# Initial Security Audit

This document summarizes the findings of an initial security review performed on the AgentDock codebase (focusing on `agentdock-core` and the open source client layer). It identifies potential vulnerabilities, analyzes risks, and tracks actions taken or recommended.

Key:
*   ✅ = Issue Addressed / Mitigated / Low Risk / Current State OK
*   ⚠️ = Action Required / Future Enhancement / High Priority

---

**1. API Key Handling and Security:**

*   **Issue:** Flexible API key management using environment variables and client-side `localStorage` (via `SecureStorage`).
*   **Analysis:** Offers flexibility suitable for the OS client. `SecureStorage` uses AES-GCM encryption and HMAC, but is vulnerable to XSS attacks as encryption keys are also stored in `localStorage`. Environment variables depend on secure deployment configuration. Keys are masked in logs.
*   **Status:** ✅ (Current implementation acceptable for OS client, risks noted)
*   **Recommendation:** ✅ Document `SecureStorage` XSS risk clearly. Emphasize env vars/BYOK for production. (Documentation updated).

**2. Input Validation:**

*   **Issue:** Ensuring comprehensive validation of all external inputs. Potential ReDoS risk in specific regex.
*   **Analysis:** Zod validation is used effectively in key areas. ReDoS risk in `extractArxivId` assessed as low due to prior Zod validation.
*   **Status:** ✅ (Current validation good, risk low)
*   **Recommendation:** ⚠️ Perform focused audit of remaining API inputs and `JSON.parse` points for completeness.

**3. Error Handling and Information Disclosure:**

*   **Issue:** Potential for verbose errors leaking internal details in production.
*   **Analysis:** The `parseProviderError` and `normalizeError` system correctly sanitizes errors and conditionally excludes details in production based on `NODE_ENV`.
*   **Status:** ✅ (Mechanism prevents info disclosure in production)
*   **Recommendation:** None (Ensure `NODE_ENV` is set correctly in deployments).

**4. Authentication and Authorization:**

*   **Issue:** Lack of explicit user authentication in `agentdock-core`. Security relies on API key protection.
*   **Analysis:** User auth is intentionally out-of-scope for `agentdock-core`. API key security relies on environment variables and `SecureStorage` (with its XSS risk).
*   **Status:** ✅ (Acknowledged scope, risk noted)
*   **Recommendation:** ✅ Document `SecureStorage` XSS risk and secure key management practices. (Documentation updated).

**5. Data Handling and Storage:**

*   **Issue:** Default `MemoryStorageProvider` is non-persistent.
*   **Analysis:** The framework defaults to non-persistent memory storage. Persistent options (`RedisStorageProvider`, `VercelKVProvider`) **are implemented** and **must** be explicitly configured via environment variables for production.
*   **Status:** ✅ (Persistent options exist, but configuration required)
*   **Recommendation:** ⚠️ Emphasize **critical** need for configuring Redis/Vercel KV in production documentation.

**6. Code Structure and Common Errors:**

*   **Issue:** Potential inconsistencies in error handling patterns and lack of general retry mechanisms.
*   **Analysis:** `agentdock-core` uses standardized `AgentError`. The open source client layer uses `console.error` more variably. General retry mechanism for transient errors is missing.
*   **Status:** ⚠️ (Inconsistencies and lack of retries identified)
*   **Recommendation:** ⚠️ Standardize logging/API error responses in client layer. Implement general retry mechanism (e.g., exponential backoff) as future enhancement.

**7. Dependencies:**

*   **Issue:** Vulnerabilities in dependencies.
*   **Analysis:** `pnpm audit` initially found 1 critical (`next`) and 2 moderate (`undici`, `esbuild`) vulnerabilities.
*   **Status:** ✅ (Vulnerabilities resolved via updates and overrides)
*   **Recommendation:** ✅ Perform regular dependency audits (`pnpm audit`) and updates.

**8. Browser Security (XSS):**

*   **Issue:** Use of `rehype-raw` in Markdown components allows potential XSS.
*   **Analysis:** Risk medium/high (LLM output, community docs).
*   **Status:** ✅ (Resolved by switching to `rehype-sanitize`, testing confirmed OK)
*   **Recommendation:** Consider future sandboxing for Mermaid diagrams.

**9. Rate Limiting and Resource Management:**

*   **Issue:** Lack of server-side API rate limiting and basic tool throttling.
*   **Analysis:** No server-side rate limiting implemented (DoS risk). Tool throttling is basic (`sleep()`). Internal plan exists for implementation.
*   **Status:** ⚠️ (Rate limiting not implemented)
*   **Recommendation:** ⚠️ **Implement server-side rate limiting** (e.g., using `@upstash/ratelimit` with KV store) as planned internally (high priority). ⚠️ Improve tool throttling beyond `sleep()`.

**10. NoSQL Injection (if applicable):**

*   **Issue:** Potential future risk if NoSQL databases are added.
*   **Analysis:** Not currently applicable to KV stores.
*   **Status:** ✅ (Not applicable currently)
*   **Recommendation:** Note for future database integrations.

---

## General Recommendations

*   ⚠️ Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing.
*   ⚠️ Maintain clear security best practices documentation for users and contributors.
*   ⚠️ Consider dedicated security code reviews before major releases.

---

## Next Actions (Based on Audit)

1.  **Documentation Updates:**
    *   ✅ Clearly document the XSS risk associated with `SecureStorage` (client-side API key storage) and recommend secure alternatives (env vars, BYOK). (Updated in `docs/oss-client/nextjs-implementation.md` and linked from `docs/roadmap/storage-abstraction.md`). (See Issue 1, 4)
    *   ⚠️ Emphasize the **critical** need for users to configure a persistent storage provider (Redis/Vercel KV) for production, detailing environment variable setup. (See Issue 5)
    *   ⚠️ Create/expand security best practices documentation covering key management, input validation principles, etc. (See General Recs)
2.  **High Priority Implementation:**
    *   ⚠️ Implement server-side API rate limiting based on the internal plan (using `@upstash/ratelimit` or similar). (See Issue 9)
3.  **Future Enhancements / Code Improvements:**
    *   ⚠️ Perform a focused audit of API inputs and `JSON.parse` points to ensure comprehensive validation coverage. (See Issue 2)
    *   ⚠️ Standardize logging (using structured `logger`) and API error responses in the open source client layer. (See Issue 6)
    *   ⚠️ Implement a general retry mechanism (e.g., exponential backoff) for external API calls (LLMs, tools). (See Issue 6)
    *   ⚠️ Improve tool throttling beyond simple `sleep()` delays. (See Issue 9)
    *   ⚠️ Consider sandboxing for Mermaid diagrams for future enhancement. (See Issue 8)
4.  **Process Improvements:**
    *   ✅ Establish a process for regular dependency audits (`pnpm audit`). (Implicitly done by performing this audit, recommend formalizing)
    *   ⚠️ Incorporate regular security reviews/audits into the development lifecycle. (See General Recs)

_This audit provides a snapshot. Ongoing vigilance and security practices are crucial._