Canvas MCP Server

# UIUC Security Requirements - Executive Summary ## Overview This document provides an executive summary of the comprehensive security evaluation conducted for the Canvas MCP server against University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) security requirements and industry best practices for educational technology systems. ## What Was Delivered ### 1. Security Requirements Analysis **Document**: `docs/UIUC_SECURITY_REQUIREMENTS.md` (16,800+ words) A comprehensive evaluation covering: - **10 Security Categories**: FERPA Compliance, Authentication, Data Privacy, Code Execution, Input Validation, Secrets Management, Network Security, Audit Logging, Dependencies, Incident Response - **23 Security Requirements**: Identified and evaluated with current implementation status - **Security Requirements Matrix**: Prioritized by Critical/High/Medium/Low - **Gap Analysis**: Detailed analysis of what's missing vs. what's implemented - **Priority Recommendations**: Actionable roadmap for security improvements ### 2. Security Testing Plan **Document**: `docs/SECURITY_TESTING_PLAN.md` (26,800+ words) Comprehensive testing procedures including: - **100+ Test Cases**: Detailed test scenarios across all security categories - **Automated Testing Strategy**: Pytest-based security test suite - **Manual Testing Procedures**: Penetration testing, code review, configuration review - **Security Testing Tools**: Bandit, Semgrep, pip-audit, Safety, detect-secrets, TruffleHog - **CI/CD Integration**: GitHub Actions workflow for automated security scanning - **Test Schedule**: Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly security testing cadence ### 3. Security Checklist **Document**: `docs/SECURITY_CHECKLIST.md` (15,900+ words) Quick reference security checklists: - **Pre-Deployment**: 60+ security checks before release - **Code Review**: 100+ security items to review in code - **Testing**: 40+ security testing verifications - **Deployment**: 20+ deployment security steps - **Incident Response**: Complete incident handling procedures - **Compliance**: FERPA and regulatory compliance checks ### 4. Automated Security Test Suite **Location**: `tests/security/` Implemented test modules: - `test_ferpa_compliance.py` - 20+ tests for FERPA and PII protection - `test_authentication.py` - 15+ tests for API token and authentication security - `test_code_execution.py` - 15+ tests for code execution sandbox security - `test_input_validation.py` - 25+ tests for injection prevention - `test_dependencies.py` - 15+ tests for dependency vulnerabilities **Total**: 90+ automated security test cases ready to run ### 5. CI/CD Security Workflow **File**: `.github/workflows/security-testing.yml` Automated security scanning including: - **Security Test Suite**: Pytest-based tests - **SAST Scanning**: Bandit and Semgrep static analysis - **Dependency Scanning**: pip-audit and Safety checks - **Secret Detection**: detect-secrets and TruffleHog - **CodeQL Analysis**: Advanced security vulnerability detection - **Scheduled Scans**: Weekly automated security reviews ## Key Findings ### Current Security Posture **Strengths** ✅ 1. **FERPA Compliance Foundation**: Data anonymization system implemented 2. **Network Security**: HTTPS enforcement, proper User-Agent headers 3. **Local Processing**: No external data transmission 4. **Input Validation**: Type validation via `@validate_params` decorator 5. **Configuration Security**: `.env` file for secrets, excluded from version control **Critical Gaps** ⚠️ 1. **Code Execution Sandboxing**: Not implemented (HIGH RISK) 2. **Audit Logging**: No security event logging for PII access 3. **Token Encryption**: API tokens stored in plaintext 4. **MCP Client Authentication**: No authentication layer 5. **Security Monitoring**: No automated security alerts **Medium Gaps** ⚠️ 1. **PII Sanitization**: Logs may contain sensitive data 2. **Resource Limits**: Code execution lacks memory/CPU limits 3. **Access Logging**: Student data access not logged 4. **Network Restrictions**: Code execution has unrestricted network access 5. **Token Validation**: No validation on server startup ## Priority Recommendations ### Critical Priority (Immediate Action) 1. **Implement Code Execution Sandboxing** - Use Docker or VM isolation for TypeScript execution - Restrict file system and network access - Enforce resource limits (memory, CPU, timeout) - **Risk**: Current implementation allows arbitrary code execution - **Effort**: High - **Impact**: Critical security improvement 2. **Add Security Audit Logging** - Log all PII access events - Log authentication/authorization events - Log code execution requests - Implement tamper-evident logging - **Risk**: No visibility into security events - **Effort**: Medium - **Impact**: Required for compliance 3. **Add Automated Dependency Scanning** - Enable GitHub Dependabot - Add pip-audit to CI/CD - Monitor security advisories - **Risk**: Unknown vulnerabilities in dependencies - **Effort**: Low - **Impact**: Continuous security improvement ### High Priority (Within 30 Days) 4. **Encrypt API Tokens at Rest** - Integrate with OS credential managers - Implement token encryption - Add token expiration monitoring - **Risk**: Tokens readable in plaintext - **Effort**: Medium - **Impact**: Improved credential security 5. **Sanitize PII in Logs and Errors** - Remove student names/emails from all logs - Sanitize error messages - Implement log review procedures - **Risk**: FERPA compliance violation - **Effort**: Medium - **Impact**: FERPA compliance 6. **Implement Access Logging** - Log all student data access - Include timestamp, user, resource, action - Retain logs per policy - **Risk**: No audit trail for data access - **Effort**: Medium - **Impact**: Compliance and security ### Medium Priority (Within 90 Days) 7. **Add MCP Client Authentication** - Implement client authentication layer - Add API key or certificate-based auth - **Risk**: Unauthorized local access - **Effort**: High - **Impact**: Defense in depth 8. **Implement Security Monitoring** - Add anomaly detection - Implement alerting for suspicious activity - Create security dashboards - **Risk**: Delayed incident detection - **Effort**: High - **Impact**: Proactive security 9. **Complete Security Test Suite** - Implement all 100+ test cases - Add integration tests - Enable automated testing in CI/CD - **Risk**: Undetected security regressions - **Effort**: Medium - **Impact**: Continuous verification ## Security Requirements Matrix Summary | Priority | Total | Implemented | Partial | Not Implemented | |----------|-------|-------------|---------|-----------------| | Critical | 5 | 1 (20%) | 2 (40%) | 2 (40%) | | High | 10 | 3 (30%) | 4 (40%) | 3 (30%) | | Medium | 8 | 2 (25%) | 2 (25%) | 4 (50%) | | **Total**| **23**| **6 (26%)** | **8 (35%)** | **9 (39%)** | ## Testing Coverage ### Automated Tests - **90+ test cases** implemented across 5 modules - **6 CI/CD jobs** for comprehensive security scanning - **Weekly scheduled** automated scans - **Pull request** security validation ### Manual Testing - **Penetration testing** procedures documented - **Code review** security checklist provided - **Configuration review** checklist available - **Quarterly** comprehensive security assessments recommended ## Compliance Status ### FERPA Compliance - ✅ **Anonymization**: Implemented and configurable - ⚠️ **Audit Logging**: Not implemented (required for compliance) - ✅ **Data Minimization**: Local processing only - ⚠️ **PII Sanitization**: Partial (needs improvement) - ❌ **Data Retention**: No automated policy enforcement **Overall FERPA Status**: ⚠️ **Partial Compliance** - Requires audit logging implementation ### Security Policy Compliance - ✅ **Documentation**: Comprehensive security docs created - ⚠️ **Testing**: Test suite created, needs full implementation - ❌ **Monitoring**: Not yet implemented - ⚠️ **Incident Response**: Procedures documented, not tested ## Implementation Roadmap ### Phase 1: Critical Security Fixes (Weeks 1-4) 1. Implement code execution sandboxing (Docker) 2. Add security audit logging 3. Enable automated dependency scanning 4. Deploy security testing workflow ### Phase 2: High Priority Enhancements (Weeks 5-8) 1. Encrypt API tokens at rest 2. Sanitize PII in logs and errors 3. Implement access logging 4. Complete security test suite ### Phase 3: Medium Priority Improvements (Weeks 9-12) 1. Add MCP client authentication 2. Implement security monitoring and alerting 3. Conduct penetration testing 4. Complete compliance verification ### Phase 4: Continuous Improvement (Ongoing) 1. Regular security testing (weekly automated, monthly manual) 2. Quarterly security reviews 3. Annual third-party security audit 4. Continuous dependency updates ## Hardened Release Plan: Baseline, Public, and Enterprise Tracks Create a single codebase with three rigor levels, drive differences through configuration overlays, and gate releases with tier-appropriate controls and tests. See `docs/release/HARDENED_RELEASE_EXECUTION_PLAN.md` for the actionable work items and `docs/release/TIER_COMPATIBILITY_MATRIX.md` for the tier-to-control mapping. ### Track definitions and defaults - **Baseline (current `main`)**: Target for contributors and early adopters. Enable hybrid code-execution sandboxing (container when available, local best-effort fallback), keep stdio transport (no bind), preserve anonymization toggle, and include redaction flags by default. CI must run lint + unit tests; security scans are advisory. - **Public/individual instructor package**: Opinionated config focused on personal workstations. Enforce a sandbox outbound allowlist guard, document keyring/envelope token storage as planned, default log redaction/rotation hints, and optional “local-only” firewall guidance. Require the smoke security bundle (dependency scan, sandbox smoke, token validation) to pass before publishing. - **Enterprise package**: Hardened overlay for multi-user and FERPA-bound deployments. Document MCP client authentication (API key or mTLS) and centralized secret management as planned, enforce an outbound allowlist guard, and include audit/access logging placeholders with retention. Release gating requires the full security test suite, SAST/DAST scans, and checklist sign-off. ### Release packaging and drift control 1) **Single trunk, overlay-driven**: Keep `main` as the source of truth; represent tier differences via configuration bundles (env templates/values files) and policy docs. Avoid code forks. Overlay files live in `config/overlays/`. 2) **Artifacts per tier**: Publish two artifacts per tag: `public` (baseline + public overlay) and `enterprise` (baseline + enterprise overlay). Document the default profile baked into each artifact. 3) **Compatibility matrix**: Maintain a living matrix mapping requirements/tests to each tier (must/optional). Update alongside releases to prevent silent drift (see `docs/release/TIER_COMPATIBILITY_MATRIX.md`). ### Operational runbook per tier - **Baseline**: Weekly dependency scan; manual review of sandbox bypass reports; rotate API tokens quarterly. - **Public**: Monthly smoke security bundle; verify keyring/encryption on install; provide auto-generated “quick hardening” checklist covering sandbox on, localhost bind, redacted logs, and offline token storage. - **Enterprise**: CI-enforced SAST + dependency + full security suite on every PR; quarterly incident-response exercise; biannual pen-test; enforce log retention/rotation per policy and automated token expiration monitoring. ### Rollout steps to reach the plan 1. **Refactor configs into overlays** (baseline/public/enterprise) with defaults checked into version control. 2. **Codify gating** in CI: smoke bundle for public artifacts; full suite + SAST/DAST for enterprise. 3. **Document operator actions**: publish short, role-specific runbooks (workstation quick-start for public; SIEM/IdP integration for enterprise). 4. **Monitor for regression**: add a “tier drift” checklist to release notes; include hash/policy versions for overlays in artifacts. ## Risk Assessment ### Critical Risks 1. **Code Execution Sandbox Escape**: High likelihood, high impact 2. **No Audit Trail**: Medium likelihood, high impact (compliance) 3. **Token Exposure**: Low likelihood, high impact ### High Risks 1. **PII Leakage in Logs**: Medium likelihood, high impact 2. **Dependency Vulnerabilities**: Medium likelihood, medium impact 3. **Unauthorized Access**: Low likelihood, medium impact ### Medium Risks 1. **Missing Security Monitoring**: High likelihood, medium impact 2. **Token Rotation**: Low likelihood, medium impact 3. **No Client Authentication**: Medium likelihood, medium impact ## Resource Requirements ### Immediate (Critical Priority) - **Developer Time**: 2-3 weeks full-time - **Tools**: Docker, security testing tools (free) - **Infrastructure**: None (local development) ### Short-term (High Priority) - **Developer Time**: 3-4 weeks full-time - **Tools**: OS credential manager integration - **Testing**: Security testing time ### Ongoing - **Maintenance**: 1-2 days/month - **Monitoring**: Minimal (automated) - **Audits**: Quarterly reviews (2-3 days each) ## Success Metrics ### Security Metrics - **Test Coverage**: Target 80%+ for security-critical code - **Vulnerability Count**: Zero critical, <5 high severity - **Time to Remediate**: <7 days for critical, <30 days for high - **Compliance Score**: 100% FERPA compliant ### Process Metrics - **Automated Scanning**: 100% of PRs scanned - **Security Reviews**: Monthly code reviews - **Incident Response**: <24hr detection, <48hr remediation - **Documentation**: 100% coverage of security features ## Conclusion The Canvas MCP server has a **solid security foundation** with FERPA-compliant anonymization, HTTPS enforcement, and local processing. However, **critical gaps exist** in code execution sandboxing, audit logging, and security monitoring that must be addressed for production use in university environments. **Key Takeaways:** 1. ✅ **Good foundation** but needs critical security enhancements 2. ⚠️ **Code execution is the highest risk** - needs immediate sandboxing 3. 📋 **Comprehensive plan created** - clear roadmap for improvements 4. 🧪 **Testing framework ready** - 90+ tests ready to implement 5. 📊 **Compliance possible** - with audit logging and PII sanitization **Recommended Action:** Begin **Phase 1** immediately, focusing on code execution sandboxing and audit logging. These two critical improvements will significantly enhance security posture and enable FERPA compliance. ## Next Steps 1. **Review Documentation** - Read `UIUC_SECURITY_REQUIREMENTS.md` for detailed analysis - Review `SECURITY_TESTING_PLAN.md` for testing procedures - Use `SECURITY_CHECKLIST.md` for quick reference 2. **Run Security Tests** ```bash pytest tests/security/ -v ``` 3. **Enable CI/CD Workflow** - Merge `.github/workflows/security-testing.yml` - Review weekly scan results 4. **Prioritize Implementation** - Start with Critical priority items - Follow implementation roadmap - Track progress against security metrics 5. **Schedule Security Review** - Monthly security team meetings - Quarterly comprehensive assessments - Annual third-party audit --- **Document Version**: 1.0 **Date**: January 2026 **Author**: Security Evaluation Team **Status**: Ready for Implementation **Related Documents**: - [UIUC_SECURITY_REQUIREMENTS.md](./UIUC_SECURITY_REQUIREMENTS.md) - Detailed requirements - [SECURITY_TESTING_PLAN.md](./SECURITY_TESTING_PLAN.md) - Testing procedures - [SECURITY_CHECKLIST.md](./SECURITY_CHECKLIST.md) - Quick reference - [/SECURITY.md](../SECURITY.md) - Security policy