diff --git a/doc/README.md b/doc/README.md index 39d7e0a7..8a144d24 100644 --- a/doc/README.md +++ b/doc/README.md @@ -2,4 +2,5 @@ - [User Guide](https://github.com/foss42/apidash/tree/main/doc/user_guide) - [Developer Guide](https://github.com/foss42/apidash/tree/main/doc/dev_guide) +- [Security Documentation](https://github.com/foss42/apidash/tree/main/doc/security) - [GSoC Project Docs](https://github.com/foss42/apidash/tree/main/doc/gsoc) diff --git a/doc/security/INCIDENT_RESPONSE_PLAN.md b/doc/security/INCIDENT_RESPONSE_PLAN.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..96b927d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/security/INCIDENT_RESPONSE_PLAN.md @@ -0,0 +1,1987 @@ +# Incident Response Plan (IRP) for API Dash + +**Document Version:** 1.0 +**Effective Date:** December 2025 +**Project:** API Dash - Open Source Cross-Platform API Client +**Classification:** Public +**Review Cycle:** Annually or post-incident + +--- + +## Table of Contents + +1. [Executive Summary](#1-executive-summary) +2. [Purpose and Scope](#2-purpose-and-scope) +3. [Incident Response Team](#3-incident-response-team) +4. [Incident Classification and Severity](#4-incident-classification-and-severity) +5. [Incident Response Lifecycle](#5-incident-response-lifecycle) +6. [Communication Plan](#6-communication-plan) +7. [Incident Types and Response Procedures](#7-incident-types-and-response-procedures) +8. [Post-Incident Activities](#8-post-incident-activities) +9. [Tools and Resources](#9-tools-and-resources) +10. [Training and Awareness](#10-training-and-awareness) +11. [Legal and Compliance](#11-legal-and-compliance) +12. [Plan Maintenance](#12-plan-maintenance) +13. [Appendices](#13-appendices) + +--- + +## 1. Executive Summary + +This Incident Response Plan (IRP) establishes a structured approach for identifying, managing, and resolving security incidents affecting the API Dash open source project. API Dash is a cross-platform API testing client used by developers worldwide, making security incident response critical to maintaining user trust and protecting the community. + +### Key Objectives + +1. **Rapid Detection**: Identify security incidents quickly through community reporting and automated monitoring +2. **Effective Response**: Contain and resolve incidents with minimal impact to users +3. **Transparent Communication**: Keep the community informed while protecting sensitive details +4. **Continuous Improvement**: Learn from incidents to strengthen security posture +5. **Compliance**: Adhere to responsible disclosure practices and regulatory requirements + +### Incident Response Goals (2025 Standards) + +- **Detection Time**: < 1 hour for critical vulnerabilities +- **Initial Response**: < 4 hours for critical, < 24 hours for high severity +- **Patch Release**: < 72 hours for critical vulnerabilities +- **Public Disclosure**: Within 90 days of fix, coordinated with reporters +- **Post-Incident Review**: Within 7 days of incident resolution + +--- + +## 2. Purpose and Scope + +### 2.1 Purpose + +This IRP provides: +- Clear procedures for handling security incidents +- Defined roles and responsibilities +- Communication protocols +- Documentation requirements +- Recovery procedures + +### 2.2 Scope + +**In Scope:** +- Security vulnerabilities in API Dash application code +- Vulnerabilities in API Dash dependencies and packages +- Security issues in build/release infrastructure +- Supply chain attacks affecting distribution +- Data breaches involving user credentials or sensitive information +- Malicious code or backdoors in the codebase +- Security incidents affecting project infrastructure (GitHub, website) +- Social engineering attacks targeting maintainers or users +- Compromised releases or distribution channels + +**Out of Scope:** +- General bugs or functionality issues (use GitHub Issues) +- User configuration errors or misuse +- Security of third-party APIs being tested +- User device security (unless caused by API Dash) +- Individual user support requests +- Feature requests or enhancements + +### 2.3 Applicability + +This IRP applies to: +- All API Dash maintainers and contributors +- Security researchers reporting vulnerabilities +- Users affected by security incidents +- Third-party security teams coordinating disclosures + +--- + +## 3. Incident Response Team + +### 3.1 Core Team Structure + +#### 3.1.1 Incident Commander (IC) +**Role**: Overall incident coordination and decision-making +**Primary**: Lead Maintainer (@foss42 GitHub organization) +**Backup**: Senior Maintainer + +**Responsibilities**: +- Activate incident response procedures +- Coordinate team activities +- Make critical decisions +- Approve public communications +- Declare incident closure + +#### 3.1.2 Security Lead +**Role**: Technical security assessment and remediation +**Primary**: Security-focused maintainer +**Backup**: Senior developer with security experience + +**Responsibilities**: +- Vulnerability analysis and validation +- Risk assessment and severity classification +- Technical remediation guidance +- Security patch development +- Coordinate with security researchers + +#### 3.1.3 Communications Lead +**Role**: Internal and external communications +**Primary**: Project lead or designated spokesperson +**Backup**: Senior maintainer + +**Responsibilities**: +- Draft incident communications +- Manage GitHub Security Advisories +- Coordinate vulnerability disclosure +- Update community on incident status +- Handle media inquiries (if applicable) + +#### 3.1.4 Technical Lead +**Role**: Code fixes and release management +**Primary**: Core maintainer with release permissions +**Backup**: Senior developer + +**Responsibilities**: +- Develop and test security patches +- Emergency release coordination +- Code review of security fixes +- Verify fix effectiveness +- Update dependencies + +#### 3.1.5 Documentation Lead +**Role**: Incident documentation and reporting +**Primary**: Designated maintainer +**Backup**: Any core team member + +**Responsibilities**: +- Document incident timeline +- Maintain incident logs +- Create post-incident reports +- Update security documentation +- Track action items + +### 3.2 Extended Team + +- **Community Moderators**: Manage community communications +- **Legal Advisor**: Provide legal guidance (if available) +- **External Security Experts**: Consultants for complex incidents +- **Platform Representatives**: GitHub, distribution platform contacts + +### 3.3 Contact Information + +**Primary Communication Channel**: Private GitHub Security Advisory +**Emergency Contact**: security@apidash.dev (or maintainer emails) +**Escalation Path**: GitHub organization owners → CNCF security team (if applicable) + +**Response Time Commitments**: +- Critical: Response within 4 hours +- High: Response within 24 hours +- Medium: Response within 72 hours +- Low: Response within 1 week + +--- + +## 4. Incident Classification and Severity + +### 4.1 Severity Levels (Aligned with CVSS 3.1) + +#### CRITICAL (CVSS 9.0-10.0) +**Definition**: Vulnerabilities with severe impact requiring immediate action + +**Examples**: +- Remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities +- Arbitrary code execution in template engine +- Critical data exposure of all users' credentials +- Supply chain compromise (malicious dependency) +- Backdoor or malicious code in releases + +**Response SLA**: +- Initial Response: 4 hours +- Assessment: 8 hours +- Patch Development: 48 hours +- Patch Release: 72 hours +- Public Disclosure: Immediate advisory, full disclosure after 7-14 days + +#### HIGH (CVSS 7.0-8.9) +**Definition**: Significant vulnerabilities that could lead to major impact + +**Examples**: +- Authentication bypass +- Privilege escalation vulnerabilities +- SQL injection or command injection in generated code +- Unencrypted storage of sensitive credentials +- Deserialization vulnerabilities +- XSS or code injection in UI components + +**Response SLA**: +- Initial Response: 24 hours +- Assessment: 48 hours +- Patch Development: 1 week +- Patch Release: 2 weeks +- Public Disclosure: Full disclosure after 30 days + +#### MEDIUM (CVSS 4.0-6.9) +**Definition**: Vulnerabilities with moderate impact + +**Examples**: +- Information disclosure of non-critical data +- CSRF vulnerabilities +- Insecure defaults +- Path traversal with limited impact +- Denial of service (local only) +- Weak cryptography + +**Response SLA**: +- Initial Response: 72 hours +- Assessment: 1 week +- Patch Development: 2-4 weeks +- Patch Release: Next regular release +- Public Disclosure: Full disclosure after 60 days + +#### LOW (CVSS 0.1-3.9) +**Definition**: Minor vulnerabilities with limited impact + +**Examples**: +- Information leakage with minimal impact +- Security misconfigurations +- Minor input validation issues +- Non-sensitive data exposure + +**Response SLA**: +- Initial Response: 1 week +- Assessment: 2 weeks +- Patch Development: As resources allow +- Patch Release: Next regular release +- Public Disclosure: Full disclosure after 90 days + +### 4.2 Incident Categories + +| Category | Description | Examples | +|----------|-------------|----------| +| **Vulnerability** | Security flaws in code or dependencies | CVE-reported vulnerabilities | +| **Data Breach** | Unauthorized access to sensitive data | Credential exposure, data leak | +| **Malicious Code** | Intentional backdoors or malware | Supply chain attack, compromised dependency | +| **Infrastructure** | Compromise of project infrastructure | GitHub account takeover, website defacement | +| **Social Engineering** | Attacks targeting team or users | Phishing, impersonation | +| **Availability** | DoS or service disruption | Resource exhaustion attacks | + +### 4.3 Impact Assessment Factors + +Severity is determined by evaluating: + +1. **Confidentiality Impact**: Risk of unauthorized information disclosure +2. **Integrity Impact**: Risk of data or system modification +3. **Availability Impact**: Risk of service disruption +4. **Scope**: Number of users affected (single user vs. all users) +5. **Exploitability**: Ease of exploitation (simple vs. complex) +6. **User Interaction**: Required user interaction (none vs. significant) +7. **Privileges Required**: Attacker privileges needed (none vs. admin) + +--- + +## 5. Incident Response Lifecycle + +### 5.1 Phase 1: Preparation + +#### Ongoing Activities + +**1. Proactive Security Measures** +- Enable GitHub Dependabot alerts +- Implement automated security scanning in CI/CD +- Regular dependency updates and security patches +- Security training for maintainers +- Maintain updated contact information + +**2. Monitoring and Detection** +- Monitor GitHub Security Advisories +- Subscribe to security mailing lists for dependencies +- Track Dependabot alerts +- Monitor community reports and discussions +- Review CodeQL scan results + +**3. Tools and Access** +- Maintain incident response toolkit +- Ensure access to critical systems +- Keep security advisory templates ready +- Maintain vulnerability disclosure page +- Prepare patch release procedures + +**4. Documentation** +- Keep IRP updated +- Maintain security runbooks +- Document emergency procedures +- Maintain stakeholder contact lists + +### 5.2 Phase 2: Detection and Analysis + +#### Step 1: Incident Detection + +**Detection Sources**: +1. **GitHub Security Advisories** (private vulnerability reports) +2. **Dependabot alerts** (dependency vulnerabilities) +3. **Community reports** (security@apidash.dev or GitHub Issues) +4. **Security researchers** (coordinated disclosure) +5. **Automated scanning** (CodeQL, SAST tools) +6. **Social media** (public vulnerability discussions) +7. **Third-party notification** (GitHub Security Lab, etc.) + +**Initial Actions** (within 1 hour): +``` +[ ] Acknowledge receipt of report +[ ] Assign incident commander +[ ] Create private security advisory or issue +[ ] Gather initial information +[ ] Avoid public discussion until assessed +``` + +#### Step 2: Initial Triage + +**Triage Checklist**: +``` +[ ] Validate the vulnerability (is it real?) +[ ] Determine affected versions +[ ] Assess exploitability +[ ] Identify attack vectors +[ ] Check if exploit is public or in the wild +[ ] Determine initial severity (preliminary) +[ ] Assign to Security Lead +``` + +**Triage Decision Matrix**: +- **Valid Security Issue** → Proceed to analysis +- **Non-Security Bug** → Route to regular issue tracking +- **Duplicate/Known** → Reference existing advisory/issue +- **Invalid/Not Reproducible** → Close with explanation + +#### Step 3: Detailed Analysis + +**Analysis Activities**: +1. **Reproduce the Vulnerability** + - Set up test environment + - Follow reproduction steps + - Document exact conditions + - Capture evidence (screenshots, logs) + +2. **Impact Assessment** + - Determine CVSS score + - Identify affected components + - Assess data at risk + - Estimate user impact (percentage/count) + - Identify downstream effects + +3. **Root Cause Analysis** + - Identify vulnerable code + - Determine when introduced (git blame) + - Check if present in other locations + - Identify similar vulnerabilities + +4. **Attack Surface Mapping** + - Identify all attack vectors + - List prerequisites for exploitation + - Document required privileges + - Assess network exposure + +**Analysis Output**: +- Severity classification (Critical/High/Medium/Low) +- Affected versions and components +- Root cause summary +- Exploitation requirements +- Recommended remediation approach + +### 5.3 Phase 3: Containment + +#### Short-term Containment + +**Immediate Actions** (Critical/High severity): + +1. **For Critical Vulnerabilities in Released Versions**: + ``` + [ ] Confirm severity with team consensus + [ ] Activate emergency response team + [ ] Create GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA) + [ ] Begin patch development immediately + [ ] Prepare interim workarounds if possible + [ ] Consider temporary removal of vulnerable features + ``` + +2. **For Infrastructure Compromise**: + ``` + [ ] Revoke compromised credentials immediately + [ ] Enable 2FA on all accounts (if not enabled) + [ ] Audit access logs + [ ] Change all shared secrets + [ ] Lock down affected systems + [ ] Preserve forensic evidence + ``` + +3. **For Supply Chain Attacks**: + ``` + [ ] Identify malicious dependency/code + [ ] Pin previous known-good versions + [ ] Alert users immediately (critical advisory) + [ ] Remove malicious packages from distribution + [ ] Contact platform providers (npm, pub.dev) + ``` + +4. **For Data Breach**: + ``` + [ ] Identify scope of data exposure + [ ] Contain data leak source + [ ] Preserve evidence + [ ] Prepare user notification + [ ] Assess regulatory obligations + ``` + +#### Long-term Containment + +**Sustained Response Actions**: +- Implement temporary security controls +- Monitor for exploitation attempts +- Prepare comprehensive fix +- Coordinate with security researcher +- Plan disclosure timeline + +### 5.4 Phase 4: Eradication + +#### Root Cause Elimination + +**1. Develop Security Fix**: +``` +[ ] Design secure solution +[ ] Implement fix in development branch +[ ] Add regression tests +[ ] Perform security code review +[ ] Test fix thoroughly +[ ] Verify no new vulnerabilities introduced +[ ] Document changes +``` + +**2. Code Review Requirements**: +- Minimum 2 security-aware reviewers +- Focus on security implications +- Check for similar issues elsewhere +- Validate input handling +- Review error handling +- Verify no information leakage + +**3. Testing Validation**: +- Unit tests for security fix +- Integration tests +- Regression testing +- Security testing (fuzzing, penetration testing) +- Performance impact assessment +- Cross-platform validation + +**4. Dependency Updates**: +``` +[ ] Identify updated secure versions +[ ] Test compatibility +[ ] Update pubspec.yaml +[ ] Verify no breaking changes +[ ] Update lockfiles +[ ] Test on all supported platforms +``` + +### 5.5 Phase 5: Recovery + +#### Release and Deployment + +**1. Emergency Patch Release Process**: + +```bash +# Emergency Release Checklist +[ ] Create release branch from main +[ ] Apply security fix +[ ] Update version number (patch bump) +[ ] Update CHANGELOG.md with security notice +[ ] Run full test suite +[ ] Build release artifacts for all platforms +[ ] Sign releases (if applicable) +[ ] Create GitHub release +[ ] Publish to distribution channels +[ ] Update documentation +[ ] Verify release availability +``` + +**2. Release Prioritization**: + +| Severity | Release Timeline | Release Type | +|----------|-----------------|--------------| +| Critical | 48-72 hours | Emergency patch | +| High | 1-2 weeks | Security patch | +| Medium | 2-4 weeks | Regular release | +| Low | Next planned release | Regular release | + +**3. Release Announcement Template**: + +```markdown +# Security Release: API Dash v{VERSION} + +## Overview +This is a security release addressing [severity] vulnerability in API Dash. + +## Affected Versions +- {version range} + +## Fixed Vulnerabilities +- **{CVE-ID}** (Severity: {CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}) + - {Brief description} + - CVSS Score: {score} + +## Recommended Action +All users should upgrade immediately to version {VERSION}. + +## Upgrade Instructions +{Platform-specific upgrade steps} + +## Workarounds (if applicable) +{Temporary workarounds for users who cannot upgrade immediately} + +## Credits +We would like to thank {researcher name} for responsibly disclosing this vulnerability. + +## References +- GitHub Security Advisory: {GHSA link} +- CVE: {CVE link} +- Detailed Security Advisory: {link} +``` + +**4. Distribution Channels**: +- GitHub Releases (primary) +- App Store (iOS/iPad) +- Platform-specific package managers (apt, rpm, etc.) +- Website download links +- Documentation updates + +**5. User Notification**: +- GitHub Security Advisory (automatic notification to watchers) +- Release notes +- Social media (Twitter/X, Discord) +- Security mailing list (if established) +- In-app notification (for future versions) + +#### Verification + +**Post-Release Validation**: +``` +[ ] Verify fix effectiveness +[ ] Confirm vulnerability no longer exploitable +[ ] Check all platforms updated +[ ] Monitor for issues with patch +[ ] Verify no regression introduced +[ ] Scan updated version with security tools +``` + +### 5.6 Phase 6: Post-Incident Activities + +See [Section 8: Post-Incident Activities](#8-post-incident-activities) for detailed procedures. + +--- + +## 6. Communication Plan + +### 6.1 Communication Principles + +1. **Transparency**: Be open about incidents while protecting sensitive details +2. **Timeliness**: Communicate promptly at each phase +3. **Accuracy**: Provide verified information only +4. **Clarity**: Use clear, non-technical language for user communications +5. **Coordination**: Align with security researchers and stakeholders +6. **Responsibility**: Take ownership and accountability + +### 6.2 Internal Communication + +#### During Active Incident + +**Communication Channels**: +- **Primary**: Private GitHub Security Advisory discussion +- **Real-time**: Dedicated Discord/Slack channel (private) +- **Documentation**: Shared incident log (Google Docs or equivalent) +- **Escalation**: Direct email to incident commander + +**Communication Cadence**: +- Critical: Updates every 4 hours minimum +- High: Updates every 12 hours minimum +- Medium/Low: Updates every 48 hours minimum + +**Status Update Template**: +```markdown +## Incident Status Update - {Date/Time} + +**Incident ID**: {IR-YYYY-MM-DD-###} +**Severity**: {Level} +**Phase**: {Detection/Analysis/Containment/Eradication/Recovery} + +### Current Status +{Brief status description} + +### Activities Completed +- {Item 1} +- {Item 2} + +### In Progress +- {Item 1} +- {Item 2} + +### Next Steps +- {Item 1} +- {Item 2} + +### Blockers/Issues +- {Any blockers} + +### Expected Next Update +{Time} +``` + +### 6.3 External Communication + +#### Communication to Security Researchers + +**Initial Response (within 4-24 hours)**: +```markdown +Dear {Researcher Name}, + +Thank you for reporting this security issue to the API Dash project. +We have received your report and assigned it ID {IR-YYYY-MM-DD-###}. + +Our security team is currently analyzing the issue and will provide +an initial assessment within {timeframe} hours. + +We appreciate your responsible disclosure and will keep you updated +on our progress. + +Best regards, +API Dash Security Team +``` + +**Progress Updates**: +- Provide updates every 7 days minimum +- Share assessment results +- Discuss remediation timeline +- Coordinate disclosure date + +**Disclosure Coordination**: +```markdown +Dear {Researcher Name}, + +We have completed development of a fix for {vulnerability ID}. +We plan to release version {VERSION} on {DATE}. + +Proposed disclosure timeline: +- {DATE}: Patch release +- {DATE + 7 days}: Limited disclosure (GHSA) +- {DATE + 30 days}: Full public disclosure + +Please let us know if you have any concerns with this timeline +or if you need additional information. + +Credit: We would like to credit you as "{Preferred Name/Handle}" +in the advisory. Please confirm or provide alternative credit info. +``` + +#### Communication to Users + +**Security Advisory Template**: +```markdown +# Security Advisory: {Title} + +**Advisory ID**: GHSA-{id} +**CVE**: CVE-{year}-{number} +**Severity**: {CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} +**Affected Versions**: {versions} +**Fixed in Version**: {version} +**Publication Date**: {date} + +## Summary +{Brief, clear description of the vulnerability suitable for all audiences} + +## Impact +{What could an attacker do? What data/systems are at risk?} + +## Affected Configurations +{Are all users affected or only specific configurations?} + +## Remediation + +### Immediate Actions +1. Upgrade to version {VERSION} immediately +2. {Additional steps if needed} + +### Workarounds (if patch not immediately possible) +{Temporary mitigations} + +## Timeline +- {Date}: Vulnerability reported +- {Date}: Fix developed +- {Date}: Patch released +- {Date}: Public disclosure + +## References +- Fix commit: {link} +- GitHub Security Advisory: {link} +- CVE Details: {link} + +## Credits +Discovered by: {Researcher name/handle} +Coordinated disclosure: {if applicable} + +## Contact +For questions about this advisory: security@apidash.dev +``` + +**Social Media/Community Update**: +```markdown +🔒 Security Update: API Dash v{VERSION} released + +Fixed {CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} severity vulnerability {CVE-ID}. + +All users should update immediately. + +Details: {link to GHSA} +Download: {link to release} + +Thank you to @{researcher} for responsible disclosure. + +#security #apidash #infosec +``` + +### 6.4 Media and Public Relations + +**For High-Profile Incidents**: +- Designate single spokesperson +- Prepare statement in advance +- Coordinate with legal (if available) +- Monitor public discussion +- Correct misinformation promptly + +**Statement Template**: +```markdown +API Dash Security Statement + +The API Dash team was notified of a security vulnerability affecting +versions {versions} on {date}. We immediately began investigating and +developing a fix. + +We have released version {VERSION} which addresses this issue. All users +should upgrade as soon as possible. + +We take security seriously and appreciate the responsible disclosure from +the security community. Users can report security issues confidentially +through our GitHub Security Advisories. + +For more information: {link} +``` + +--- + +## 7. Incident Types and Response Procedures + +### 7.1 Code Vulnerability + +**Scenario**: Security flaw discovered in application code + +**Detection**: Security researcher report, automated scan, or code review + +**Response Procedure**: +1. **Receive and Validate** (0-4 hours) + - Acknowledge report + - Validate vulnerability + - Create private GHSA + - Assign severity + +2. **Analyze** (4-24 hours) + - Reproduce issue + - Determine affected versions + - Assess impact + - Identify root cause + +3. **Develop Fix** (24-72 hours for critical) + - Implement secure solution + - Add security tests + - Code review + - Test thoroughly + +4. **Release Patch** (48-96 hours for critical) + - Create patch release + - Update documentation + - Publish GHSA + - Notify users + +5. **Monitor** (1-2 weeks post-release) + - Track adoption + - Monitor for exploitation + - Address user questions + +**Example Decision Tree**: +``` +Vulnerability Report + │ + ├─ Valid & Security-related? + │ ├─ Yes → Assess Severity + │ │ ├─ Critical → Emergency Response (4hr SLA) + │ │ ├─ High → Priority Response (24hr SLA) + │ │ └─ Med/Low → Standard Response (72hr SLA) + │ └─ No → Route to standard bug tracking + │ + └─ Continue with standard process +``` + +### 7.2 Dependency Vulnerability + +**Scenario**: Vulnerability discovered in third-party dependency + +**Detection**: Dependabot alert, security advisory, or manual audit + +**Response Procedure**: +1. **Assess Impact** (0-24 hours) + ``` + [ ] Identify vulnerable dependency + [ ] Check if vulnerability affects API Dash usage + [ ] Determine exploitability in context + [ ] Check if transitive or direct dependency + [ ] Review available patches + ``` + +2. **Evaluate Remediation Options**: + - **Option A**: Update to patched version + - Test compatibility + - Update pubspec.yaml + - Verify fix + + - **Option B**: Replace with alternative library + - Research alternatives + - Plan migration + - Implement replacement + + - **Option C**: Apply workaround + - Disable vulnerable feature + - Implement compensating controls + - Document limitation + +3. **Release Update**: + - For critical: Emergency patch within 72 hours + - For high: Security update within 1 week + - For medium/low: Next regular release + +4. **Documentation**: + ```markdown + ## Dependency Security Update + + **Affected Dependency**: {package}@{version} + **Vulnerability**: {CVE or description} + **Severity**: {level} + **Resolution**: Updated to {package}@{new-version} + **API Dash Versions Affected**: {versions} + **Fixed in**: API Dash v{version} + ``` + +**Dependabot Integration**: +```yaml +# .github/dependabot.yml +version: 2 +updates: + - package-ecosystem: "pub" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" + open-pull-requests-limit: 10 + labels: + - "dependencies" + - "security" + assignees: + - "security-team-member" +``` + +### 7.3 Supply Chain Attack + +**Scenario**: Malicious code injected through compromised dependency or build pipeline + +**Detection**: +- Unexpected package behavior +- Community reports of malicious activity +- Checksum mismatches +- Security tool alerts + +**Response Procedure** (CRITICAL - IMMEDIATE ACTION): + +**Phase 1: Emergency Response (0-1 hour)** +``` +[ ] STOP all builds and releases immediately +[ ] Revoke access to compromised accounts/systems +[ ] Alert all maintainers via emergency channel +[ ] Preserve forensic evidence +[ ] Identify affected versions +``` + +**Phase 2: Containment (1-4 hours)** +``` +[ ] Remove malicious packages from distribution +[ ] Contact platform providers (GitHub, App Stores) +[ ] Request takedown of compromised releases +[ ] Post emergency security advisory +[ ] Alert users through all channels +[ ] Identify attack vector +``` + +**Phase 3: Analysis (4-24 hours)** +``` +[ ] Forensic analysis of compromise +[ ] Identify malicious code +[ ] Determine scope of impact +[ ] Assess data at risk +[ ] Check if source code compromised +[ ] Review commit history for malicious changes +[ ] Analyze access logs +``` + +**Phase 4: Eradication (24-48 hours)** +``` +[ ] Remove all malicious code +[ ] Verify source code integrity +[ ] Rebuild from known-good source +[ ] Update all credentials and secrets +[ ] Implement additional security controls +[ ] Audit all dependencies +``` + +**Phase 5: Recovery (48-96 hours)** +``` +[ ] Release clean version with new version number +[ ] Sign releases with new keys (if keys compromised) +[ ] Publish detailed incident report +[ ] Provide user guidance +[ ] Monitor for continued threats +``` + +**User Communication (URGENT)**: +```markdown +🚨 CRITICAL SECURITY ALERT 🚨 + +Versions {versions} of API Dash have been compromised with malicious code. + +IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: +1. UNINSTALL affected versions immediately +2. DO NOT use until further notice +3. Change any credentials entered in these versions +4. Monitor for suspicious activity + +We are working to release a clean version and will update within {timeframe}. + +More details: {link to emergency advisory} +``` + +### 7.4 Data Breach + +**Scenario**: Unauthorized access to user data (credentials, API responses, etc.) + +**Response Procedure**: + +**Phase 1: Initial Response (0-1 hour)** +``` +[ ] Confirm breach occurred +[ ] Identify data accessed/exfiltrated +[ ] Determine breach source +[ ] Contain the breach +[ ] Preserve evidence +[ ] Assess legal obligations (GDPR, CCPA, etc.) +``` + +**Phase 2: Assessment (1-6 hours)** +``` +[ ] Identify affected users +[ ] Determine data sensitivity +[ ] Assess regulatory requirements +[ ] Estimate number of records affected +[ ] Document timeline of breach +[ ] Identify attack method +``` + +**Phase 3: User Notification (6-72 hours)** +``` +[ ] Prepare notification message +[ ] Identify notification method +[ ] Comply with regulatory timelines (GDPR: 72 hours) +[ ] Provide user guidance +[ ] Set up support channel +``` + +**Breach Notification Template**: +```markdown +# Data Breach Notification + +**Date of Breach**: {date} +**Date of Discovery**: {date} +**Notification Date**: {date} + +## What Happened +{Clear description of the breach} + +## What Information Was Involved +{List of data types: credentials, API keys, response data, etc.} + +## What We're Doing +{Steps taken to contain and investigate} + +## What You Should Do +1. {Action item 1} +2. {Action item 2} +3. {Action item 3} + +## Additional Information +{Resources, support contact, FAQ} + +## Contact Us +{Contact information for questions} +``` + +**Regulatory Compliance**: +- **GDPR**: Notify supervisory authority within 72 hours if EU data affected +- **CCPA**: Notify affected California residents without unreasonable delay +- **Other jurisdictions**: Follow applicable data breach notification laws + +### 7.5 Infrastructure Compromise + +**Scenario**: Unauthorized access to project infrastructure (GitHub, domains, etc.) + +**Response Procedure**: + +**Phase 1: Immediate Lockdown (0-15 minutes)** +``` +[ ] Revoke compromised credentials +[ ] Enable/verify 2FA on all accounts +[ ] Change all passwords +[ ] Revoke API tokens and SSH keys +[ ] Lock affected repositories/systems +[ ] Contact platform support +``` + +**Phase 2: Investigation (15 minutes - 2 hours)** +``` +[ ] Review access logs +[ ] Identify unauthorized actions +[ ] Determine entry point +[ ] Assess damage +[ ] Check for backdoors +[ ] Review recent commits/changes +``` + +**Phase 3: Remediation (2-24 hours)** +``` +[ ] Revert unauthorized changes +[ ] Strengthen access controls +[ ] Audit all accounts and permissions +[ ] Review and update security policies +[ ] Implement additional monitoring +[ ] Consider new authentication methods (hardware keys) +``` + +**Phase 4: Recovery (24-72 hours)** +``` +[ ] Restore systems to secure state +[ ] Verify integrity of code and releases +[ ] Re-establish trust in infrastructure +[ ] Communicate status to community +[ ] Document lessons learned +``` + +**GitHub Specific Actions**: +``` +[ ] Review "Settings > Audit log" +[ ] Check "Security > Deploy keys" +[ ] Review "Settings > Collaborators" +[ ] Verify branch protection rules +[ ] Check webhook configurations +[ ] Review GitHub Actions workflows +[ ] Verify code signing keys +``` + +### 7.6 Malicious Code Contribution + +**Scenario**: Intentional backdoor or malicious code in pull request or commit + +**Response Procedure**: + +**Phase 1: Detection (0-1 hour)** +``` +[ ] Identify suspicious code +[ ] Determine if merged to main branch +[ ] Check if released to users +[ ] Identify contributor +[ ] Preserve evidence +``` + +**Phase 2: Containment (1-4 hours)** +``` +[ ] Revert malicious commits immediately +[ ] Block contributor if intentional +[ ] Check for other malicious contributions +[ ] Audit recent code changes +[ ] Determine if emergency release needed +``` + +**Phase 3: Analysis (4-24 hours)** +``` +[ ] Analyze malicious code intent +[ ] Determine what it could do +[ ] Check if exploited +[ ] Review contributor history +[ ] Assess trust in other contributions +``` + +**Phase 4: Communication (24-48 hours)** +``` +[ ] If released: Issue security advisory +[ ] Report to GitHub abuse team +[ ] Alert community if severe +[ ] Update contribution guidelines +[ ] Strengthen code review process +``` + +**Prevention Measures**: +- Require code review from trusted maintainers +- Use automated security scanning on PRs +- Implement CODEOWNERS file +- Suspicious code review checklist +- Contributor verification for sensitive changes + +--- + +## 8. Post-Incident Activities + +### 8.1 Post-Incident Review (PIR) + +**Timing**: Within 7 days of incident resolution + +**Attendees**: +- Incident Commander +- All IR team members involved +- Relevant stakeholders + +**Agenda**: +1. Incident timeline review +2. What went well +3. What could be improved +4. Action items + +**PIR Template**: +```markdown +# Post-Incident Review: {Incident ID} + +**Date**: {date} +**Facilitator**: {name} +**Attendees**: {list} + +## Incident Summary +- **ID**: {IR-YYYY-MM-DD-###} +- **Type**: {vulnerability/breach/infrastructure/etc.} +- **Severity**: {level} +- **Duration**: {detection to resolution} +- **Impact**: {users affected, scope} + +## Timeline +| Time | Event | Owner | +|------|-------|-------| +| {timestamp} | {event description} | {person} | +| ... | ... | ... | + +## Metrics +- Time to detect: {duration} +- Time to respond: {duration} +- Time to patch: {duration} +- Time to resolve: {duration} +- Users affected: {number/percentage} + +## What Went Well ✅ +1. {Item 1} +2. {Item 2} +3. {Item 3} + +## What Could Be Improved 🔄 +1. {Item 1} + - Root cause: {why} + - Impact: {what was the effect} + - Recommendation: {how to fix} + +2. {Item 2} + - Root cause: {why} + - Impact: {what was the effect} + - Recommendation: {how to fix} + +## Action Items +| Action | Owner | Priority | Due Date | Status | +|--------|-------|----------|----------|--------| +| {Action 1} | {name} | {P0/P1/P2} | {date} | {Open/In Progress/Done} | +| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | + +## Lessons Learned +1. {Lesson 1} +2. {Lesson 2} +3. {Lesson 3} + +## Documentation Updates Needed +- [ ] Update IRP +- [ ] Update threat model +- [ ] Update security documentation +- [ ] Update developer guidelines +- [ ] Update monitoring/detection + +## Follow-up Meeting +Scheduled for: {date} to review action item progress +``` + +### 8.2 Documentation + +**Incident Log**: +Maintain a comprehensive log of all security incidents: + +```markdown +# Security Incident Log + +| ID | Date | Type | Severity | Status | Resolution | +|----|------|------|----------|--------|------------| +| IR-2025-12-001 | 2025-12-01 | Vulnerability | HIGH | Resolved | Patched in v1.2.3 | +| IR-2025-11-045 | 2025-11-15 | Dependency | MEDIUM | Resolved | Updated dep | +| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | +``` + +**Knowledge Base**: +Create runbooks for common scenarios: +- Dependency update procedure +- Emergency release process +- Infrastructure compromise response +- Data breach notification process + +### 8.3 Improvement Actions + +**Security Enhancements**: +Based on incident learnings: +1. Implement additional security controls +2. Update threat model +3. Enhance monitoring/detection +4. Improve tooling +5. Add security tests +6. Update documentation + +**Process Improvements**: +1. Refine IRP procedures +2. Update response checklists +3. Improve communication templates +4. Enhance training materials +5. Streamline escalation paths + +**Training**: +1. Conduct incident retrospective training +2. Share lessons learned with team +3. Update security awareness materials +4. Practice improved procedures + +### 8.4 Continuous Monitoring + +**Post-Incident Monitoring**: +- Monitor for reoccurrence +- Track patch adoption rates +- Watch for exploitation attempts +- Monitor security researchers' follow-ups +- Check for similar vulnerabilities + +**Metrics Tracking**: +``` +Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): +- Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) +- Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) +- Mean Time to Resolve (MTTR) +- Patch adoption rate +- Number of incidents by severity +- Number of incidents by type +- Effectiveness of mitigations +``` + +--- + +## 9. Tools and Resources + +### 9.1 Security Tools + +#### Detection and Monitoring +- **GitHub Dependabot**: Automated dependency vulnerability scanning +- **CodeQL**: Static application security testing (SAST) +- **Dart/Flutter Security Linters**: Code quality and security checks +- **Snyk**: Open source vulnerability scanner (optional) +- **OWASP Dependency-Check**: Dependency vulnerability analysis + +#### Analysis Tools +- **GitHub Security Advisories**: Vulnerability database and disclosure platform +- **CVE/NVD**: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures database +- **CVSS Calculator**: Severity scoring tool +- **Git History Tools**: For forensic analysis (git log, git blame) + +#### Communication +- **GitHub Security Advisories**: Primary disclosure platform +- **GitHub Discussions**: Community communication +- **Discord/Slack**: Real-time team communication +- **Email**: Direct communication with researchers + +#### Incident Management +- **GitHub Issues**: Private security issues +- **GitHub Projects**: Incident tracking board +- **Shared Documents**: Incident logs (Google Docs/Notion) +- **Password Manager**: Secure credential storage for team + +### 9.2 Reference Materials + +#### Vulnerability Databases +- **GitHub Advisory Database**: https://github.com/advisories +- **National Vulnerability Database**: https://nvd.nist.gov/ +- **CVE**: https://cve.mitre.org/ +- **Pub.dev Security Advisories**: https://pub.dev/ + +#### Security Frameworks +- **NIST Cybersecurity Framework**: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework +- **CIS Controls**: https://www.cisecurity.org/controls +- **OWASP Top 10**: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/ +- **OWASP Mobile Top 10**: https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-top-10/ + +#### Disclosure Guidelines +- **ISO/IEC 29147**: Vulnerability disclosure +- **CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure**: https://vuls.cert.org/ +- **Google Project Zero Policy**: 90-day disclosure deadline + +#### Legal Resources +- **GDPR**: https://gdpr-info.eu/ +- **CCPA**: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa +- **Data Breach Notification Laws**: State-by-state requirements + +### 9.3 Contact Lists + +#### Internal Contacts +``` +Incident Commander: +- Name: {Lead Maintainer} +- GitHub: @{username} +- Email: {email} +- Phone: {emergency only} + +Security Lead: +- Name: {Security-focused maintainer} +- GitHub: @{username} +- Email: {email} + +Communications Lead: +- Name: {Communications person} +- GitHub: @{username} +- Email: {email} +``` + +#### External Contacts +``` +GitHub Security Team: +- Email: security@github.com +- Emergency: https://github.com/security + +Platform Providers: +- Apple App Store: https://developer.apple.com/contact/ +- Pub.dev: security@pub.dev + +Legal (if applicable): +- TBD based on organization + +Security Community: +- CERT/CC: cert@cert.org +- OpenSSF: security@openssf.org +``` + +### 9.4 Templates and Checklists + +**Available in Appendices**: +- Incident response checklist +- Security advisory template +- Post-incident review template +- Communication templates +- Severity assessment guide + +--- + +## 10. Training and Awareness + +### 10.1 Team Training + +**Required Training for IR Team**: +1. **Incident Response Basics** (Annual) + - IRP overview + - Roles and responsibilities + - Communication protocols + - Tools and access + +2. **Security Fundamentals** (Annual) + - Common vulnerability types + - Secure coding practices + - Threat modeling basics + - Security testing + +3. **Tabletop Exercises** (Bi-annual) + - Simulated incident scenarios + - Practice response procedures + - Test communication channels + - Identify gaps in plan + +4. **Platform-Specific Training** (As needed) + - GitHub Security features + - Flutter security best practices + - Dependency management + +**Training Schedule**: +- Onboarding: New IR team members +- Annual: All IR team members +- Quarterly: Security updates and lessons learned +- Post-incident: Specific learnings from incidents + +### 10.2 Tabletop Exercise Scenarios + +**Scenario 1: Critical RCE Vulnerability** +``` +SCENARIO: Security researcher reports remote code execution vulnerability + in template engine. Exploit code is public. + +EXERCISE: +- How do we verify the vulnerability? +- What's the appropriate severity? +- What's our patch timeline? +- How do we communicate to users? +- What's our disclosure timeline? +``` + +**Scenario 2: Compromised Dependency** +``` +SCENARIO: A popular dependency has been compromised with malicious code. + API Dash uses this dependency. + +EXERCISE: +- How do we detect this? +- Is API Dash affected? +- What do we tell users? +- How do we remove the dependency? +- Do we need an emergency release? +``` + +**Scenario 3: Data Breach** +``` +SCENARIO: User reports their API credentials were leaked after using API Dash. + Potentially multiple users affected. + +EXERCISE: +- How do we investigate? +- What data might be exposed? +- What are our legal obligations? +- How do we notify affected users? +- What should users do? +``` + +**Scenario 4: GitHub Account Compromise** +``` +SCENARIO: A maintainer's GitHub account is compromised. + Unauthorized commits are pushed to main branch. + +EXERCISE: +- What are immediate actions? +- How do we revoke access? +- What do we audit? +- Do we need to revert commits? +- How do we verify code integrity? +``` + +### 10.3 User Education + +**Security Best Practices Guide** (for users): +```markdown +# API Dash Security Best Practices + +## Protecting Your Credentials +- Use environment variables for sensitive values +- Don't commit credentials to version control +- Regularly rotate API keys and tokens +- Use read-only tokens when possible + +## Safe Collection Sharing +- Redact credentials before exporting +- Use encrypted exports for sensitive data +- Review collections before importing +- Trust collection sources + +## Keeping Secure +- Always use latest version +- Enable automatic updates +- Watch for security advisories +- Report security issues responsibly + +## Local Data Security +- Use full-disk encryption +- Secure your workspace folder +- Clear history containing sensitive data +- Use strong device passwords +``` + +**Responsible Disclosure Guide** (for researchers): +```markdown +# Reporting Security Vulnerabilities + +Thank you for helping keep API Dash secure! + +## How to Report +1. **Do NOT** create public GitHub issues +2. Use GitHub Security Advisories (preferred) +3. Or email: security@apidash.dev + +## What to Include +- Description of vulnerability +- Steps to reproduce +- Affected versions +- Potential impact +- Suggested fix (optional) + +## What to Expect +- Acknowledgment within 24 hours +- Initial assessment within 72 hours +- Regular updates on progress +- Coordinated disclosure timeline +- Credit in advisory (if desired) + +## Disclosure Policy +- We follow 90-day disclosure deadline +- Earlier disclosure if fix is ready +- We'll coordinate with you + +## Safe Harbor +We will not pursue legal action against researchers who: +- Act in good faith +- Don't access user data +- Don't disrupt service +- Report responsibly +``` + +--- + +## 11. Legal and Compliance + +### 11.1 Regulatory Requirements + +#### Data Protection Laws + +**GDPR (EU)**: +- **Breach Notification**: 72 hours to supervisory authority +- **User Notification**: Without undue delay if high risk +- **Documentation**: Detailed records of breach +- **Applicability**: If processing EU residents' data + +**CCPA (California)**: +- **Breach Notification**: Without unreasonable delay +- **Content**: Specific information requirements +- **Method**: Written notice to affected individuals +- **Applicability**: If processing California residents' data + +**Other Jurisdictions**: +- Check applicable data breach notification laws +- Consult legal counsel for specific requirements +- Maintain list of applicable regulations + +#### Open Source Considerations + +**Transparency**: +- Open source projects have unique transparency expectations +- Balance between security and openness +- Public incident disclosure aligns with open source values + +**Liability**: +- Review project license (API Dash likely uses MIT) +- Understand warranty disclaimers +- Consider liability limitations +- Document security efforts + +### 11.2 Legal Contacts + +**When to Involve Legal Counsel**: +- Data breaches affecting personal information +- Potential regulatory violations +- Threats of legal action +- Complex liability questions +- Law enforcement involvement + +**Legal Resources**: +- Open source legal organizations (Software Freedom Conservancy, etc.) +- Pro bono legal services for open source +- GitHub's legal resources +- Local bar associations + +### 11.3 Law Enforcement + +**When to Contact Law Enforcement**: +- Criminal activity (hacking, extortion, etc.) +- Significant data breach +- Identity theft concerns +- Ongoing attacks + +**What to Provide**: +- Incident summary +- Timeline of events +- Evidence preservation +- Technical details +- Impact assessment + +**Coordination**: +- Designate single point of contact +- Preserve evidence chain of custody +- Get case number for reference +- Balance investigation with incident response + +### 11.4 Insurance + +**Cyber Insurance Considerations**: +- Most applicable for commercial entities +- Open source projects typically lack coverage +- Document security practices for potential future coverage +- Understand requirements if organization obtains coverage + +--- + +## 12. Plan Maintenance + +### 12.1 Review Schedule + +**Regular Reviews**: +- **Annual**: Comprehensive plan review and update +- **Quarterly**: Metrics review and process improvements +- **Post-Incident**: Review and update based on learnings +- **After Major Changes**: Review when project structure changes + +**Review Checklist**: +``` +[ ] Update contact information +[ ] Review and update procedures +[ ] Validate tool access +[ ] Check compliance requirements +[ ] Update templates +[ ] Review metrics and KPIs +[ ] Incorporate lessons learned +[ ] Test communication channels +[ ] Verify escalation paths +[ ] Update training materials +``` + +### 12.2 Change Management + +**Plan Updates**: +- Version control this document +- Track changes in git history +- Communicate significant changes to team +- Train team on major procedural updates + +**Approval Process**: +- Minor updates: Security Lead approval +- Major updates: Incident Commander + team consensus +- Emergency updates: Incident Commander approval, team notification + +**Change Log**: +```markdown +| Version | Date | Changes | Approved By | +|---------|------|---------|-------------| +| 1.0 | 2025-12-04 | Initial IRP | IC | +| ... | ... | ... | ... | +``` + +### 12.3 Testing and Validation + +**Plan Testing**: +- **Annual Tabletop Exercise**: Full scenario walkthrough +- **Quarterly Mini-Exercise**: Specific procedure testing +- **Post-Update Testing**: Validate changes work as intended + +**Validation Criteria**: +- All contacts are current +- All tools are accessible +- Procedures are clear and actionable +- Templates are complete +- Team understands roles + +### 12.4 Continuous Improvement + +**Improvement Sources**: +1. Post-incident reviews +2. Tabletop exercises +3. Industry best practices +4. Regulatory changes +5. Tool updates +6. Team feedback + +**Metrics for Success**: +- Reduced time to detect +- Reduced time to respond +- Reduced time to resolve +- Increased patch adoption +- Improved team confidence +- Positive community feedback + +--- + +## 13. Appendices + +### Appendix A: Quick Reference Card + +``` +╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ +║ API DASH INCIDENT RESPONSE QUICK GUIDE ║ +╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣ +║ CRITICAL INCIDENT? ║ +║ → Contact Incident Commander IMMEDIATELY ║ +║ → Create private GitHub Security Advisory ║ +║ → Do NOT discuss publicly ║ +║ ║ +║ RESPONSE TIMES: ║ +║ Critical: 4 hours ║ +║ High: 24 hours ║ +║ Medium: 72 hours ║ +║ Low: 1 week ║ +║ ║ +║ SEVERITY GUIDE: ║ +║ 🔴 Critical: RCE, Supply chain, Mass credential leak ║ +║ 🟠 High: Auth bypass, Privilege escalation ║ +║ 🟡 Medium: Info disclosure, CSRF, DoS ║ +║ 🟢 Low: Minor info leak, Security misconfig ║ +║ ║ +║ CONTACTS: ║ +║ Security: security@apidash.dev ║ +║ GitHub: Security Advisories (preferred) ║ +║ Discord: #security channel ║ +║ ║ +║ REMEMBER: ║ +║ ✓ Preserve evidence ║ +║ ✓ Document everything ║ +║ ✓ Communicate regularly ║ +║ ✓ Learn and improve ║ +╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝ +``` + +### Appendix B: Incident Response Checklist + +**Phase 1: Detection** +``` +[ ] Incident detected/reported +[ ] Initial assessment completed +[ ] Incident Commander notified +[ ] Preliminary severity assigned +[ ] Private GHSA created (if needed) +[ ] Team activated +``` + +**Phase 2: Analysis** +``` +[ ] Vulnerability validated +[ ] Affected versions identified +[ ] Attack vectors documented +[ ] Impact assessed +[ ] Root cause determined +[ ] Final severity assigned +[ ] CVSS score calculated +``` + +**Phase 3: Containment** +``` +[ ] Immediate threats neutralized +[ ] Access revoked (if compromise) +[ ] Temporary workarounds identified +[ ] Users warned (if critical) +[ ] Evidence preserved +[ ] Monitoring enhanced +``` + +**Phase 4: Eradication** +``` +[ ] Security fix developed +[ ] Fix tested thoroughly +[ ] Code reviewed +[ ] Regression tests added +[ ] Documentation updated +[ ] Similar issues checked +``` + +**Phase 5: Recovery** +``` +[ ] Patch released +[ ] Security advisory published +[ ] Users notified +[ ] Distribution channels updated +[ ] Fix verified effective +[ ] Monitoring continued +``` + +**Phase 6: Post-Incident** +``` +[ ] PIR scheduled +[ ] Incident documented +[ ] Lessons learned captured +[ ] Action items assigned +[ ] Plan updated +[ ] Training updated +[ ] Metrics recorded +``` + +### Appendix C: Communication Templates + +**See Section 6 for detailed templates** + +### Appendix D: CVSS Scoring Guide + +**CVSS v3.1 Quick Reference**: + +**Base Metrics**: +- Attack Vector (AV): Network/Adjacent/Local/Physical +- Attack Complexity (AC): Low/High +- Privileges Required (PR): None/Low/High +- User Interaction (UI): None/Required +- Scope (S): Unchanged/Changed +- Confidentiality Impact (C): None/Low/High +- Integrity Impact (I): None/Low/High +- Availability Impact (A): None/Low/High + +**Calculator**: https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1 + +**Example Scoring**: +``` +Remote Code Execution: +AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H +Score: 10.0 (CRITICAL) + +Stored XSS: +AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N +Score: 5.4 (MEDIUM) +``` + +### Appendix E: Useful Commands + +**Git Forensics**: +```bash +# View commit history for file +git log --follow --all -- path/to/file + +# See who changed specific lines +git blame path/to/file + +# Find when vulnerability was introduced +git bisect start +git bisect bad # Current broken state +git bisect good v1.0.0 # Known good version + +# Check if specific code exists in all branches +git grep "suspicious_function" $(git rev-list --all) + +# Revert specific commits +git revert +``` + +**Security Scanning**: +```bash +# Check for dependency vulnerabilities +dart pub outdated --mode security + +# Run static analysis +flutter analyze + +# Check for secrets in code (using gitleaks) +gitleaks detect --source . + +# Audit npm packages (if using web) +npm audit + +# Check license compliance +flutter pub deps --style=compact +``` + +**Incident Response**: +```bash +# Create branch for security fix +git checkout -b security/fix-cve-2025-xxxx + +# Create signed commit +git commit -S -m "security: fix vulnerability" + +# Create signed tag for release +git tag -s v1.2.3 -m "Security release v1.2.3" + +# Verify signature +git verify-tag v1.2.3 +``` + +### Appendix F: Acronyms and Definitions + +**Acronyms**: +- **IRP**: Incident Response Plan +- **IR**: Incident Response +- **IC**: Incident Commander +- **PIR**: Post-Incident Review +- **GHSA**: GitHub Security Advisory +- **CVE**: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures +- **CVSS**: Common Vulnerability Scoring System +- **RCE**: Remote Code Execution +- **XSS**: Cross-Site Scripting +- **CSRF**: Cross-Site Request Forgery +- **DoS**: Denial of Service +- **SAST**: Static Application Security Testing +- **DAST**: Dynamic Application Security Testing +- **SBOM**: Software Bill of Materials + +**Definitions**: +- **Security Incident**: Any event that poses a threat to confidentiality, integrity, or availability +- **Vulnerability**: A weakness that can be exploited +- **Exploit**: Code or technique that takes advantage of a vulnerability +- **Patch**: Update that fixes a security issue +- **Advisory**: Public notification of security issue and fix +- **Disclosure**: Process of revealing vulnerability details +- **Coordinated Disclosure**: Vulnerability disclosure coordinated with vendor + +### Appendix G: External Resources + +**Security Organizations**: +- **OWASP**: https://owasp.org/ +- **CERT/CC**: https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/ +- **Open Source Security Foundation**: https://openssf.org/ +- **GitHub Security Lab**: https://securitylab.github.com/ + +**Reporting Platforms**: +- **HackerOne**: https://hackerone.com/ +- **Bugcrowd**: https://bugcrowd.com/ +- **GitHub Security Advisories**: Built into GitHub + +**Learning Resources**: +- **NIST Cybersecurity Framework**: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework +- **SANS Incident Response**: https://www.sans.org/incident-response/ +- **Google Project Zero**: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/ + +--- + +## Document Control + +| Version | Date | Author | Changes | Approved By | +|---------|------|--------|---------|-------------| +| 1.0 | December 2025 | Security Team | Initial IRP based on 2025 guidelines | Incident Commander | + +**Next Review Date**: December 2026 +**Document Owner**: API Dash Security Team +**Classification**: Public +**Distribution**: All maintainers, published in repository + +--- + +## Acknowledgments + +This Incident Response Plan is based on industry best practices and frameworks including: +- NIST Computer Security Incident Handling Guide (SP 800-61 Rev. 2) +- SANS Incident Handler's Handbook +- ISO/IEC 27035 Incident Management +- CERT Coordination Center practices +- OWASP Incident Response guidelines +- GitHub Security best practices +- Open Source Security Foundation recommendations + +Special thanks to the security community for their guidance and the API Dash contributors for their commitment to security. + +--- + +**For security incidents or questions about this plan:** +📧 security@apidash.dev +🔒 GitHub Security Advisories: https://github.com/foss42/apidash/security/advisories +💬 Discord: #security channel + +**END OF INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN** diff --git a/doc/security/README.md b/doc/security/README.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2a757c6d --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/security/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +# API Dash Security Documentation + +This folder contains comprehensive security documentation for the API Dash project. + +## 📚 Documents + +### 1. [STRIDE Threat Model](STRIDE_THREAT_MODEL.md) +A comprehensive threat analysis of the API Dash application using the STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) framework. + +**Contents:** +- System architecture and data flow analysis +- Detailed threat identification across all STRIDE categories +- Risk assessment and prioritization +- Recommended security controls and mitigations +- Security testing recommendations + +**Key Highlights:** +- 23 identified threats across all STRIDE categories +- Risk-scored threat matrix for prioritization +- Immediate, short-term, and long-term action plans +- Focus on critical issues: credential storage, dependency management, data integrity + +### 2. [Incident Response Plan (IRP)](INCIDENT_RESPONSE_PLAN.md) +A structured incident response plan aligned with 2025 industry standards and best practices for handling security incidents in the API Dash open source project. + +**Contents:** +- Incident response team structure and roles +- Incident classification and severity levels +- Complete incident response lifecycle (Detection → Recovery) +- Specific response procedures for different incident types +- Communication plans and templates +- Post-incident review processes +- Training and awareness programs + +**Key Features:** +- Aligned with NIST, SANS, and ISO incident management standards +- Clear SLAs for response times based on severity +- Coordinated disclosure procedures +- Compliance with GDPR, CCPA, and other regulations +- Ready-to-use templates and checklists + +## 🎯 Purpose + +These documents serve to: + +1. **Identify Security Risks**: Systematically analyze potential threats to API Dash +2. **Guide Security Improvements**: Provide actionable recommendations for enhancing security +3. **Prepare for Incidents**: Establish clear procedures for responding to security events +4. **Build Trust**: Demonstrate commitment to security for users and contributors +5. **Enable Collaboration**: Provide framework for security community engagement + +## 🚀 Quick Start + +### For Maintainers +1. Review the [STRIDE Threat Model](STRIDE_THREAT_MODEL.md) to understand security risks +2. Familiarize yourself with the [Incident Response Plan](INCIDENT_RESPONSE_PLAN.md) +3. Ensure you're listed in the incident response team contacts +4. Complete security training as outlined in the IRP +5. Set up security tools and monitoring as recommended + +### For Security Researchers +1. Review our [Security Policy](../../SECURITY.md) for vulnerability reporting +2. Understand the threat landscape via the STRIDE model +3. Follow coordinated disclosure guidelines in the IRP +4. Report security issues through GitHub Security Advisories + +### For Users +1. Follow security best practices in user documentation +2. Keep API Dash updated to the latest version +3. Report security concerns through proper channels +4. Review security advisories when published + +## 📋 Implementation Status + +### Immediate Priorities (From Threat Model) +- [ ] Implement secure credential storage using OS keychains +- [ ] Enable GitHub Dependabot for dependency scanning +- [ ] Add data integrity verification for local storage +- [ ] Implement secure export functionality with warnings + +### In Progress +- [x] STRIDE threat model completed +- [x] Incident response plan established +- [ ] Security testing framework setup +- [ ] Automated security scanning in CI/CD + +### Planned +- [ ] Regular security audits +- [ ] Penetration testing +- [ ] Security awareness training +- [ ] Tabletop exercises for incident response + +## 🔄 Maintenance + +### Review Schedule +- **Threat Model**: Quarterly review, update after major features +- **Incident Response Plan**: Annual review, update after incidents +- **Both**: Update based on security incidents and lessons learned + +### Version History +| Document | Version | Date | Status | +|----------|---------|------|--------| +| STRIDE Threat Model | 1.0 | December 2025 | Current | +| Incident Response Plan | 1.0 | December 2025 | Current | + +**Next Review Date**: March 2026 + +## 📞 Contact + +### Security Issues +- **Preferred**: [GitHub Security Advisories](https://github.com/foss42/apidash/security/advisories/new) +- **Email**: security@apidash.dev +- **Response Time**: See IRP for SLAs based on severity + +### Questions About Security Docs +- Create a discussion in [GitHub Discussions](https://github.com/foss42/apidash/discussions) +- Tag with `security` label +- Contact maintainers via Discord #security channel + +## 🤝 Contributing to Security + +We welcome contributions to improve API Dash security: + +1. **Report Vulnerabilities**: Follow responsible disclosure in [SECURITY.md](../../SECURITY.md) +2. **Suggest Improvements**: Open discussions for security enhancements +3. **Security Testing**: Help with testing and validation +4. **Documentation**: Improve security documentation and guides +5. **Code Review**: Participate in security-focused code reviews + +### Security Contributions Guidelines +- All security-related PRs require review from security team members +- Security fixes should include tests demonstrating the fix +- Update threat model if addressing identified threats +- Follow secure coding guidelines in developer docs + +## 📖 Related Documentation + +- [Main Security Policy](../../SECURITY.md) - How to report security vulnerabilities +- [Contributing Guidelines](../../CONTRIBUTING.md) - General contribution guidelines +- [Developer Guide](../dev_guide/README.md) - Development setup and practices +- [Code of Conduct](../../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) - Community standards + +## 📚 External Resources + +### Security Frameworks +- [STRIDE Threat Modeling (Microsoft)](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/commerce-server/ee823878(v=cs.20)) +- [NIST Incident Response Guide (SP 800-61)](https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-61/rev-2/final) +- [OWASP Mobile Security](https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-security-testing-guide/) + +### Tools and Standards +- [CVSS Calculator](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1) +- [CWE - Common Weakness Enumeration](https://cwe.mitre.org/) +- [CVE - Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures](https://cve.mitre.org/) + +### Flutter/Dart Security +- [Flutter Security Best Practices](https://docs.flutter.dev/security) +- [Dart Security Advisories](https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/security/advisories) + +## 🏆 Acknowledgments + +This security documentation was created based on: +- Industry-standard threat modeling methodologies (STRIDE, DREAD, PASTA) +- NIST Cybersecurity Framework and Incident Response guidelines +- ISO/IEC 27001/27035 standards +- OWASP best practices +- Real-world incident response experiences from the open source community +- Guidance from security researchers and practitioners + +Special thanks to the security community and all researchers who help keep API Dash secure through responsible disclosure. + +--- + +**Document Classification**: Public +**Last Updated**: December 2025 +**Maintained By**: API Dash Security Team + +For the latest version of this documentation, visit: https://github.com/foss42/apidash/tree/main/doc/security diff --git a/doc/security/STRIDE_THREAT_MODEL.md b/doc/security/STRIDE_THREAT_MODEL.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a284cb1f --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/security/STRIDE_THREAT_MODEL.md @@ -0,0 +1,1321 @@ +# STRIDE Threat Model for API Dash + +**Document Version:** 1.0 +**Date:** December 2025 +**Project:** API Dash - Open Source Cross-Platform API Client +**Classification:** Public + +--- + +## Executive Summary + +This document presents a comprehensive threat model for API Dash using the STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) framework. API Dash is a cross-platform API testing client built with Flutter that allows users to create, test, and manage API requests locally on their devices. + +### Key Risk Areas Identified: +1. **High Priority**: Information disclosure of sensitive API credentials and tokens +2. **High Priority**: Tampering with stored API requests and collections +3. **Medium Priority**: Local data security and encryption +4. **Medium Priority**: Code generation security vulnerabilities + +--- + +## 1. System Overview + +### 1.1 Architecture Context + +API Dash is a Flutter-based desktop and mobile application that: +- Runs locally on user devices (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, iPad) +- Stores data locally using Hive database +- Does not require backend servers or cloud services +- Supports multiple API types: HTTP, GraphQL, SSE/Streaming, AI +- Generates integration code in 35+ languages/libraries +- Imports collections from Postman, cURL, Insomnia, OpenAPI, HAR formats +- Integrates with AI models via Ollama for API testing assistance + +### 1.2 Key Components + +``` +┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ User Interface Layer │ +│ (Flutter Widgets, Screens, Request/Response Viewers) │ +└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ + │ +┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Application Logic Layer │ +│ (Providers, Services, Models, State Management) │ +└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ + │ +┌─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐ +│ Network │ Local Data │ Code Gen │ AI/Ollama │ +│ Layer │ Storage │ Templates │ Integration │ +│ (HTTP/API) │ (Hive) │ │ │ +└─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘ + │ +┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Operating System │ +│ (File System, Network Stack, Keychain) │ +└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ +``` + +### 1.3 Data Flow + +1. **User Input** → API Request Configuration (URL, headers, body, authentication) +2. **Local Storage** → Hive database stores requests, collections, history, settings +3. **Network Request** → Direct HTTP calls to target APIs +4. **Response Handling** → Display/store API responses (including multimedia) +5. **Code Generation** → Transform requests into code snippets +6. **Export/Import** → HAR, Postman, Insomnia, OpenAPI formats +7. **AI Integration** → Send prompts to local Ollama instance for assistance + +### 1.4 Trust Boundaries + +- **User Device Boundary**: All data resides locally on user's device +- **Network Boundary**: Outbound connections to user-specified APIs +- **File System Boundary**: Local storage for collections, history, settings +- **Process Boundary**: Flutter app process with OS-level isolation +- **AI Service Boundary**: Optional external connection to local Ollama instance + +--- + +## 2. STRIDE Threat Analysis + +### 2.1 Spoofing Identity (S) + +#### Threat S.1: Impersonation of API Endpoints +**Description**: Attacker could intercept or redirect API requests to malicious endpoints through DNS poisoning, man-in-the-middle attacks, or malicious URL manipulation. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- DNS hijacking redirecting legitimate API domains to attacker-controlled servers +- Modified hosts file on compromised systems +- Malicious proxy configuration +- SSL/TLS stripping attacks + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Credential theft if authentication tokens are sent to malicious endpoints +- Sensitive data exfiltration +- Malware delivery through malicious responses + +**Affected Components**: +- Network layer (HTTP client in `packages/better_networking`) +- Request execution services +- SSL/TLS verification + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Flutter's HTTP client uses system SSL/TLS certificates +- HTTPS validation by underlying platform (iOS/Android/Desktop) + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement certificate pinning for known critical APIs (optional feature) +2. Add visual indicators for HTTPS vs HTTP connections +3. Warn users when making requests to non-HTTPS endpoints +4. Log and display certificate information for transparency +5. Implement HSTS (HTTP Strict Transport Security) awareness +6. Add option to verify server certificates explicitly + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat S.2: Spoofing of Imported Collections +**Description**: Malicious actors could distribute modified collection files (HAR, Postman, etc.) that contain malicious URLs or scripts. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Social engineering users to import malicious collections +- Compromised collection sharing platforms +- Man-in-the-middle during collection download + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Unintended API requests to malicious endpoints +- Potential code injection in collection metadata +- Credential leakage if malicious URLs are designed to capture tokens + +**Affected Components**: +- Import services (`lib/importer`, `packages/postman`, `packages/har`) +- Collection parser modules +- File selector dialogs + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- User explicitly chooses files to import +- No automatic execution of imported requests + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Validate and sanitize imported collection data +2. Display security warnings before importing from untrusted sources +3. Implement collection integrity verification (checksums/signatures) +4. Sandbox imported scripts and prevent auto-execution +5. Add "safe mode" import that strips potentially dangerous elements +6. Provide collection preview before full import + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat S.3: AI/LLM Model Impersonation +**Description**: If using external AI services (Ollama), attacker could impersonate the AI endpoint or model. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Malicious Ollama server running on localhost +- Modified Ollama client configuration +- DNS redirection of AI service endpoints + +**Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM +- Malicious code suggestions or API configurations +- Information disclosure to unauthorized AI services +- Manipulation of AI-generated test scenarios + +**Affected Components**: +- AI integration services (`lib/dashbot`, `packages/genai`) +- Ollama client integration +- Model management system + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Ollama typically runs locally +- User controls AI service endpoints + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Verify Ollama service authenticity before sending data +2. Allow users to review/approve AI-generated requests before execution +3. Display clear indicators of AI service provider +4. Implement option to disable AI features entirely +5. Add warnings about sensitive data in AI prompts + +**Priority**: LOW +**Effort**: LOW + +--- + +### 2.2 Tampering (T) + +#### Threat T.1: Local Data Store Tampering +**Description**: Attacker with file system access could modify Hive database files containing API requests, credentials, and collections. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Direct file system access on compromised devices +- Malware with file modification capabilities +- Physical access to unlocked device +- Backup/restore attacks with modified data files + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Injection of malicious API requests +- Modification of stored credentials +- Alteration of request history for covering tracks +- Insertion of malicious code in templates + +**Affected Components**: +- Hive database storage (`lib/services/hive_services.dart`) +- Data persistence layer +- Settings and preferences storage +- File system access layers + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- OS-level file permissions protect data files +- Flutter app runs in sandboxed environment on mobile + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement integrity verification for Hive database files (checksums/HMAC) +2. Encrypt sensitive data at rest (credentials, tokens, secrets) +3. Add tamper detection mechanisms with user alerts +4. Implement secure backup/restore with integrity checks +5. Use OS keychain/credential manager for sensitive credentials +6. Add file-level encryption for workspace directories +7. Implement audit logging for data modifications + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: HIGH + +--- + +#### Threat T.2: Request Parameter Injection +**Description**: Malicious input in request fields could lead to injection attacks (SQL injection, command injection) on target APIs. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Crafted input in URL, headers, body, query parameters +- Injection through environment variables +- Malicious code in code generation templates + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Compromise of target API systems +- Unintended API behavior +- Security testing tool misuse for malicious purposes + +**Affected Components**: +- Request editor UI components +- Parameter handling logic +- Code generation templates +- Environment variable substitution + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Application doesn't execute requests automatically +- User explicitly triggers API calls + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Input validation and sanitization warnings +2. Display security notices about injection risks +3. Provide "safe mode" with automatic encoding +4. Add syntax validation for common injection patterns +5. Implement request review/approval workflow +6. Include security testing guidelines in documentation + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: LOW + +--- + +#### Threat T.3: Code Generation Template Tampering +**Description**: Modification of code generation templates could inject malicious code into generated snippets. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Direct modification of template files on disk +- Malicious template imports/extensions +- Exploiting template engine vulnerabilities (Jinja) + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Malicious code in generated snippets used in production +- Supply chain attacks if developers share generated code +- Backdoors in generated authentication code + +**Affected Components**: +- Code generation system (`lib/codegen`, `lib/templates`) +- Template engine (Jinja) +- Template storage and loading mechanisms + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Templates are part of application bundle +- User doesn't typically modify templates directly + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Sign and verify integrity of template files +2. Implement template sandboxing +3. Validate generated code against security patterns +4. Add warnings for potentially dangerous code patterns +5. Provide code generation audit trail +6. Lock down template directory with strict permissions + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat T.4: Exported Collection Tampering +**Description**: Exported HAR/collection files could be modified by attackers and re-imported. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Intercepting exported files during sharing +- Malicious modification of version-controlled collections +- Man-in-the-middle during file transfer + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Re-import of tampered collections +- Distribution of malicious API configurations +- Credential theft through modified requests + +**Affected Components**: +- Export functionality +- File system operations +- Import validation + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- User controls export/import workflow + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Digital signatures for exported collections +2. Integrity verification during import +3. Version tracking with change detection +4. Encrypted exports for sensitive collections +5. Warning on import if signatures don't match + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +### 2.3 Repudiation (R) + +#### Threat R.1: No Audit Trail for API Requests +**Description**: Users can deny making specific API requests as there's no cryptographically secure audit trail. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- User makes malicious API requests and denies responsibility +- Deletion or modification of request history +- Lack of non-repudiation mechanisms + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Inability to prove which user made specific requests +- Compliance issues in regulated environments +- Difficulty in forensic investigations + +**Affected Components**: +- History service (`lib/services/history_service.dart`) +- Request execution logic +- Logging mechanisms + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Request history is stored locally +- Timestamps on request history + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement secure audit logging with integrity protection +2. Add optional cryptographic signing of requests (timestamp + hash) +3. Provide export of audit logs for compliance +4. Implement write-once logging to prevent deletion +5. Add user activity tracking for sensitive operations +6. Optional integration with SIEM systems for enterprises + +**Priority**: LOW-MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat R.2: History Manipulation +**Description**: Users could manipulate or delete request history to hide malicious activities. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Direct deletion of history entries through UI +- Modification of history database files +- Clearing history to remove evidence + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Loss of audit trail +- Inability to track malicious activities +- Compliance violations + +**Affected Components**: +- History service and providers +- Hive database for history storage +- History UI components + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- History auto-clear can be configured +- History is stored persistently + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement append-only history log option +2. Add protected history mode requiring authentication to delete +3. Create tamper-evident logging mechanisms +4. Export history to external secure storage +5. Add retention policies with enforcement +6. Implement history backup before deletion + +**Priority**: LOW +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +### 2.4 Information Disclosure (I) + +#### Threat I.1: Exposure of API Credentials in Local Storage +**Description**: API keys, tokens, passwords stored in Hive database are vulnerable to disclosure. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Malware reading application data files +- Physical access to unlocked device +- Backup files containing unencrypted credentials +- Memory dumps revealing credentials +- Insecure file permissions on workspace folders + +**Impact**: CRITICAL +- Unauthorized access to user's APIs and services +- Data breaches on connected services +- Financial losses from API abuse +- Compromise of production systems + +**Affected Components**: +- Request models storing auth credentials +- Environment variable storage (secrets) +- Settings containing API configurations +- Hive database files +- Memory storage of sensitive data + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- OS-level file permissions +- Application sandboxing on mobile platforms + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. **CRITICAL**: Implement encryption at rest for all credentials +2. Use OS credential storage (Keychain on macOS/iOS, Credential Manager on Windows, Secret Service on Linux) +3. Encrypt Hive database with user-provided passphrase +4. Clear sensitive data from memory after use +5. Implement secure memory handling for credentials +6. Add option for "session-only" credentials (not persisted) +7. Provide warnings about credential storage risks +8. Implement automatic credential rotation reminders +9. Add data classification labels (sensitive/non-sensitive) + +**Priority**: CRITICAL +**Effort**: HIGH + +--- + +#### Threat I.2: Response Data Containing Sensitive Information +**Description**: API responses may contain PII, secrets, or sensitive business data stored locally without encryption. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Unauthorized access to history/response cache +- Malware scanning local databases +- Accidental sharing of workspace folders +- Forensic data recovery from deleted files + +**Impact**: HIGH +- PII exposure leading to privacy violations +- Exposure of business-critical information +- Regulatory compliance violations (GDPR, CCPA) +- Reputational damage + +**Affected Components**: +- Response storage in history +- Request/response caching +- Downloaded response files +- Screenshot/export features + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Data stored locally only +- User controls data retention + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Encrypt stored responses containing sensitive data +2. Implement data retention policies with auto-deletion +3. Add response data classification options +4. Provide "incognito mode" that doesn't save responses +5. Implement response content redaction features +6. Add warnings when saving responses with detected sensitive patterns +7. Secure deletion (overwrite) when removing history +8. Add option to exclude response bodies from history + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat I.3: Logging Sensitive Information +**Description**: Debug logs, error messages, or analytics could inadvertently expose sensitive data. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Verbose logging including credentials in URLs +- Stack traces containing sensitive data +- Crash reports sent with sensitive context +- Console logs on shared/public displays + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Credential disclosure through logs +- Exposure of API internal details +- Data leakage through error messages + +**Affected Components**: +- Logging infrastructure +- Error handling and reporting +- Debug mode operations +- Crash analytics + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Production builds have minimal logging + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement credential redaction in all logs +2. Add sensitive data detection and masking +3. Create separate log levels with security considerations +4. Disable verbose logging in production builds +5. Sanitize error messages before display +6. Review all log statements for sensitive data exposure +7. Add opt-in for detailed logging with warnings + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: LOW + +--- + +#### Threat I.4: Screenshot/Screen Recording Exposure +**Description**: Sensitive data visible in UI could be captured through screenshots, screen recordings, or shoulder surfing. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Screen sharing during video calls +- Screenshot/screen recording malware +- Shoulder surfing in public spaces +- Screen capture utilities + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Credential exposure through visual capture +- API key disclosure in UI +- Sensitive response data visible to unauthorized parties + +**Affected Components**: +- All UI components displaying sensitive data +- Request/response viewers +- Environment variable editors + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- None specific + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement "privacy mode" that masks sensitive fields +2. Add screenshot blocking for sensitive screens (mobile) +3. Provide credential masking in UI (show/hide toggle) +4. Add visual indicators for sensitive data display +5. Implement blur overlay for sensitive content when app is backgrounded +6. Add user education about screenshot risks + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat I.5: Clipboard Data Leakage +**Description**: Sensitive data copied to clipboard could be accessed by malicious applications. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Clipboard monitoring malware +- Other applications reading clipboard +- Clipboard history features in OS +- Cloud clipboard sync exposing credentials + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Credential theft from clipboard +- Token/key exposure +- Sensitive response data leakage + +**Affected Components**: +- Copy/paste functionality +- Code generation copy features +- Response data copying + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Standard OS clipboard protections + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement auto-clear clipboard after timeout +2. Add warnings when copying sensitive data +3. Provide option to disable clipboard for sensitive fields +4. Use secure clipboard APIs where available +5. Avoid copying credentials to clipboard automatically +6. Add notification when sensitive data is copied + +**Priority**: LOW-MEDIUM +**Effort**: LOW + +--- + +#### Threat I.6: Exported Collection Data Exposure +**Description**: Exported HAR, Postman, or other collection files may contain sensitive credentials and data. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Unencrypted export files +- Accidental sharing of exports with credentials +- Version control commits with sensitive exports +- Cloud storage of unprotected exports + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Credential exposure through shared files +- API configuration disclosure +- Secret tokens in version control history + +**Affected Components**: +- Export functionality +- Collection serialization +- File save operations + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- User controls export process + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Warn users before exporting with credentials +2. Provide option to exclude sensitive data from exports +3. Encrypt exported files with password protection +4. Add credential redaction option for exports +5. Include security warnings in export dialog +6. Implement "safe export" mode for sharing +7. Add .gitignore recommendations in documentation + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +### 2.5 Denial of Service (DoS) + +#### Threat D.1: Local Resource Exhaustion +**Description**: Malicious or poorly configured requests could exhaust local system resources. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Very large response bodies consuming disk space +- Infinite loops in request sequences +- Memory exhaustion from large collections +- CPU exhaustion from complex code generation + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Application crashes or freezes +- System instability +- Data loss from unexpected terminations +- Poor user experience + +**Affected Components**: +- Response handling and storage +- Collection management +- Code generation engine +- Memory management + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Flutter framework memory management +- OS-level resource limits + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement response size limits with warnings +2. Add timeout mechanisms for long-running operations +3. Implement streaming for large responses +4. Add resource usage monitoring and alerts +5. Limit collection size and request count +6. Implement graceful degradation +7. Add progress indicators for resource-intensive operations +8. Implement pagination for large data sets + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat D.2: Malicious Response Processing +**Description**: Crafted API responses could trigger resource exhaustion in parsing/rendering. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Extremely large JSON/XML responses +- Deeply nested data structures causing parser issues +- Malformed multimedia content causing decoder crashes +- Billion laughs attack in XML responses + +**Impact**: MEDIUM +- Application crash or hang +- UI freezing +- Data corruption + +**Affected Components**: +- Response parsers +- JSON/XML/YAML viewers +- Multimedia rendering components +- Syntax highlighters + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Flutter framework handles most edge cases + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement response size validation before processing +2. Add depth limits for nested data structures +3. Implement timeout for parsing operations +4. Use streaming parsers for large responses +5. Add malformed response detection and handling +6. Implement graceful fallback for unsupported formats +7. Add response complexity analysis +8. Sandbox multimedia rendering + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat D.3: File System DoS +**Description**: Continuous operations could fill up disk space or exceed inode limits. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Excessive history retention +- Large response body downloads +- Uncontrolled log file growth +- Multiple workspace folders with duplicated data + +**Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM +- System-wide storage exhaustion +- Application malfunction +- Data loss from full disk + +**Affected Components**: +- History storage +- Download functionality +- Workspace management +- Logging systems + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- History auto-clear feature +- User controls downloads + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement disk space monitoring +2. Add storage quota management +3. Automatic cleanup of old data +4. Warn users before large downloads +5. Implement compression for stored data +6. Add storage usage dashboard +7. Automatic log rotation + +**Priority**: LOW +**Effort**: LOW + +--- + +### 2.6 Elevation of Privilege (E) + +#### Threat E.1: Code Injection via Template Engine +**Description**: Template engine vulnerabilities could allow code execution through crafted templates. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) in Jinja templates +- Malicious template syntax +- Exploiting template engine vulnerabilities +- Unsafe template rendering context + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Arbitrary code execution on user's device +- File system access beyond application scope +- Privilege escalation to user's account level + +**Affected Components**: +- Jinja template engine (`jinja: ^0.6.1`) +- Code generation system +- Template rendering context + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Templates are bundled with application +- No user-editable templates by default + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Keep Jinja library updated to latest version +2. Implement template sandboxing with restricted context +3. Validate and sanitize template inputs +4. Disable dangerous template functions +5. Code review all template files +6. Implement Content Security Policy for templates +7. Add template execution monitoring + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat E.2: Unsafe Deserialization +**Description**: Deserializing untrusted data from imports or database could lead to code execution. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Malicious HAR file imports +- Crafted Postman/Insomnia collections +- Modified Hive database files +- Exploiting serialization vulnerabilities in Dart + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Remote code execution +- Privilege escalation +- System compromise + +**Affected Components**: +- Import parsers +- Hive database deserialization +- JSON deserialization +- Collection parsers + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Dart's type safety +- Structured data parsing + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement strict input validation on all imports +2. Use safe deserialization libraries +3. Validate object types after deserialization +4. Implement schema validation for imports +5. Sandbox deserialization operations +6. Add integrity checks before deserialization +7. Limit deserializable classes to known types + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat E.3: Dependency Vulnerabilities +**Description**: Vulnerable third-party packages could introduce privilege escalation vectors. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Known CVEs in dependencies +- Supply chain attacks on packages +- Malicious package updates +- Transitive dependency vulnerabilities + +**Impact**: VARIES (LOW to CRITICAL) +- Arbitrary code execution +- Data theft +- Privilege escalation + +**Affected Components**: +- All third-party dependencies (45+ packages) +- Package management (pubspec.yaml) +- Build system + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Dependabot alerts (if enabled) +- Regular dependency updates + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. **Enable GitHub Dependabot alerts** +2. Implement automated dependency scanning in CI/CD +3. Regular security audits of dependencies +4. Pin dependency versions +5. Review dependencies before major updates +6. Use only well-maintained packages +7. Implement Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) +8. Consider dependency license compliance +9. Regular vulnerability scanning with tools like `dart pub outdated` + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: LOW-MEDIUM + +--- + +#### Threat E.4: Native Code Vulnerabilities +**Description**: Platform-specific native code or FFI could have vulnerabilities leading to privilege escalation. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Buffer overflows in native plugins +- Memory corruption in FFI boundaries +- Platform-specific vulnerabilities +- Native library vulnerabilities (e.g., libcurl) + +**Impact**: HIGH +- System-level access +- Sandbox escape +- Device compromise + +**Affected Components**: +- Platform channels +- Native plugins (window_manager, file_selector, etc.) +- FFI implementations +- Native media players (fvp, just_audio) + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Flutter's sandboxing +- Platform security features + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Audit all native code integrations +2. Use memory-safe languages where possible +3. Implement bounds checking in FFI code +4. Regular security updates for native components +5. Minimize use of native code +6. Implement runtime protections (ASLR, DEP) +7. Security testing of platform channels + +**Priority**: MEDIUM +**Effort**: HIGH + +--- + +#### Threat E.5: JavaScript Execution Context +**Description**: `flutter_js` package enables JavaScript execution which could be exploited. + +**Attack Vectors**: +- Malicious JavaScript in imported collections +- XSS-like attacks through JS evaluation +- Arbitrary code execution via JS engine +- Exploiting JS engine vulnerabilities + +**Impact**: HIGH +- Arbitrary code execution +- Sandbox escape +- Access to sensitive application data + +**Affected Components**: +- `flutter_js: ^0.8.5` package +- JavaScript runtime integration +- Script execution contexts + +**Existing Mitigations**: +- Controlled JS execution context + +**Recommended Additional Mitigations**: +1. Implement strict JavaScript sandboxing +2. Validate and sanitize all JS code before execution +3. Limit JS API access to safe operations only +4. Add user confirmation before executing scripts +5. Implement CSP-like policies for JS execution +6. Review all JS execution paths +7. Consider removing/replacing JS execution if not essential +8. Add execution timeout and resource limits + +**Priority**: HIGH +**Effort**: MEDIUM + +--- + +## 3. Risk Assessment Matrix + +### 3.1 Risk Scoring + +Risks are scored based on **Likelihood** × **Impact**: + +| Risk Level | Score Range | Color Code | +|------------|-------------|------------| +| Critical | 20-25 | 🔴 Red | +| High | 15-19 | 🟠 Orange | +| Medium | 8-14 | 🟡 Yellow | +| Low | 1-7 | 🟢 Green | + +**Likelihood Scale**: 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely) +**Impact Scale**: 1 (Negligible) to 5 (Critical) + +### 3.2 Risk Summary Table + +| Threat ID | Category | Threat Name | Likelihood | Impact | Risk Score | Priority | +|-----------|----------|-------------|------------|--------|------------|----------| +| I.1 | Information Disclosure | API Credentials Exposure | 4 | 5 | 20 | 🔴 CRITICAL | +| E.3 | Elevation of Privilege | Dependency Vulnerabilities | 4 | 4 | 16 | 🔴 HIGH | +| T.1 | Tampering | Local Data Store Tampering | 3 | 5 | 15 | 🔴 HIGH | +| I.6 | Information Disclosure | Exported Collection Exposure | 4 | 4 | 16 | 🔴 HIGH | +| E.1 | Elevation of Privilege | Template Engine Code Injection | 2 | 5 | 10 | 🟠 HIGH | +| E.2 | Elevation of Privilege | Unsafe Deserialization | 2 | 5 | 10 | 🟠 HIGH | +| E.5 | Elevation of Privilege | JavaScript Execution | 2 | 5 | 10 | 🟠 HIGH | +| S.1 | Spoofing | API Endpoint Impersonation | 3 | 4 | 12 | 🟠 HIGH | +| I.2 | Information Disclosure | Sensitive Response Data | 4 | 4 | 16 | 🟠 HIGH | +| T.3 | Tampering | Code Generation Templates | 2 | 4 | 8 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| S.2 | Spoofing | Imported Collection Spoofing | 3 | 3 | 9 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| T.2 | Tampering | Request Parameter Injection | 3 | 3 | 9 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| T.4 | Tampering | Exported Collection Tampering | 2 | 3 | 6 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| I.3 | Information Disclosure | Logging Sensitive Data | 3 | 3 | 9 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| I.4 | Information Disclosure | Screenshot Exposure | 3 | 3 | 9 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| D.1 | Denial of Service | Resource Exhaustion | 3 | 3 | 9 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| D.2 | Denial of Service | Malicious Response Processing | 2 | 3 | 6 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| E.4 | Elevation of Privilege | Native Code Vulnerabilities | 2 | 4 | 8 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| R.1 | Repudiation | No Audit Trail | 2 | 3 | 6 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| R.2 | Repudiation | History Manipulation | 2 | 3 | 6 | 🟡 MEDIUM | +| I.5 | Information Disclosure | Clipboard Leakage | 2 | 2 | 4 | 🟢 LOW | +| S.3 | Spoofing | AI Model Impersonation | 2 | 2 | 4 | 🟢 LOW | +| D.3 | Denial of Service | File System DoS | 2 | 2 | 4 | 🟢 LOW | + +--- + +## 4. Recommended Security Controls + +### 4.1 Immediate Actions (Critical Priority) + +1. **Implement Secure Credential Storage** + - Migrate from plain-text Hive storage to OS credential managers + - Implement encryption at rest for all sensitive data + - Use Keychain (macOS/iOS), Credential Manager (Windows), Secret Service (Linux) + - **Effort**: High | **Impact**: Critical reduction in I.1 + +2. **Enable Dependency Scanning** + - Activate GitHub Dependabot + - Implement automated security scanning in CI/CD + - Regular dependency updates and security patches + - **Effort**: Low | **Impact**: Addresses E.3 + +3. **Implement Data Integrity Verification** + - Add HMAC/checksums for Hive database files + - Tamper detection for local storage + - Integrity verification on app startup + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses T.1 + +4. **Secure Export Functionality** + - Add warnings before exporting with credentials + - Implement credential redaction options + - Add export encryption options + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses I.6 + +### 4.2 Short-term Actions (High Priority) + +5. **Enhanced HTTPS/TLS Validation** + - Add certificate information display + - Implement warnings for non-HTTPS endpoints + - Optional certificate pinning + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses S.1 + +6. **JavaScript Sandboxing** + - Implement strict sandbox for flutter_js + - Add user confirmation for script execution + - Limit JS API access + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses E.5 + +7. **Template Security Hardening** + - Audit and sandbox Jinja templates + - Implement template integrity verification + - Regular security review of templates + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses E.1 + +8. **Import Validation** + - Schema validation for all imports + - Sanitization of imported data + - Security warnings for untrusted imports + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses E.2, S.2 + +### 4.3 Medium-term Actions + +9. **Response Data Protection** + - Implement encryption for stored responses + - Add "incognito mode" for sensitive testing + - Data retention policies with auto-deletion + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses I.2 + +10. **Privacy Mode Features** + - Credential masking in UI + - Screenshot blocking on sensitive screens + - Blur overlay when app backgrounded + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses I.4 + +11. **Audit and Logging** + - Implement secure audit trail + - Credential redaction in logs + - Optional append-only history mode + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses R.1, R.2, I.3 + +12. **Resource Management** + - Response size limits + - Memory usage monitoring + - Graceful handling of large responses + - **Effort**: Medium | **Impact**: Addresses D.1, D.2 + +### 4.4 Long-term Actions + +13. **Native Code Security Review** + - Audit all platform channel implementations + - Security testing of FFI boundaries + - Minimize native code dependencies + - **Effort**: High | **Impact**: Addresses E.4 + +14. **Comprehensive Security Testing** + - Automated security testing in CI/CD + - Regular penetration testing + - Fuzzing for parsers and importers + - **Effort**: High | **Impact**: Addresses multiple threats + +15. **Security Documentation** + - Developer security guidelines + - User security best practices + - Incident response procedures + - **Effort**: Low | **Impact**: General security awareness + +--- + +## 5. Assumptions and Constraints + +### 5.1 Security Assumptions + +1. **Local-First Design**: API Dash is primarily a local application without cloud backend +2. **User Trust**: Users are trusted to configure and use the application appropriately +3. **OS Security**: Underlying OS provides basic security (sandboxing, file permissions) +4. **No Authentication**: Application itself has no authentication mechanism +5. **Open Source**: All code is publicly visible for security review +6. **No Remote Control**: No remote management or control features + +### 5.2 Out of Scope + +The following are explicitly out of scope for this threat model: + +1. Physical security of user devices +2. User's network security and infrastructure +3. Security of target APIs being tested +4. Social engineering attacks against users +5. Insider threats from legitimate users +6. Legal/compliance aspects beyond technical controls +7. Third-party service security (Ollama, external APIs) + +### 5.3 Constraints + +1. **Open Source**: Cannot implement security through obscurity +2. **Cross-Platform**: Solutions must work across all supported platforms +3. **User Experience**: Security controls must not significantly degrade UX +4. **Backward Compatibility**: Must maintain data compatibility with existing users +5. **Resource Limitations**: Open source project with limited dedicated security resources +6. **Performance**: Security controls must not significantly impact performance + +--- + +## 6. Security Architecture Recommendations + +### 6.1 Secure-by-Default Configuration + +```dart +// Example: Default secure settings +class SecurityDefaults { + static const bool httpsOnly = false; // Warning shown for HTTP + static const bool encryptLocalData = true; // Encrypt sensitive data + static const bool useOSKeychain = true; // Use OS credential storage + static const bool clearClipboardAfter = 30; // seconds + static const int maxResponseSize = 100; // MB + static const int historyRetentionDays = 30; + static const bool incognitoMode = false; // Don't save history + static const bool maskCredentialsInUI = true; +} +``` + +### 6.2 Defense in Depth Strategy + +``` +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Layer 1: Input Validation & Sanitization │ +├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ +│ Layer 2: Encryption (Data at Rest & In Transit) │ +├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ +│ Layer 3: Access Control & Authentication │ +├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ +│ Layer 4: Audit Logging & Monitoring │ +├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ +│ Layer 5: Security Updates & Patch Management │ +└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ +``` + +### 6.3 Secure Development Lifecycle Integration + +1. **Design Phase**: Security requirements and threat modeling +2. **Development**: Secure coding guidelines and code reviews +3. **Testing**: Security testing, SAST/DAST, dependency scanning +4. **Release**: Security validation, signed releases +5. **Maintenance**: Security patches, vulnerability management + +--- + +## 7. Security Testing Recommendations + +### 7.1 Recommended Security Tests + +1. **Static Analysis** + - SAST tools for Dart code + - Dependency vulnerability scanning + - Code quality and security linters + +2. **Dynamic Analysis** + - Fuzzing for parsers (HAR, Postman, JSON, XML) + - Memory leak detection + - Runtime security monitoring + +3. **Manual Testing** + - Penetration testing + - Code review of security-critical components + - Template injection testing + - Deserialization vulnerability testing + +4. **Compliance Testing** + - OWASP Mobile Top 10 validation + - Privacy compliance (GDPR, CCPA) + - Accessibility security testing + +### 7.2 Security Test Cases + +``` +Test Case: Credential Storage Security +- Verify credentials are encrypted at rest +- Verify OS keychain integration +- Verify memory is cleared after use +- Test unauthorized access to storage + +Test Case: Import Security +- Test malicious HAR file import +- Test oversized collection imports +- Test script injection in collections +- Verify validation of imported data + +Test Case: Export Security +- Verify credential warning on export +- Test export encryption +- Verify redaction options +- Test integrity of exported files +``` + +--- + +## 8. Incident Response Integration + +This threat model should be used in conjunction with the **Incident Response Plan (IRP)** for: + +1. **Vulnerability Prioritization**: Use risk scores to prioritize incident response +2. **Impact Assessment**: Threat descriptions inform incident severity +3. **Containment Strategies**: Mitigations guide incident containment +4. **Recovery Planning**: Recommended controls aid in recovery + +--- + +## 9. Compliance and Regulatory Considerations + +### 9.1 Applicable Regulations + +While API Dash is a developer tool, it may be subject to: + +1. **GDPR** (EU): If processing EU citizen data +2. **CCPA** (California): If processing California resident data +3. **SOC 2**: For enterprise adoption +4. **ISO 27001**: Information security management +5. **OWASP**: Mobile and API security guidelines + +### 9.2 Security Requirements + +| Requirement | STRIDE Coverage | Status | +|-------------|-----------------|--------| +| Data Encryption | I.1, I.2, I.6 | Partially Implemented | +| Access Control | E.1-E.5 | Limited | +| Audit Logging | R.1, R.2 | Partially Implemented | +| Input Validation | T.2, S.2 | Partially Implemented | +| Secure Communications | S.1 | Partially Implemented | +| Incident Response | All | Documented Separately | + +--- + +## 10. Conclusion and Next Steps + +### 10.1 Summary + +API Dash has a solid foundation with local-first architecture and open-source transparency. However, several critical security improvements are needed, particularly around: + +1. **Credential and sensitive data encryption** (CRITICAL) +2. **Dependency vulnerability management** (HIGH) +3. **Data integrity verification** (HIGH) +4. **Secure export functionality** (HIGH) + +### 10.2 Recommended Action Plan + +**Phase 1 (0-3 months)**: Address critical priority items +- Implement secure credential storage +- Enable dependency scanning +- Add data integrity checks +- Secure export warnings + +**Phase 2 (3-6 months)**: Address high priority items +- HTTPS/TLS enhancements +- JavaScript sandboxing +- Template security +- Import validation + +**Phase 3 (6-12 months)**: Address medium/long-term items +- Response data protection +- Privacy features +- Comprehensive audit logging +- Security testing program + +### 10.3 Continuous Improvement + +This threat model should be: +- **Reviewed quarterly** for updates +- **Updated** when major features are added +- **Revised** after security incidents +- **Validated** through security testing +- **Shared** with the security community for feedback + +--- + +## 11. Document Control + +| Version | Date | Author | Changes | +|---------|------|--------|---------| +| 1.0 | December 2025 | Security Team | Initial STRIDE threat model | + +**Review Schedule**: Quarterly +**Next Review Date**: March 2026 +**Document Owner**: API Dash Security Team +**Classification**: Public + +--- + +## References + +1. [STRIDE Threat Modeling - Microsoft](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/commerce-server/ee823878(v=cs.20)) +2. [OWASP Mobile Security Testing Guide](https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-security-testing-guide/) +3. [OWASP API Security Top 10](https://owasp.org/www-project-api-security/) +4. [CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses](https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/) +5. [Flutter Security Best Practices](https://docs.flutter.dev/security) +6. API Dash Repository: https://github.com/foss42/apidash +7. API Dash Security Policy: SECURITY.md + +--- + +**END OF STRIDE THREAT MODEL**