Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
149 lines (104 loc) · 156 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

149 lines (104 loc) · 156 KB

Ruffle Security Analysis: Deep Dive

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the Ruffle Flash Player emulator, focusing on key components, identifying potential vulnerabilities, and providing actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will cover the core emulation engine, its interaction with the browser environment, and the build/deployment process. The primary goal is to identify weaknesses that could allow malicious SWF files to compromise user security or system stability.

Scope:

  • Ruffle Core (Rust): The core emulation logic, including SWF parsing, ActionScript execution, rendering, and audio handling.
  • Web Client (WebAssembly): The WebAssembly module and its interaction with the browser's JavaScript environment.
  • Browser Extension: The extension's mechanism for detecting and replacing Flash content.
  • Desktop Client: The standalone application's security posture.
  • Build Process: The security controls in place during the build and deployment pipeline.
  • External Resource Handling: How Ruffle handles loading of external resources by SWF files.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions to understand the system's components, data flows, and trust boundaries.
  2. Codebase Inference: Infer security-relevant details from the codebase structure and available documentation on GitHub, focusing on areas identified in the architecture review.
  3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the system's architecture, data flows, and the known capabilities of malicious Flash content. This will leverage the "Questions" section of the design review, specifically the threat model for malicious SWF files.
  4. Vulnerability Analysis: Analyze each component for potential vulnerabilities based on identified threats and common attack patterns against Flash and web applications.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies for each identified vulnerability, tailored to Ruffle's architecture and technology stack.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

2.1 Ruffle Core (Rust)

  • SWF Parsing:

    • Threats: Maliciously crafted SWF files could exploit vulnerabilities in the parser, leading to buffer overflows, integer overflows, or other memory corruption issues. Even in Rust, unsafe code blocks or vulnerabilities in external crates could be targeted. Type confusion attacks are also possible.
    • Mitigations:
      • Comprehensive Fuzzing: Implement a robust fuzzing framework specifically targeting the SWF parsing logic. This should include a wide variety of malformed SWF inputs. Use of tools like cargo fuzz is highly recommended.
      • Input Validation: Strictly validate all data read from the SWF file, including lengths, offsets, and data types. Enforce limits on resource usage (e.g., maximum image dimensions, maximum number of objects).
      • Safe Parsing Libraries: If any external libraries are used for parsing specific SWF structures (e.g., image decoders), ensure they are well-vetted and regularly updated. Consider using memory-safe alternatives whenever possible.
      • Regular Code Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the parsing code, focusing on unsafe blocks and external library interactions.
      • Memory Sanitizers: Utilize memory sanitizers (e.g., AddressSanitizer, MemorySanitizer) during testing to detect subtle memory errors.

  • ActionScript Execution:

    • Threats: Malicious ActionScript code could attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in the ActionScript interpreter/compiler. This could include bypassing sandbox restrictions, accessing restricted APIs, or executing arbitrary code. Different ActionScript versions (AS1, AS2, AS3) have different security models and potential vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigations:
      • ActionScript Sandboxing: Implement a robust sandbox for ActionScript execution. This should restrict access to sensitive APIs and system resources. Clearly define the capabilities of each ActionScript version and enforce those restrictions.
      • Input Validation (Bytecode): Thoroughly validate ActionScript bytecode before execution to prevent exploits that manipulate the interpreter's state.
      • API Security: Carefully review and secure all exposed APIs. Implement strict checks on API parameters and return values. Consider using a whitelist approach to API access, allowing only known-safe functions.
      • Regular Expression Security: If regular expressions are used within the ActionScript engine, ensure they are not vulnerable to ReDoS (Regular Expression Denial of Service) attacks. Use safe regular expression libraries or limit the complexity of allowed expressions.
      • Fuzzing (ActionScript): Extend the fuzzing framework to include generation of malicious ActionScript bytecode.

  • Rendering and Audio:

    • Threats: Vulnerabilities in the rendering or audio handling code could be exploited by maliciously crafted SWF content, potentially leading to denial-of-service or code execution. This could involve exploiting vulnerabilities in graphics libraries or audio codecs.
    • Mitigations:
      • Resource Limits: Enforce strict limits on resource usage during rendering and audio processing (e.g., maximum image size, maximum audio buffer size).
      • Safe Libraries: Use well-vetted and regularly updated graphics and audio libraries. Prefer memory-safe libraries whenever possible.
      • Fuzzing (Rendering/Audio): Include fuzzing of the rendering and audio components, providing malformed image and audio data as input.

2.2 Web Client (WebAssembly)

  • Threats: Exploits that escape the WebAssembly sandbox and interact with the JavaScript environment in unintended ways. This could lead to XSS attacks, data exfiltration, or other browser-based exploits. The interface between Rust/WebAssembly and JavaScript is a critical security boundary.
    • Mitigations:
      • Minimize JavaScript Interaction: Reduce the surface area of interaction between WebAssembly and JavaScript to the absolute minimum. Avoid exposing unnecessary functions or data to the JavaScript environment.
      • Input Validation (JavaScript): Thoroughly validate all data received from JavaScript before passing it to the WebAssembly module. This includes data types, lengths, and expected values.
      • Output Sanitization (JavaScript): Sanitize all output from the WebAssembly module before passing it to JavaScript. This is crucial to prevent XSS vulnerabilities. Use appropriate escaping and encoding techniques.
      • Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strict CSP to restrict the capabilities of the Ruffle WebAssembly module and the surrounding JavaScript environment. This can prevent the loading of external scripts, limit the use of eval, and mitigate XSS attacks. Specifically, disallow unsafe-eval and unsafe-inline in the script-src directive.
      • Subresource Integrity (SRI): If loading Ruffle.wasm from a CDN, use SRI to ensure that the loaded file has not been tampered with.
      • WebAssembly Sandbox Hardening: Stay up-to-date with the latest WebAssembly security best practices and browser implementations. Explore any available mechanisms for further hardening the WebAssembly sandbox.

2.3 Browser Extension

  • Threats: The extension could be vulnerable to attacks that bypass its content detection logic or exploit vulnerabilities in the WebExtension API. A compromised extension could inject malicious code into any webpage.
    • Mitigations:
      • Minimal Permissions: Request only the minimum necessary permissions in the extension manifest. Avoid broad permissions like "all_urls" if possible. Use targeted permissions based on specific domains or URL patterns.
      • Secure Content Detection: Implement robust and secure content detection logic to prevent malicious websites from bypassing the extension and loading native Flash content.
      • Input Validation (WebExtension API): Thoroughly validate all input received from the WebExtension API, including messages from content scripts and background scripts.
      • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the extension code, focusing on the interaction with the WebExtension API and the content detection logic.
      • Code Signing: Sign the extension package to ensure its authenticity and integrity.

2.4 Desktop Client

  • Threats: Similar to the Ruffle Core, but with a larger attack surface due to direct interaction with the operating system. Vulnerabilities could lead to arbitrary code execution on the user's system.
    • Mitigations:
      • Sandboxing (OS-Level): Explore the use of OS-level sandboxing mechanisms (e.g., AppArmor, SELinux, Windows sandboxing features) to restrict the capabilities of the desktop client.
      • Regular Updates: Implement an automatic update mechanism to ensure that users are running the latest version with security patches.
      • Code Signing: Sign the desktop application executable to ensure its authenticity and integrity.

2.5 Build Process

  • Threats: Compromise of the build process could lead to the distribution of malicious Ruffle builds. This could involve injecting malicious code into the build artifacts or compromising dependencies.
    • Mitigations:
      • Dependency Management: Use cargo-audit or a similar tool to regularly check for known vulnerabilities in dependencies. Pin dependencies to specific versions to prevent unexpected updates. Consider using a dependency vulnerability scanning service.
      • Reproducible Builds: Strive for reproducible builds to ensure that the same source code always produces the same build artifacts. This makes it easier to detect tampering.
      • Secure Build Environment: Run the build process in a secure and isolated environment (e.g., a containerized CI/CD pipeline). Limit access to the build server and protect build secrets.
      • Code Signing: Sign all build artifacts (WebAssembly module, desktop executables, extension package) to ensure their authenticity and integrity.
      • Two-Factor Authentication: Enforce two-factor authentication for all developers with access to the GitHub repository and build infrastructure.

2.6 External Resource Handling

  • Threats: SWF files can load external resources (images, sounds, other SWF files, etc.). Malicious SWF files could attempt to load resources from untrusted sources, leading to XSS attacks, data exfiltration, or other exploits. This is a significant attack vector.
    • Mitigations:
      • Same-Origin Policy: Enforce a strict same-origin policy for external resources. By default, only allow loading resources from the same origin as the SWF file.
      • Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS): If cross-origin loading is required, use CORS headers to explicitly allow access from trusted origins. Carefully configure CORS to avoid overly permissive settings.
      • URL Validation: Strictly validate all URLs used to load external resources. Reject URLs that contain suspicious characters or patterns. Use a whitelist approach to allow only known-safe URL schemes (e.g., http, https).
      • Content Security Policy (CSP): Use CSP to restrict the types of resources that can be loaded and the origins from which they can be loaded. This can provide an additional layer of defense against malicious resource loading. Specifically, use the connect-src, img-src, media-src, and child-src directives to control different types of resources.
      • Resource Sandboxing: Consider loading external resources in a separate, sandboxed environment to further isolate them from the main Ruffle process.
      • External resource allow/deny lists: Implement configurable lists to control which external resources are permitted or blocked.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary)

The following table summarizes the key mitigation strategies, categorized by component and threat:

| Component | Threat | Mitigation Strategy

4. Specific Recommendations for Ruffle

Based on the analysis, here are specific, actionable recommendations for the Ruffle project:

  1. Prioritize Fuzzing: Invest heavily in fuzzing, especially for SWF parsing and ActionScript bytecode interpretation. This is the most likely attack vector. Use cargo fuzz and consider integrating with a continuous fuzzing service like OSS-Fuzz. Fuzz both the core Rust code and the WebAssembly interface.

  2. Strengthen External Resource Handling: Implement a robust same-origin policy and CORS handling for external resources. This is critical for preventing XSS and data exfiltration. Consider a configurable allowlist/denylist system for external resources, allowing website owners to specify trusted domains.

  3. Secure the WebAssembly/JavaScript Boundary: Minimize the interaction between the WebAssembly module and JavaScript. Implement rigorous input validation and output sanitization on both sides of this boundary. Use a strict CSP to limit the capabilities of the JavaScript environment.

  4. ActionScript Sandbox Refinement: Refine the ActionScript sandbox to be as restrictive as possible while maintaining compatibility. Clearly define the capabilities of each ActionScript version and enforce these limitations. Consider a whitelist approach for API access.

  5. Regular Security Audits: Schedule regular, independent security audits by external experts. These audits should focus on the areas identified above, particularly the parsing, ActionScript execution, and external resource handling.

  6. Vulnerability Disclosure Program: Maintain a clear and responsive vulnerability disclosure program. Provide a secure channel for researchers to report vulnerabilities and establish clear response times and procedures.

  7. Dependency Auditing: Continuously monitor dependencies for known vulnerabilities using cargo-audit and consider integrating with a dependency vulnerability scanning service. Keep dependencies updated to the latest secure versions.

  8. Reproducible Builds: Implement reproducible builds to ensure the integrity of the build process and make it easier to detect tampering.

  9. Code Signing: Digitally sign all released artifacts (WebAssembly modules, desktop executables, browser extension packages) to verify their authenticity and prevent unauthorized modifications.

  10. Threat Model Documentation: Create and maintain a living document outlining the specific threat model for Ruffle. This document should detail the types of attacks Ruffle aims to prevent (e.g., XSS, arbitrary code execution, data exfiltration, denial of service) and the assumptions made about the attacker's capabilities. This document should be publicly available and updated regularly.

  11. Resource Limits: Enforce strict limits on resources consumed by SWF content, including memory, CPU time, network bandwidth, and the number of loaded external resources. This helps prevent denial-of-service attacks and resource exhaustion.

  12. Error Handling: Implement robust error handling throughout the codebase. Avoid exposing internal error details to the user or to the SWF content. Use Result and Option types effectively in Rust to handle potential errors gracefully.

  13. Testing: Beyond fuzzing, ensure comprehensive unit and integration tests cover security-critical functionality. Test for both expected behavior and unexpected inputs.

  14. Browser Extension Security: Minimize the permissions requested by the browser extension. Use the most restrictive permissions possible. Carefully review the extension's content script and background script interactions.

  15. Desktop Application Sandboxing: If a desktop application is a significant deployment target, prioritize OS-level sandboxing to limit the impact of any potential vulnerabilities.

  16. Regular Expression Security: Audit all uses of regular expressions for potential ReDoS vulnerabilities. Consider using a safer regular expression engine or limiting the complexity of allowed expressions.

  17. Cryptographic Implementation Review: If Ruffle implements any cryptographic functions (as required by some SWF content), ensure these implementations are correct and use secure algorithms and libraries. Avoid rolling your own crypto.

  18. Community Engagement: Foster a security-conscious community. Encourage security researchers to contribute and provide feedback. Consider a bug bounty program.

By addressing these points, Ruffle can significantly improve its security posture and provide a safer environment for users to enjoy legacy Flash content. The focus should be on defense-in-depth, combining multiple layers of security controls to mitigate the risks associated with running potentially untrusted SWF files.