mechanisms to mitigate DoS attacks, such as connection limits, request rate limiting (though often application-level, hyper can provide building blocks), and timeouts.
    • Secure Path Handling: Provide secure and well-documented APIs for handling request paths, guiding developers to avoid path traversal vulnerabilities in their applications.
    • Safe Response Header Construction: Ensure that response header construction is secure and prevents header injection or response splitting vulnerabilities.

D. Connection Management:

  • Security Implications: Connection management deals with network connections, which are crucial for performance and security. Vulnerabilities here can lead to DoS or other connection-related attacks.
    • Connection Exhaustion: If connection management is not robust, attackers could exhaust server resources by opening a large number of connections, leading to DoS.
    • Connection Hijacking/Spoofing: While less likely at the HTTP library level, vulnerabilities in connection handling could theoretically be exploited for connection hijacking or spoofing.
    • Resource Leaks: Improper connection management could lead to resource leaks (memory, file descriptors), eventually causing instability or DoS.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Connection Limits and Pooling: Implement configurable connection limits and efficient connection pooling to prevent connection exhaustion attacks and optimize resource usage.
    • Keep-Alive Handling Security: Securely manage keep-alive connections to prevent issues like connection starvation or resource leaks.
    • Connection Timeout and Idle Timeout: Implement and enforce connection timeouts and idle timeouts to reclaim resources from inactive or stalled connections and mitigate DoS risks.

E. TLS Integration:

  • Security Implications: TLS is critical for secure communication (HTTPS). Vulnerabilities in TLS integration can completely undermine the security of HTTP communication.
    • Weak TLS Configuration: Using outdated or weak TLS protocols, cipher suites, or configurations can make connections vulnerable to eavesdropping or man-in-the-middle attacks.
    • Certificate Validation Failures: Improper certificate validation can allow attackers to impersonate servers or clients.
    • Cryptographic Vulnerabilities (Indirect): While hyper relies on TLS libraries, vulnerabilities in how hyper uses these libraries or configures them could still introduce cryptographic weaknesses.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Secure TLS Defaults: Provide secure default TLS configurations, using strong and up-to-date protocols and cipher suites.
    • Robust Certificate Validation: Ensure proper and strict certificate validation by default, including hostname verification and revocation checks.
    • TLS Configuration Flexibility with Guidance: Offer flexibility in TLS configuration for advanced users, but provide clear documentation and guidance on secure configuration choices, warning against insecure options.
    • Regularly Update TLS Libraries: Maintain dependencies on TLS libraries (rustls, openssl) and promptly update them to address known cryptographic vulnerabilities.

F. HTTP/1.1 & G. HTTP/2 Implementation:

  • Security Implications: These components implement specific HTTP protocol versions. Protocol-specific vulnerabilities can arise from implementation errors or inherent weaknesses in the protocols themselves.
    • HTTP/1.1 Vulnerabilities: Chunked encoding vulnerabilities, issues with keep-alive handling, and other HTTP/1.1 specific attacks.
    • HTTP/2 Vulnerabilities: HPACK header compression vulnerabilities (like compression bombs), stream multiplexing issues, denial-of-service attacks related to stream limits or priority handling.
    • Protocol Confusion Attacks: If protocol negotiation or handling is flawed, it could be vulnerable to protocol confusion attacks.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Protocol Standard Adherence: Strictly adhere to HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 specifications to avoid implementation flaws that could lead to vulnerabilities.
    • Protocol-Specific Input Validation: Implement input validation tailored to each protocol version, addressing protocol-specific attack vectors.
    • Mitigation of Known Protocol Vulnerabilities: Actively research and implement mitigations for known vulnerabilities in HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2, such as HPACK vulnerabilities in HTTP/2.
    • Secure Protocol Negotiation: Ensure secure and robust protocol negotiation mechanisms to prevent protocol downgrade attacks or confusion.

H. WebSockets Support:

  • Security Implications: WebSockets enable persistent, bidirectional communication. WebSocket-specific vulnerabilities can arise from handshake flaws or message handling issues.
    • Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH): If WebSocket handshake is not properly protected, it could be vulnerable to CSWSH attacks.
    • WebSocket Message Injection/Manipulation: Vulnerabilities in WebSocket message parsing or handling could allow attackers to inject or manipulate messages.
    • DoS via WebSocket Connections: Similar to HTTP connections, WebSocket connections can be exploited for DoS attacks if connection management is not robust.
  • Specific Security Considerations for Hyper:
    • Secure WebSocket Handshake: Implement robust WebSocket handshake validation, including origin checks and proper handling of security headers to prevent CSWSH.
    • WebSocket Message Validation: Validate WebSocket messages to prevent injection attacks or unexpected behavior due to malformed messages.
    • WebSocket Connection Limits and Management: Apply connection limits and proper connection management to WebSocket connections to prevent DoS attacks.
    • Security Considerations for WebSocket Extensions: If supporting WebSocket extensions, carefully review their security implications and ensure secure implementation.

4. Tailored Security Considerations and Recommendations

Based on the component-level analysis, here are tailored security considerations and specific recommendations for the hyper project:

General Input Validation:

  • Consideration: Input validation is paramount for hyper. All inputs from network connections, including headers, URLs, methods, and bodies, must be rigorously validated.
  • Recommendation:
    • Centralized Input Validation: Establish a centralized input validation framework within hyper that is consistently applied across all components.
    • Strict Validation Rules: Define and enforce strict validation rules for all HTTP elements, adhering to RFC specifications and best practices.
    • Early Validation: Perform input validation as early as possible in the request processing pipeline to reject invalid requests before further processing.
    • Fuzzing for Input Validation: Utilize fuzzing techniques specifically targeting input parsing and validation logic to uncover edge cases and vulnerabilities.

TLS/HTTPS Security:

  • Consideration: Secure TLS configuration is crucial for hyper's HTTPS support. Misconfigurations can lead to severe security vulnerabilities.
  • Recommendation:
    • Secure TLS Configuration by Default: Set secure defaults for TLS configuration, prioritizing strong cipher suites, modern protocols (TLS 1.3 minimum), and robust certificate validation.
    • Configuration Hardening Guide: Provide a comprehensive guide on hardening TLS configurations for advanced users, clearly documenting secure and insecure options and their implications.
    • Regular TLS Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits specifically focused on TLS integration and configuration to identify potential weaknesses.
    • Automated TLS Configuration Checks: Integrate automated checks in the CI/CD pipeline to verify TLS configuration against security best practices.

Denial of Service (DoS) Mitigation:

  • Consideration: HTTP servers are susceptible to DoS attacks. hyper needs to provide mechanisms to mitigate these risks.
  • Recommendation:
    • Connection Limits: Implement configurable connection limits for both HTTP and WebSocket connections to prevent connection exhaustion.
    • Request Rate Limiting (Building Blocks): Provide building blocks or middleware components that applications can use to implement request rate limiting to protect against abusive traffic.
    • Timeouts (Connection, Request, Idle): Enforce timeouts at various levels (connection establishment, request processing, idle connections) to prevent indefinite hangs and resource exhaustion.
    • Resource Limits (Memory, File Descriptors): Consider implementing or recommending resource limits to prevent excessive memory or file descriptor usage that could lead to DoS.

HTTP/2 and Protocol-Specific Security:

  • Consideration: HTTP/2 introduces new features and potential vulnerabilities compared to HTTP/1.1.
  • Recommendation:
    • HPACK Vulnerability Mitigation: Ensure robust mitigation against HPACK header compression vulnerabilities, such as compression bombs, in the HTTP/2 implementation.
    • HTTP/2 Specific Fuzzing: Perform fuzzing specifically targeting HTTP/2 features and frame parsing to uncover protocol-specific vulnerabilities.
    • Protocol Downgrade Attack Prevention: Implement mechanisms to prevent protocol downgrade attacks, ensuring that secure protocols are preferred and enforced when possible.
    • Stay Updated with HTTP/2 Security Research: Actively monitor research and publications related to HTTP/2 security to proactively address emerging threats.

WebSockets Security:

  • Consideration: WebSockets require specific security considerations due to their persistent, bidirectional nature.
  • Recommendation:
    • Strict Origin Validation: Enforce strict origin validation during the WebSocket handshake to prevent Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH).
    • Secure WebSocket Frame Handling: Implement secure parsing and handling of WebSocket frames to prevent injection or manipulation attacks.
    • WebSocket Security Documentation: Provide clear documentation and guidance on securing WebSocket usage with hyper, including best practices for handshake validation and message security.

Dependency Management:

  • Consideration: hyper depends on external crates, including TLS libraries. Vulnerabilities in dependencies can impact hyper's security.
  • Recommendation:
    • Automated Dependency Scanning: Integrate dependency scanning tools (like cargo-audit or similar) into the CI/CD pipeline to automatically detect known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
    • Regular Dependency Updates: Establish a process for regularly reviewing and updating dependencies, prioritizing security patches.
    • Dependency Pinning and Reproducible Builds: Consider using dependency pinning and ensuring reproducible builds to manage dependency versions and prevent unexpected changes.

Security Audits and Testing:

  • Consideration: Proactive security testing and audits are essential for identifying and addressing vulnerabilities.
  • Recommendation:
    • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits by external security experts to review the codebase, design, and security controls.
    • Fuzzing Infrastructure: Establish a robust fuzzing infrastructure and integrate it into the CI/CD pipeline for continuous fuzzing of hyper's components.
    • Penetration Testing (Optional): Consider periodic penetration testing of applications built using hyper to assess the real-world security impact of potential hyper vulnerabilities.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies

Based on the identified security considerations and recommendations, here are actionable mitigation strategies for the hyper development team:

  1. Implement Automated SAST and Dependency Scanning in CI/CD: As already recommended in the Security Design Review, immediately integrate SAST tools (e.g., cargo clippy with security linters, semgrep) and dependency scanning tools (cargo-audit) into the GitHub Actions CI/CD pipeline. Configure these tools to fail the build on detection of security issues above a certain severity level.
  2. Develop a Centralized Input Validation Framework: Design and implement a robust, centralized input validation framework within hyper. This framework should be used consistently across all components to validate HTTP headers, URLs, methods, bodies, and WebSocket messages. Document this framework and provide guidance for developers contributing to hyper.
  3. Harden Default TLS Configuration and Provide Guidance: Review and harden the default TLS configuration in hyper to prioritize strong cipher suites, modern protocols (TLS 1.3+), and strict certificate validation. Create a comprehensive TLS configuration hardening guide for users, clearly outlining secure and insecure options and their implications.
  4. Enhance DoS Mitigation Mechanisms: Implement configurable connection limits for HTTP and WebSocket connections. Explore providing building blocks or middleware for request rate limiting. Ensure timeouts are consistently applied at connection, request, and idle connection levels. Document these DoS mitigation features and how to configure them effectively.
  5. Focus Fuzzing Efforts on Input Parsing and HTTP/2: Prioritize fuzzing efforts on input parsing logic, especially for HTTP headers, URLs, and bodies. Develop targeted fuzzing campaigns specifically for HTTP/2 features and frame parsing to uncover protocol-specific vulnerabilities. Integrate fuzzing into the CI/CD pipeline for continuous testing.
  6. Conduct Regular Security Audits by External Experts: Schedule regular security audits (at least annually) by reputable external cybersecurity experts. Focus these audits on code review, design analysis, TLS configuration, and DoS mitigation mechanisms. Address findings from these audits promptly and transparently.
  7. Formalize a Security Incident Response Plan: Develop and document a formal security incident response plan. This plan should outline procedures for handling vulnerability reports, triaging security issues, developing and releasing patches, and communicating security advisories to the community. Publicize this security policy to encourage responsible vulnerability reporting.
  8. Create WebSocket Security Best Practices Documentation: Develop dedicated documentation outlining best practices for securing WebSockets when using hyper. This should cover origin validation, message security, and common WebSocket security pitfalls.
  9. Establish a Dependency Management and Update Process: Formalize a process for regularly reviewing and updating dependencies, prioritizing security patches. Track dependency vulnerabilities and proactively update to patched versions. Consider dependency pinning and reproducible builds for better dependency management.
  10. Implement Protocol Downgrade Attack Prevention Measures: Review and enhance protocol negotiation logic to prevent protocol downgrade attacks. Ensure that secure protocols (like TLS 1.3 and HTTP/2) are preferred and enforced when possible, while still maintaining compatibility where necessary.

By implementing these actionable mitigation strategies, the hyperium/hyper project can significantly strengthen its security posture, reduce the risk of vulnerabilities, and provide a more secure foundation for the Rust ecosystem's HTTP networking needs.