Management Summary
Astar contacted Sayfer Security in order to perform penetration testing on Astar’s MetaMask Snap in August 2023.
Before assessing the above services, we held a kickoff meeting with the Astar technical team and received an overview of the system and the goals for this research.
Over the research period of 2 weeks, we discovered 4 vulnerabilities in the system.
Several fixes should be implemented following the report, but the system’s security posture is competent.
After a review by the Sayfer team, we certify that all the security issues mentioned in this report have been addressed by the Astar team.
Risk Methodology
At Sayfer, we are committed to delivering the highest quality penetration testing to our clients. That’s why we have implemented a comprehensive risk assessment model to evaluate the severity of our findings and provide our clients with the best possible recommendations for mitigation.
Our risk assessment model is based on two key factors: IMPACT and LIKELIHOOD. Impact refers to the potential harm that could result from an issue, such as financial loss, reputational damage, or a non-operational system. Likelihood refers to the probability that an issue will occur, taking into account factors such as the complexity of the attack and the number of potential attackers.
By combining these two factors, we can create a comprehensive understanding of the risk posed by a particular issue and provide our clients with a clear and actionable assessment of the severity of the issue. This approach allows us to prioritize our recommendations and ensure that our clients receive the best possible advice on how to protect their business.
Risk is defined as follows:
Vulnerabilities by Risk
High – Direct threat to key business processes.
Medium – Indirect threat to key business processes or partial threat to business processes.
Low – No direct threat exists. The vulnerability may be exploited using other vulnerabilities.
Informational – This finding does not indicate vulnerability, but states a comment that notifies about design flaws and improper implementation that might cause a problem in the long run.
Approach
Security Evaluation Methodology
Sayfer uses OWASP WSTG as our technical standard when reviewing web applications. After gaining a thorough understanding of the system we decided which OWASP tests are required to evaluate the system.
Security Assessment
After understanding and defining the scope, performing threat modeling, and evaluating the correct tests required in order to fully check the application for security flaws, we performed our security assessment.
Issue Table Description
Issue title
ID | SAY-??: An ID for easy communication on each vulnerability |
Status | Open/Fixed/Acknowledged |
Risk | Represents the risk factor of the issue. For further description refer to the Vulnerabilities by Risk section. |
Business Impact | Represents the main risk of the vulnerability at a business level. |
Location | The URL or the file in which this issue was detected. Issues with no location have no particular location and refer to the product as a whole. |
Description
Here we provide a brief description of the issue and how it formed, the steps we made to find or exploit it, along with proof of concept (if present), and how this issue can affect the product or its users.
Mitigation
Suggested resolving options for this issue and links to advised sites for further remediation.
Security Evaluation
The following tests were conducted while auditing the system
Information Gathering
Information Gathering | Test Name |
WSTG-INFO-01 | Conduct Search Engine Discovery Reconnaissance for Information Leakage |
WSTG-INFO-02 | Fingerprint Web Server |
WSTG-INFO-03 | Review Webserver Metafiles for Information Leakage |
WSTG-INFO-04 | Enumerate Applications on Webserver |
WSTG-INFO-05 | Review Webpage Content for Information Leakage |
WSTG-INFO-06 | Identify application entry points |
WSTG-INFO-07 | Map execution paths through application |
WSTG-INFO-08 | Fingerprint Web Application Framework |
WSTG-INFO-09 | Fingerprint Web Application |
WSTG-INFO-10 | Map Application Architecture |
Configuration and Deploy Management Testing
Configuration and Deploy Management Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-CONF-01 | Test Network Infrastructure Configuration |
WSTG-CONF-02 | Test Application Platform Configuration |
WSTG-CONF-03 | Test File Extensions Handling for Sensitive Information |
WSTG-CONF-04 | Review Old Backup and Unreferenced Files for Sensitive Information |
WSTG-CONF-05 | Enumerate Infrastructure and Application Admin Interfaces |
WSTG-CONF-06 | Test HTTP Methods |
WSTG-CONF-07 | Test HTTP Strict Transport Security |
WSTG-CONF-08 | Test RIA cross domain policy |
WSTG-CONF-09 | Test File Permission |
WSTG-CONF-10 | Test for Subdomain Takeover |
WSTG-CONF-11 | Test Cloud Storage |
Identity Management Testing
Identity Management Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-IDNT-01 | Test Role Definitions |
WSTG-IDNT-02 | Test User Registration Process |
WSTG-IDNT-03 | Test Account Provisioning Process |
WSTG-IDNT-04 | Testing for Account Enumeration and Guessable User Account |
WSTG-IDNT-05 | Testing for Weak or unenforced username policy |
Authentication Testing
Authentication Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-ATHN-01 | Testing for Credentials Transported over an Encrypted Channel |
WSTG-ATHN-02 | Testing for Default Credentials |
WSTG-ATHN-03 | Testing for Weak Lock Out Mechanism |
WSTG-ATHN-04 | Testing for Bypassing Authentication Schema |
WSTG-ATHN-05 | Testing for Vulnerable Remember Password |
WSTG-ATHN-06 | Testing for Browser Cache Weaknesses |
WSTG-ATHN-07 | Testing for Weak Password Policy |
WSTG-ATHN-08 | Testing for Weak Security Question Answer |
WSTG-ATHN-09 | Testing for Weak Password Change or Reset Functionalities |
WSTG-ATHN-10 | Testing for Weaker Authentication in Alternative Channel |
Authorization Testing
Authorization Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-ATHZ-01 | Testing Directory Traversal File Include |
WSTG-ATHZ-02 | Testing for Bypassing Authorization Schema |
WSTG-ATHZ-03 | Testing for Privilege Escalation |
WSTG-ATHZ-04 | Testing for Insecure Direct Object References |
Session Management Testing
Session Management Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-SESS-01 | Testing for Session Management Schema |
WSTG-SESS-02 | Testing for Cookies Attributes |
WSTG-SESS-03 | Testing for Session Fixation |
WSTG-SESS-04 | Testing for Exposed Session Variables |
WSTG-SESS-05 | Testing for Cross Site Request Forgery |
WSTG-SESS-06 | Testing for Logout Functionality |
WSTG-SESS-07 | Testing Session Timeout |
WSTG-SESS-08 | Testing for Session Puzzling |
WSTG-SESS-09 | Testing for Session Hijacking |
Data Validation Testing
Data Validation Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-INPV-01 | Testing for Reflected Cross Site Scripting |
WSTG-INPV-02 | Testing for Stored Cross Site Scripting |
WSTG-INPV-03 | Testing for HTTP Verb Tampering |
WSTG-INPV-04 | Testing for HTTP Parameter Pollution |
WSTG-INPV-05 | Testing for SQL Injection |
WSTG-INPV-06 | Testing for LDAP Injection |
WSTG-INPV-07 | Testing for XML Injection |
WSTG-INPV-08 | Testing for SSI Injection |
WSTG-INPV-09 | Testing for XPath Injection |
WSTG-INPV-10 | Testing for IMAP SMTP Injection |
WSTG-INPV-11 | Testing for Code Injection |
WSTG-INPV-12 | Testing for Command Injection |
WSTG-INPV-13 | Testing for Format String Injection |
WSTG-INPV-14 | Testing for Incubated Vulnerability |
WSTG-INPV-15 | Testing for HTTP Splitting Smuggling |
WSTG-INPV-16 | Testing for HTTP Incoming Requests |
WSTG-INPV-17 | Testing for Host Header Injection |
WSTG-INPV-18 | Testing for Server-side Template Injection |
WSTG-INPV-19 | Testing for Server-Side Request Forgery |
Error Handling
Error Handling | Test Name |
WSTG-ERRH-01 | Testing for Improper Error Handling |
WSTG-ERRH-02 | Testing for Stack Traces |
Cryptography
Cryptography | Test Name |
WSTG-CRYP-01 | Testing for Weak Transport Layer Security |
WSTG-CRYP-02 | Testing for Padding Oracle |
WSTG-CRYP-03 | Testing for Sensitive Information Sent via Unencrypted Channels |
WSTG-CRYP-04 | Testing for Weak Encryption |
Business logic Testing
Business logic Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-BUSL-01 | Test Business Logic Data Validation |
WSTG-BUSL-02 | Test Ability to Forge Requests |
WSTG-BUSL-03 | Test Integrity Checks |
WSTG-BUSL-04 | Test for Process Timing |
WSTG-BUSL-05 | Test Number of Times a Function Can be Used Limits |
WSTG-BUSL-06 | Testing for the Circumvention of Work Flows |
WSTG-BUSL-07 | Test Defenses Against Application Mis-use |
WSTG-BUSL-08 | Test Upload of Unexpected File Types |
WSTG-BUSL-09 | Test Upload of Malicious Files |
Client Side Testing
Client Side Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-CLNT-01 | Testing for DOM-Based Cross Site Scripting |
WSTG-CLNT-02 | Testing for JavaScript Execution |
WSTG-CLNT-03 | Testing for HTML Injection |
WSTG-CLNT-04 | Testing for Client Side URL Redirect |
WSTG-CLNT-05 | Testing for CSS Injection |
WSTG-CLNT-06 | Testing for Client Side Resource Manipulation |
WSTG-CLNT-07 | Test Cross Origin Resource Sharing |
WSTG-CLNT-08 | Testing for Cross Site Flashing |
WSTG-CLNT-09 | Testing for Clickjacking |
WSTG-CLNT-10 | Testing WebSockets |
WSTG-CLNT-11 | Test Web Messaging |
WSTG-CLNT-12 | Testing Browser Storage |
WSTG-CLNT-13 | Testing for Cross Site Script Inclusion |
API Testing
API Testing | Test Name |
WSTG-APIT-01 | Testing GraphQL |
Order audit from Sayfer
Security Assessment Findings
No Explanation of the Risk Associated with exportSeed()
ID | SAY-01 |
Status | Fixed |
Risk | Medium |
Business Impact | Inexperienced users may not be aware of the dangers of handling confidential keys or seeds, and may simply approve the action without properly considering the implications. |
Location | – metamask-snap-astar/packages/snap/src/rpc/exportSeed.ts:8;exportSeed() |
Description
Using exportSeed() does generate a confirmation prompt, but that prompt doesn’t explain exactly why exporting the seed could be dangerous.
- exportSeed():
export async function exportSeed(): Promise {
/ ask for confirmation
const confirmation = await showConfirmationDialog({
prompt: 'Do you want to export your seed?'
});
/ return seed if user confirmed action
if (confirmation) {
const bip44Node = (await snap.request({
method: 'snap_getBip44Entropy',
params: { coinType: astarCoinType }
})) as JsonBIP44CoinTypeNode;
return bip44Node.privateKey.slice(0, 32);
}
return null;
}
Mitigation
The prompt should stress that exporting a user’s seed can lead to a total loss of their funds in case it is leaked. It should be clear how the user should store the seed and who should see it.
Outdated Documentation
ID | SAY-02 |
Status | Fixed |
Risk | Low |
Business Impact | Client’s and developers using Metamask Flask for the first time might download the wrong, old version of that software, which may disrupt functionality. |
Location | – readme.md |
Description
The documentation in metamask-snap-astar/README.md file is likely outdated and, therefore, misleading. It suggests downloading the Metamask Snaps beta from an old repository that hasn’t seen new releases since 2020 and installing it manually. Nowadays, Metamask Flask could simply be downloaded and automatically installed from the official website.
Mitigation
Rewrite the readme and recommend installing flask from the official website.
If Statement Could Be Simplified
ID | SAY-03 |
Status | Fixed |
Risk | Informational |
Business Impact | This is just a style suggestion and there is no risk associated with it, so we rated this finding informational. |
Location | – packages/snap/src/configuration/index.ts:38;getConfiguration() |
Description
The following statement in packages/snap/src/configuration/index.ts:38 can be replaced by the optional chaining operator, ?:
if (!state | !state.config) {
return defaultConfiguration;
}
Mitigation
Consider simplifying the statement by replacing it with
if (!state .config) {
return defaultConfiguration;
}
Dysfunctional Image Link
ID | SAY-04 |
Status | Fixed |
Risk | Informational |
Business Impact | The logo of the network will not be displayed correctly |
Location | – metamask-snap-astar/packages/snap/configuration/predefined.ts:39 |
Description
It was found that the link to the Astar network image is incorrect and returns a 404 error.
- predefined.ts:34-43
export const polkadotConfiguration: SnapConfig = {
addressPrefix: 5,
networkName: 'astar',
unit: {
decimals: 18,
image:
'https: /polkadot.js.org/apps/static/polkadot-circle.1eea41b2 .svg',
symbol: 'ASTR'
},
wsRpcUrl: 'https: /astar.api.onfinality.io/public'
};
- Request to that link, both with and without the seemingly incorrect double period.
% curl -i https://polkadot.js.org/apps/static/polkadot-circle.1eea41b2..svg |
head
HTTP/2 404
date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 16:02:23 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
x-origin-cache: HIT
access-control-allow-origin: *
etag: W/"64d39a40-24a3"
content-security-policy: default-src 'none'; style-src 'unsafe-inline'; img-src
data:; connect-src 'self'
x-proxy-cache: MISS
x-github-request-id: FB04:93E0:120C7EB:1250808:6535478F
via: 1.1 varnish
% curl -i https://polkadot.js.org/apps/static/polkadot-circle.1eea41b2.svg |
head
HTTP/2 404
date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 16:02:31 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
x-origin-cache: HIT
access-control-allow-origin: *
etag: W/"64d39a40-24a3"
content-security-policy: default-src 'none'; style-src 'unsafe-inline'; img-src
data:; connect-src 'self'
x-proxy-cache: MISS
x-github-request-id: 3814:19F7:130A4D7:134E8EE:65354796
via: 1.1 varnish
Mitigation
The link should be replaced with a correct one.