2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
# Security Model
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
This section attempts to document the Zulip security model.
|
|
|
|
It likely does not cover every issue; if
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
there are details you're curious about, please feel free to ask
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
questions in [#production help](https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/31-production-help)
|
2019-04-06 02:58:44 +02:00
|
|
|
on the [Zulip community server](../contributing/chat-zulip-org.html)
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
(or if you think
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
you've found a security bug, please report it to
|
|
|
|
zulip-security@googlegroups.com so we can do a responsible security
|
|
|
|
announcement).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Secure your Zulip server like your email server
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* It's reasonable to think about security for a Zulip server like you
|
|
|
|
do security for a team email server -- only trusted administrators
|
|
|
|
within an organization should have shell access to the server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In particular, anyone with root access to a Zulip application server
|
|
|
|
or Zulip database server, or with access to the `zulip` user on a
|
|
|
|
Zulip application server, has complete control over the Zulip
|
|
|
|
installation and all of its data (so they can read messages, modify
|
|
|
|
history, etc.). It would be difficult or impossible to avoid this,
|
|
|
|
because the server needs access to the data to support features
|
|
|
|
expected of a group chat system like the ability to search the
|
|
|
|
entire message history, and thus someone with control over the
|
|
|
|
server has access to that data as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Encryption and Authentication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Traffic between clients (web, desktop and mobile) and the Zulip is
|
|
|
|
encrypted using HTTPS. By default, all Zulip services talk to each
|
|
|
|
other either via a localhost connection or using an encrypted SSL
|
|
|
|
connection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Zulip requires CSRF tokens in all interactions with the web API to
|
|
|
|
prevent CSRF attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-18 05:52:52 +01:00
|
|
|
* The preferred way to login to Zulip is using an SSO solution like
|
|
|
|
Google Auth, LDAP, or similar, but Zulip also supports password
|
|
|
|
authentication. See
|
2019-04-06 02:58:44 +02:00
|
|
|
[the authentication methods documentation](../production/authentication-methods.html)
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
for details on Zulip's available authentication methods.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-18 05:52:52 +01:00
|
|
|
### Passwords
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip stores user passwords using the standard PBKDF2 algorithm.
|
passwords: Express the quality threshold as guesses required.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
2017-10-03 19:48:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the user is choosing a password, Zulip checks the password's
|
|
|
|
strength using the popular [zxcvbn][zxcvbn] library. Weak passwords
|
|
|
|
are rejected, and strong passwords encouraged. The minimum password
|
|
|
|
strength allowed is controlled by two settings in
|
|
|
|
`/etc/zulip/settings.py`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* `PASSWORD_MIN_LENGTH`: The minimum acceptable length, in characters.
|
|
|
|
Shorter passwords are rejected even if they pass the `zxcvbn` test
|
|
|
|
controlled by `PASSWORD_MIN_GUESSES`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* `PASSWORD_MIN_GUESSES`: The minimum acceptable strength of the
|
|
|
|
password, in terms of the estimated number of passwords an attacker
|
|
|
|
is likely to guess before trying this one. If the user attempts to
|
|
|
|
set a password that `zxcvbn` estimates to be guessable in less than
|
|
|
|
`PASSWORD_MIN_GUESSES`, then Zulip rejects the password.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 20:45:49 +02:00
|
|
|
By default, `PASSWORD_MIN_GUESSES` is 10000. This provides
|
|
|
|
significant protection against online attacks, while limiting the
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
burden imposed on users choosing a password. See
|
2019-04-06 02:58:44 +02:00
|
|
|
[password strength](../production/password-strength.html) for an extended
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
discussion on how we chose this value.
|
2017-10-03 20:45:49 +02:00
|
|
|
|
passwords: Express the quality threshold as guesses required.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
2017-10-03 19:48:06 +02:00
|
|
|
Estimating the guessability of a password is a complex problem and
|
|
|
|
impossible to efficiently do perfectly. For background or when
|
2017-10-03 20:45:49 +02:00
|
|
|
considering an alternate value for this setting, the article
|
|
|
|
["Passwords and the Evolution of Imperfect Authentication"][BHOS15]
|
|
|
|
is recommended. The [2016 zxcvbn paper][zxcvbn-paper] adds useful
|
|
|
|
information about the performance of zxcvbn, and [a large 2012 study
|
|
|
|
of Yahoo users][Bon12] is informative about the strength of the
|
|
|
|
passwords users choose.
|
passwords: Express the quality threshold as guesses required.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
2017-10-03 19:48:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!---
|
|
|
|
If the BHOS15 link ever goes dead: it's reference 30 of the zxcvbn
|
2017-10-03 20:45:49 +02:00
|
|
|
paper, aka https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2699390 , in the
|
|
|
|
_Communications of the ACM_ aka CACM. (But the ACM has it paywalled.)
|
passwords: Express the quality threshold as guesses required.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
2017-10-03 19:48:06 +02:00
|
|
|
.
|
2017-10-03 20:45:49 +02:00
|
|
|
Hooray for USENIX and IEEE: the other papers' canonical links are
|
|
|
|
not paywalled. The Yahoo study is reference 5 in BHOS15.
|
passwords: Express the quality threshold as guesses required.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
2017-10-03 19:48:06 +02:00
|
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[zxcvbn]: https://github.com/dropbox/zxcvbn
|
|
|
|
[BHOS15]: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/papers/2015-BonneauHerOorSta-passwords.pdf
|
2017-10-03 20:45:49 +02:00
|
|
|
[zxcvbn-paper]: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_wheeler.pdf
|
|
|
|
[Bon12]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6234435/
|
2017-01-18 05:52:52 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
## Messages and History
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Zulip message content is rendered using a specialized Markdown
|
|
|
|
parser which escapes content to protect against cross-site scripting
|
|
|
|
attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
* Zulip supports both public streams and private streams.
|
|
|
|
* Any non-guest user can join any public stream in the organization,
|
|
|
|
and can view the complete message history of any public stream
|
|
|
|
without joining the stream. Guests can only access streams that
|
|
|
|
another user adds them to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Organization admins can see and modify most aspects of a private
|
|
|
|
stream, including the membership and estimated traffic. Admins
|
|
|
|
generally cannot see messages sent to private streams or do things
|
|
|
|
that would indirectly give them access to those messages, like
|
|
|
|
adding members or changing the stream privacy settings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Non-admins cannot easily see which private streams exist, or interact
|
|
|
|
with them in any way until they are added. Given a stream name, they can
|
|
|
|
figure out whether a stream with that name exists, but cannot see any
|
|
|
|
other details about the stream.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-28 18:46:28 +01:00
|
|
|
* See [Stream permissions](https://zulipchat.com/help/stream-permissions) for more details.
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Zulip supports editing the content and topics of messages that have
|
|
|
|
already been sent. As a general philosophy, our policies provide
|
|
|
|
hard limits on the ways in which message content can be changed or
|
|
|
|
undone. In contrast, our policies around message topics favor
|
|
|
|
usefulness (e.g. for conversational organization) over faithfulness
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
to the original. In all configurations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Message content can only ever be modified by the original author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Any message visible to an organization administrator can be deleted at
|
|
|
|
any time by that administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* See
|
2018-11-28 18:46:28 +01:00
|
|
|
[Configuring message editing and deletion](https://zulipchat.com/help/configure-message-editing-and-deletion)
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
for more details.
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Users and Bots
|
|
|
|
|
2018-12-06 02:25:12 +01:00
|
|
|
* There are four types of users in a Zulip organization: Organization
|
|
|
|
Administrators, Members (normal users), Guests, and Bots.
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-12-06 02:25:12 +01:00
|
|
|
* Administrators have the ability to deactivate and reactivate other
|
|
|
|
human and bot users, delete streams, add/remove administrator
|
|
|
|
privileges, as well as change configuration for the organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being an organization administrator does not generally provide the ability
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
to read other users' private messages or messages sent to private
|
|
|
|
streams to which the administrator is not subscribed. There are two
|
|
|
|
exceptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Administrators may get access to private messages via some types of
|
2018-11-28 18:46:28 +01:00
|
|
|
[data export](https://zulipchat.com/help/export-your-organization).
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Administrators can change the ownership of a bot. If a bot is subscribed
|
|
|
|
to a private stream, then an administrator can indirectly get access to
|
|
|
|
stream messages by taking control of the bot, though the access will be
|
|
|
|
limited to what the bot can do. (E.g. incoming webhook bots cannot read
|
|
|
|
messages.)
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Every Zulip user has an API key, available on the settings page.
|
|
|
|
This API key can be used to do essentially everything the user can
|
|
|
|
do; for that reason, users should keep their API key safe. Users
|
|
|
|
can rotate their own API key if it is accidentally compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* To properly remove a user's access to a Zulip team, it does not
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
suffice to change their password or deactivate their account in a
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
SSO system, since neither of those prevents authenticating with the
|
|
|
|
user's API key or those of bots the user has created. Instead, you
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
should
|
|
|
|
[deactivate the user's account](https://zulipchat.com/help/deactivate-or-reactivate-a-user)
|
|
|
|
via Zulip's "Organization settings" interface.
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The Zulip mobile apps authenticate to the server by sending the
|
|
|
|
user's password and retrieving the user's API key; the apps then use
|
|
|
|
the API key to authenticate all future interactions with the site.
|
|
|
|
Thus, if a user's phone is lost, in addition to changing passwords,
|
|
|
|
you should rotate the user's Zulip API key.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-12-06 02:25:12 +01:00
|
|
|
* Guest users are like Members, but they do not have automatic access
|
|
|
|
to public streams.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
* Zulip supports several kinds of bots with different capabilities.
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
* Incoming webhook bots can only send messages into Zulip.
|
|
|
|
* Outgoing webhook bots and Generic bots can essentially do anything a
|
|
|
|
non-administrator user can, with a few exceptions (e.g. a bot cannot
|
|
|
|
login to the web application, register for mobile push
|
|
|
|
notifications, or create other bots).
|
|
|
|
* API super user bots can send messages that appear to have been sent by
|
|
|
|
another user. They also have the ability to see the names of all
|
|
|
|
streams, including private streams. This is important for implementing
|
|
|
|
integrations like the Jabber, IRC, and Zephyr mirrors.
|
2017-10-24 02:36:56 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
API super user bots cannot be created by Zulip users, including
|
|
|
|
organization administrators. They can only be created on the command
|
|
|
|
line (via `manage.py knight --permission=api_super_user`).
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## User-uploaded content
|
|
|
|
|
2018-02-12 18:18:03 +01:00
|
|
|
* Zulip supports user-uploaded files. Ideally they should be hosted
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
from a separate domain from the main Zulip server to protect against
|
2018-02-12 18:18:03 +01:00
|
|
|
various same-domain attacks (e.g. zulip-user-content.example.com).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We support two ways of hosting them: the basic `LOCAL_UPLOADS_DIR`
|
|
|
|
file storage backend, where they are stored in a directory on the
|
|
|
|
Zulip server's filesystem, and the S3 backend, where the files are
|
|
|
|
stored in Amazon S3. It would not be difficult to add additional
|
|
|
|
supported backends should there be a need; see
|
|
|
|
`zerver/lib/upload.py` for the full interface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For both backends, the URLs used to access uploaded files are long,
|
|
|
|
random strings, providing one layer of security against unauthorized
|
|
|
|
users accessing files uploaded in Zulip (an authorized user would
|
|
|
|
need to share the URL with an unauthorized user in order for the
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
file to be accessed by the unauthorized user. Of course, any
|
2018-02-12 18:18:03 +01:00
|
|
|
such authorized user could have just downloaded and sent the file
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
instead of the URL, so this is arguably pretty good protection.)
|
|
|
|
However, to help protect against accidental
|
2018-02-12 18:18:03 +01:00
|
|
|
sharing of URLs to restricted files (e.g. by forwarding a
|
|
|
|
missed-message email or leaks involving the Referer header), we
|
|
|
|
provide additional layers of protection in both backends as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Zulip S3 backend, the random URLs to access files that are
|
|
|
|
presented to users don't actually host the content. Instead, the S3
|
|
|
|
backend verifies that the user has a valid Zulip session in the
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
relevant organization (and that has access to a Zulip message linking to
|
2018-02-12 18:18:03 +01:00
|
|
|
the file), and if so, then redirects the browser to a temporary S3
|
|
|
|
URL for the file that expires a short time later. In this way,
|
|
|
|
possessing a URL to a secret file in Zulip does not provide
|
|
|
|
unauthorized users with access to that file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a similar protection for the `LOCAL_UPLOADS_DIR` backend,
|
2018-10-19 21:18:55 +02:00
|
|
|
that is only unavailable on Ubuntu Trusty (this is the one place
|
2018-06-05 17:03:15 +02:00
|
|
|
in Zulip where behavior is currently different between different OS
|
|
|
|
versions). For platforms that are not Ubuntu Trusty, every access
|
|
|
|
to an uploaded file has access control verified (confirming that the
|
|
|
|
browser is logged into a Zulip account that has received the
|
2018-02-12 18:18:03 +01:00
|
|
|
uploaded file in question).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Ubuntu Trusty, because the older version of `nginx` available
|
|
|
|
there doesn't have proper Unicode support for the `X-Accel-Redirect`
|
|
|
|
feature, the `LOCAL_UPLOADS_DIR` backend only has the single layer
|
|
|
|
of security described at the beginning of this section (long,
|
|
|
|
randomly generated secret URLs). This could be fixed with further
|
|
|
|
engineering, but given the upcoming end-of-life of Ubuntu Trusty, we
|
|
|
|
have no plans to do that further work.
|
2017-01-18 02:43:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Zulip supports using the Camo image proxy to proxy content like
|
|
|
|
inline image previews that can be inserted into the Zulip message
|
|
|
|
feed by other users over HTTPS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* By default, Zulip will provide image previews inline in the body of
|
|
|
|
messages when a message contains a link to an image. You can
|
|
|
|
control this using the `INLINE_IMAGE_PREVIEW` setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Final notes and security response
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you find some aspect of Zulip that seems inconsistent with this
|
|
|
|
security model, please report it to zulip-security@googlegroups.com so
|
|
|
|
that we can investigate and coordinate an appropriate security release
|
|
|
|
if needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zulip security announcements will be sent to
|
|
|
|
zulip-announce@googlegroups.com, so you should subscribe if you are
|
|
|
|
running Zulip in production.
|