Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
213 lines (170 loc) · 17.7 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

213 lines (170 loc) · 17.7 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for leptos-rs/leptos

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Input Sanitization and Validation on the Server-Side (Leptos SSR & Server Functions)

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Identify all Server Functions and SSR rendering logic in your Leptos application that process user inputs. This includes arguments to Server Functions and data used in SSR templates that originates from user input (e.g., form data, URL parameters).

    • Step 2: Within your Rust server-side code (used by Server Functions and SSR), implement validation rules for each input. Use Rust validation libraries or custom validation logic to ensure data conforms to expected types, formats, and constraints before it's used.

    • Step 3: Sanitize user inputs on the server-side to prevent injection attacks. For data rendered in SSR templates, use HTML entity encoding to escape potentially malicious HTML characters. For Server Functions interacting with databases, use parameterized queries or ORMs to prevent SQL injection.

    • Step 4: Apply validation and sanitization within your Server Functions and SSR rendering logic before any further processing, database interaction, or rendering occurs.

    • Step 5: Log validation failures on the server-side for monitoring and debugging. Return informative error messages to the client from Server Functions, but avoid exposing sensitive server-side details.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via SSR injection - Severity: High
      • SQL Injection in Server Functions - Severity: High (if database interaction is present)
      • Command Injection in Server Functions - Severity: High (if system commands are executed based on input)
      • Server-Side Template Injection in SSR - Severity: High (if templates are dynamically generated based on input and not properly handled)
      • Data Integrity Issues - Severity: Medium (due to invalid or malformed data processed by Server Functions or SSR)

    • Impact:

      • XSS (SSR): Significantly Reduces
      • SQL Injection (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces
      • Command Injection (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces
      • Server-Side Template Injection (SSR): Significantly Reduces
      • Data Integrity Issues: Significantly Reduces

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Basic input type checking might be present in some Server Functions.
      • SSR templates might rely on default Leptos escaping, but context-aware sanitization might be missing.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Comprehensive server-side validation and sanitization for all Server Functions arguments.
      • Robust sanitization within SSR rendering logic, especially for dynamic content.
      • Use of dedicated Rust validation and sanitization libraries within Leptos server-side code.
      • Consistent application of sanitization across all input points in Server Functions and SSR.

Mitigation Strategy: Contextual Output Encoding during Server-Side Rendering (SSR) in Leptos

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Review all Leptos components and server-side rendering logic that dynamically inject data into HTML templates during SSR. Identify where user-provided data or data from external sources is rendered.

    • Step 2: Ensure that Leptos' templating mechanisms are used correctly to automatically apply context-aware output encoding. Verify if Leptos' default templating provides sufficient escaping for HTML, attributes, and JavaScript contexts. Consult Leptos documentation for details on default escaping behavior.

    • Step 3: If default Leptos escaping is insufficient or context-unaware, manually apply appropriate output encoding within your SSR code. Use Rust libraries like html-escape for HTML entity encoding, and ensure proper escaping for other contexts (JavaScript, URLs, CSS) as needed.

    • Step 4: Pay special attention to rendering user-provided HTML directly. Avoid rendering raw HTML from user input. If necessary, use a safe HTML sanitization library in Rust to parse and sanitize HTML before rendering in SSR.

    • Step 5: Regularly audit Leptos components and SSR code to confirm that output encoding is consistently and correctly applied in all dynamic rendering scenarios.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via SSR injection - Severity: High

    • Impact:

      • XSS (SSR): Significantly Reduces

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Leptos' default templating might provide basic HTML escaping.
      • Developers might be relying on default escaping without fully understanding its context-awareness or limitations.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Verification of Leptos' default escaping context-awareness and completeness.
      • Explicit and context-aware output encoding in SSR code where default escaping is insufficient.
      • Safe HTML sanitization for scenarios where user-provided HTML needs to be rendered (if unavoidable).
      • Code review processes focused on verifying correct output encoding in Leptos SSR templates.

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Input Validation and Authorization in Leptos Server Functions

  • Description:

    • Step 1: For every Leptos Server Function, define the expected input data types, formats, and constraints. Document these requirements clearly.

    • Step 2: At the beginning of each Server Function, implement robust input validation logic in Rust. Use validation libraries or custom code to verify that the received arguments conform to the defined requirements. Reject invalid requests with informative error responses.

    • Step 3: Implement authorization checks within each Server Function to control access based on user roles or permissions. Verify user identity and permissions on the server-side within the Server Function. Do not rely solely on client-side checks.

    • Step 4: Integrate your authentication and authorization system with Leptos Server Functions. Ensure Server Functions can securely access user identity and role information.

    • Step 5: Apply the principle of least privilege. Only grant Server Functions the necessary permissions to access resources and perform actions.

    • Step 6: Log authorization failures and suspicious activity within Server Functions for security monitoring and auditing.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Unauthorized Access to Server Functionality - Severity: High
      • Privilege Escalation via Server Functions - Severity: High
      • Data Manipulation via Unauthorized Server Function Calls - Severity: High
      • Business Logic Bypass through Server Functions - Severity: Medium

    • Impact:

      • Unauthorized Access: Significantly Reduces
      • Privilege Escalation: Significantly Reduces
      • Data Manipulation: Significantly Reduces
      • Business Logic Bypass: Significantly Reduces

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Some Server Functions might have basic input type checks.
      • Authorization checks might be rudimentary or missing in many Server Functions.
      • Authorization logic might be inconsistently applied across different Server Functions.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Systematic input validation for all Server Function arguments.
      • Consistent and robust authorization checks within all Server Functions that require protection.
      • Integration of a centralized authorization system with Leptos Server Functions.
      • Granular permission control for Server Functions based on user roles or attributes.

Mitigation Strategy: Protection Against Injection Attacks in Leptos Server Functions

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Carefully review all Leptos Server Functions that interact with external systems, databases, or execute system commands. Identify potential injection points.

    • Step 2: When Server Functions interact with databases, always use parameterized queries or ORMs to prevent SQL injection. Never construct SQL queries by directly concatenating user inputs.

    • Step 3: Sanitize user inputs before using them in external API calls or system commands executed by Server Functions. Use appropriate escaping or encoding techniques based on the target system's requirements.

    • Step 4: Avoid executing system commands directly from Server Functions if possible. If system command execution is necessary, carefully sanitize inputs and use safe command execution practices to prevent command injection.

    • Step 5: Implement input validation and sanitization before any interaction with external systems, databases, or command execution within Server Functions.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • SQL Injection in Server Functions - Severity: High
      • Command Injection in Server Functions - Severity: High
      • NoSQL Injection (if applicable) in Server Functions - Severity: High
      • LDAP Injection (if applicable) in Server Functions - Severity: High
      • Other Injection Attacks in Server Functions interacting with external systems - Severity: High

    • Impact:

      • SQL Injection (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces
      • Command Injection (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces
      • NoSQL Injection (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces
      • LDAP Injection (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces
      • Other Injection Attacks (Server Functions): Significantly Reduces

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Developers might be aware of SQL injection risks, but might not consistently use parameterized queries in all Server Functions.
      • Sanitization for other types of injection attacks (command injection, etc.) might be lacking.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Consistent use of parameterized queries or ORMs in all Server Functions interacting with databases.
      • Systematic sanitization of inputs before external API calls and system command execution in Server Functions.
      • Code review processes focused on identifying and mitigating injection vulnerabilities in Server Functions.

Mitigation Strategy: Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention for Leptos Server Functions

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Identify critical Leptos Server Functions that are susceptible to abuse, such as login, registration, password reset, data modification endpoints, or resource-intensive operations.

    • Step 2: Implement rate limiting for these Server Functions on the server-side. This can be done using Rust middleware or custom rate limiting logic within your server application.

    • Step 3: Configure appropriate rate limits based on the function's purpose and expected usage patterns. Consider different rate limits for authenticated and unauthenticated users.

    • Step 4: Implement mechanisms to handle rate limit violations. Return HTTP 429 "Too Many Requests" errors to clients exceeding the limits.

    • Step 5: Consider implementing additional abuse prevention measures for sensitive Server Functions, such as CAPTCHA challenges for login or registration, or account lockout policies after multiple failed login attempts.

    • Step 6: Monitor rate limiting effectiveness and adjust limits as needed based on traffic patterns and abuse attempts. Log rate limiting events for security monitoring.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Denial of Service (DoS) attacks targeting Server Functions - Severity: High
      • Brute-Force Attacks (e.g., password guessing) against Server Functions - Severity: High
      • Resource Exhaustion on the server due to abusive Server Function calls - Severity: Medium
      • Account Takeover via Brute-Force attacks on login Server Functions - Severity: High

    • Impact:

      • Denial of Service (DoS): Significantly Reduces
      • Brute-Force Attacks: Significantly Reduces
      • Resource Exhaustion: Significantly Reduces
      • Account Takeover: Significantly Reduces

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Basic server-level rate limiting might be in place for the entire application, but not specifically tailored to Leptos Server Functions.
      • No specific rate limiting logic implemented within Leptos application code or middleware for Server Functions.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Granular rate limiting specifically for Leptos Server Functions based on their sensitivity and resource usage.
      • Implementation of rate limiting middleware or logic within the Leptos application to protect Server Functions.
      • Abuse prevention mechanisms beyond basic rate limiting for sensitive Server Functions (e.g., CAPTCHA, account lockout).
      • Monitoring and alerting for rate limiting events and potential abuse attempts targeting Server Functions.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Error Handling in Leptos Server Functions

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Review error handling logic in all Leptos Server Functions. Identify cases where error messages might expose sensitive information about the server-side implementation, database structure, or internal application state.

    • Step 2: Implement generic error responses for client-side display. Return user-friendly error messages that do not reveal technical details.

    • Step 3: Log detailed error information on the server-side for debugging and security monitoring. Include relevant context, such as error type, input data, and stack traces, in server-side logs.

    • Step 4: Avoid returning stack traces or verbose error messages directly to the client from Server Functions.

    • Step 5: Ensure that error handling logic in Server Functions does not inadvertently create security vulnerabilities, such as exposing sensitive data or allowing for denial-of-service through excessive error logging.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Information Disclosure via Verbose Error Messages from Server Functions - Severity: Medium
      • Potential Exploitation of Error Handling Logic - Severity: Medium (depending on implementation)
      • Denial of Service via Excessive Error Logging (if not handled properly) - Severity: Medium

    • Impact:

      • Information Disclosure: Reduces
      • Exploitation of Error Handling Logic: Reduces
      • Denial of Service (Error Logging): Reduces

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Server Functions might return default error messages that could be too verbose or reveal internal details.
      • Error logging might be inconsistent or not properly configured to separate client-facing and server-side error information.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Consistent implementation of generic, user-friendly error responses from Server Functions.
      • Robust server-side error logging that captures detailed error information without exposing it to clients.
      • Review of error handling logic in Server Functions to prevent information disclosure and other potential vulnerabilities.

Mitigation Strategy: Stay Informed about Leptos Security Advisories and Updates

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Regularly monitor the official Leptos project channels (e.g., GitHub repository, blog, community forums, mailing lists) for security advisories, announcements, and updates.

    • Step 2: Subscribe to Leptos release notes and security-related communication channels to receive timely notifications about security vulnerabilities and recommended patches.

    • Step 3: When security advisories are released for Leptos or its dependencies, promptly assess the impact on your application and prioritize applying necessary updates or mitigations.

    • Step 4: Keep your Leptos framework and related dependencies updated to the latest stable versions to benefit from security patches and improvements.

    • Step 5: Participate in the Leptos community to stay informed about security best practices and emerging threats related to Leptos applications.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Leptos Framework - Severity: High
      • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Leptos Dependencies - Severity: High
      • Zero-Day Exploits (by staying informed and applying updates promptly) - Severity: High

    • Impact:

      • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities: Significantly Reduces
      • Zero-Day Exploits: Partially Reduces (by enabling faster response)

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Developers might occasionally check for Leptos updates, but without a formal process for monitoring security advisories.
      • No systematic approach to staying informed about Leptos security issues.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • Formal process for monitoring Leptos security advisories and updates.
      • Subscription to Leptos security communication channels.
      • Proactive approach to applying security patches and updates to the Leptos framework and dependencies.
      • Integration of security advisory monitoring into development workflows.