CRV2 ReducingAttSurf

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a draft version

Overview

The Attack Surface of an application is a description of the entry/exit points, the roles/entitlements of the users, and the sensitivity of the data held within the application. For example, entry points such as login screens, HTML forms, file upload screens, all introduce a level of risk to the application. Note that the code structure also forms part of the Attack Surface, in that the code checking authentication, or crypto, etc, is exercised by critical functions on the applications Attack Surface.

Description

This section concentrates on:

  1. knowing the current state of an applications Attack Surface and
  2. understanding if a change is going to increase that Attack Surface.

Michael Howard at Microsoft and other researchers have developed a method for measuring the Attack Surface of an application, and to track changes to the Attack Surface over time, called the Relative Attack Surface Quotient (RSQ).

It is assumed that the application Attack Surface is already known, probably through some previous threat modeling exercise, or Architectural Risk Analysis. Therefor the entry and exit points are known, the sensitivity of the data within the application is understood, and the various users of the system, and their entitlements, have been mapped in relation to the functions and data.

From a code review point of view, the aim would be to ensure the change being reviewed is not unnecessarily increasing the Attack Surface. For example, is the code change suddenly using HTTP were only HTTPS was used before? Is the coder deciding to write their own hash function instead of using the pre-existing (and well exercised/tested) central repository of crypto functions? In some development environments the Attack Surface changes can be checked during the design phase if such detail is captured, however at code review the actual implementation is reflected in the code and such Attack Surface exposures can be identified.

You can also build up a picture of the Attack Surface by scanning the application. For web apps you can use a tool like the OWASP_Zed_Attack_Proxy_Project or Arachni or Skipfish or w3af or one of the many commercial dynamic testing and vulnerability scanning tools or services to crawl your app and map the parts of the application that are accessible over the web. Once you have a map of the Attack Surface, identify the high risk areas, then understand what compensating controls you have in place, operational controls like network firewalls and application firewalls.

Note that backups of code and data (online, and on offline media) are an important but often ignored part of a system's Attack Surface. Protecting your data and IP by writing secure software and hardening the infrastructure will all be wasted if you hand everything over to bad guys by not protecting your backups.


What to Review

When reviewing code modules from an Attack Surface point of view, some common issues to look out for include:

  • Does the code change modify the attack surface? Using an understanding of the Attack Surface of the application before the code change, does it open new ports or accept new inputs? If it does could the change be done in a way that does not increase the attack surface? If a better implementation exists then that should be recommended, however if there is no way to implement the code without increasing the Attack Surface, make sure the business knows of the increased risk.
  • Is the feature unnecessarily using HTTP instead of HTTPS?
  • Is the function going to be available to non-authenticated users? If no authentication is necessary for the function to be invoked, then the risk of attackers using the interface is increased. Does the function invoke a backend task that could be used to deny other legitimate users?
    • E.g. if the function writes to a file, or sends an SMS, or causes a CPU intensive calculation, could an attacker write a script to call the function many times per second and prevent legitimate users access to that task?
  • Are searches controlled? Search is a risky operation as it typically queries the database for some criteria and returns the results, if attacker can inject SQL into query then they could access more data than intended.
  • Is important data stored separately from trivial data (in DB, file storage, etc). Is the change going to allow unauthenticated users to search for publicly available store locations in a database table in the same partition as the username/password table? Should this store location data be put into a different database, or different partition, to reduce the risk to the database information?
  • If file uploads are allowed, are they be authenticated? Is there rate limiting? Is there a maximum file size for each upload or aggregate for each user? Does the application restrict the file uploads to certain types of file (by checking MIME data or file suffix). Is the application is going to run virus checking?
  • If you have administration users with high privilege, are their actions logged/tracked in such a way that they a) can't erase/modify the log and b) can't deny their actions?
    • Are there any alarms or monitoring to spot if they are accessing sensitive data that they shouldn't be? This could apply to all types of users, not only administrators.
  • Will changes be compatible with existing countermeasures, or security code, or will new code/countermeasures need to be developed?
  • Is the change attempting to introduce some non-centralized security code module, instead of re-using or extending an existing security module?
  • Is the change adding unnecessary user levels or entitlements that will complicate the attack surface.
  • If the change is storing PII or confidential data, is all of the new information absolutely necessary? There is little value in increasing the risk to an application by storing the social security numbers of millions of people, if the data is never used.
  • Does application configuration cause the attack surface to vary greatly, and is that configuration simple to use and alert the administrator when the attack surface is being expanded?
  • Could the change be done in a different way that would reduce the attack surface, i.e instead of making help items searchable and storing help item text in a database table beside the main username/password store, providing static help text on HTML pages reduces the risk through the 'help' interface.
  • Is information stored on the client that should be stored on the server?


References