Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
27 lines (22 loc) · 3.72 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

27 lines (22 loc) · 3.72 KB

Threat Model Analysis for flexmonkey/blurable

Threat: T5: Library Vulnerabilities (e.g., Buffer Overflow)

  • Description: The blurable library itself, or one of its dependencies (e.g., an underlying image processing library like OpenCV), contains a security vulnerability, such as a buffer overflow or code injection flaw. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing specially crafted image data or parameters. This is a direct threat to the library's code.
  • Impact: Varies depending on the vulnerability; could range from denial of service to arbitrary code execution on the server. This is a severe impact as it could compromise the entire system.
  • Affected Component: Potentially any part of the blurable library or its dependencies. The specific vulnerable code would depend on the nature of the flaw. This could be in the core blurring algorithm, image parsing routines, or any other part of the library's codebase.
  • Risk Severity: Critical (if a remotely exploitable vulnerability exists)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Regular Updates: Keep the blurable library and all of its dependencies updated to the latest versions. This is the most crucial mitigation, as it addresses known vulnerabilities.
    • Vulnerability Scanning: Use a Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool to identify known vulnerabilities in the library and its dependencies. SCA tools automate the process of finding known issues.
    • Security Audits: If feasible, conduct security audits of the blurable library's code, particularly if it's a less well-known or actively maintained project. This is a more in-depth approach to finding potential vulnerabilities.
    • Dependency Management: Carefully manage and vet all dependencies. Choose well-maintained and reputable libraries.
    • Fuzzing: Consider using fuzzing techniques to test the library's input handling and identify potential vulnerabilities. Fuzzing involves providing invalid or unexpected input to the library to see if it crashes or behaves unexpectedly.

Threat: T2: Deblurring Attacks (If Blurable Provides Weak Defaults)

  • Description: If blurable itself has weak default settings for blurring (e.g., a very small default radius) and the application using it doesn't override these defaults, then the library is directly contributing to the vulnerability. An attacker can easily reverse the blur. This is distinct from the application failing to validate user input; this is about the library's inherent weakness.
    • Impact: Disclosure of sensitive information within the image. The success depends on the strength of the blur and the sophistication of the attack.
    • Affected Component: The core blurring algorithm implemented within the library and the default parameter values it uses.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strong Defaults: The blurable library should use strong default blurring parameters (large radius, appropriate sigma) that provide reasonable protection even if the application developer doesn't explicitly set them.
      • Documentation: The library's documentation should clearly emphasize the importance of choosing appropriate blurring parameters and provide guidance on selecting secure values.
      • Algorithm Selection: If the library offers multiple blurring algorithms, the default should be a robust one.
      • Library-Level Checks: Ideally, the library itself could include checks to warn or prevent the use of extremely weak blurring parameters, even if requested by the application.