Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
100 lines (89 loc) · 16.2 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

100 lines (89 loc) · 16.2 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for cloudwu/skynet

Mitigation Strategy: Message Validation and Sanitization

Description:

  1. Define Skynet Message Schemas: For each type of message exchanged between Skynet services, define a strict schema. This schema should specify the expected structure, data types, and allowed values for each field within the message, considering Skynet's message format (often Lua tables or c-structs serialized to byte arrays). Document these schemas clearly, perhaps using Lua comments or separate schema definition files.
  2. Implement Validation in Skynet Services: Within each Skynet service (implemented in Lua or C/C++), implement validation functions for every incoming message type immediately upon receiving the message. These functions should programmatically check if the received message conforms to the defined schema. Leverage Lua's type checking and table manipulation capabilities or C/C++ data structure validation.
  3. Sanitize Skynet Message Payloads: Inside the validation functions within Skynet services, sanitize the message payload. This involves:
    • Type Enforcement (Lua/C++): Verify data types of message fields match the schema (Lua type() checks, C++ type assertions).
    • Range Checks (Lua/C++): For numerical fields, ensure values are within acceptable bounds.
    • String Sanitization (Lua/C++): If messages contain strings that might be used in Lua loadstring (though discouraged), or passed to external systems, sanitize them to prevent injection. Focus on escaping characters that could be misinterpreted by Lua or downstream systems.
    • Length Limits (Lua/C++): Enforce maximum lengths for strings and arrays within messages to prevent buffer overflows or resource exhaustion within Skynet services.
  4. Reject Invalid Skynet Messages: If a message fails validation within a Skynet service, immediately reject it. Log the rejection within the Skynet service's logging system, including sender service address, message type, and specific validation errors. Use Skynet's skynet.error or custom logging mechanisms. Do not process invalid messages further. Return an error message back to the sender service using Skynet's skynet.send if appropriate for the application's protocol. List of Threats Mitigated:
  • Command Injection via Skynet Messages (High Severity): Prevents injection of malicious commands through message payloads that could be executed by a Skynet service, especially if Lua loadstring or similar is misused.
  • Denial of Service via Malformed Skynet Messages (Medium Severity): Reduces DoS risk by preventing crashes or resource exhaustion in Skynet services caused by processing unexpected or malformed message structures.
  • Data Corruption within Skynet Services (Medium Severity): Prevents invalid data from being processed by Skynet services, which could lead to incorrect service state and application logic errors. Impact:
  • Command Injection: Significantly reduces risk of command execution through message manipulation within the Skynet environment.
  • DoS: Partially mitigates DoS risk specifically related to malformed Skynet messages.
  • Data Corruption: Significantly reduces risk of data integrity issues within Skynet services due to invalid message data. Currently Implemented: Basic validation exists in authentication_service and game_logic_service using Lua type checks and custom functions within their Skynet service implementations. Schemas are informally understood but not formally defined for Skynet messages. Missing Implementation: Formal Skynet message schemas are missing across all services. Comprehensive validation functions are not implemented in chat_service, reporting_service, and monitoring_service within their Skynet service logic. Consistent logging of validation failures within Skynet's logging framework is not fully implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Service Isolation and Resource Limits within Skynet

Description:

  1. Minimize Skynet Service Dependencies: Design Skynet services to be as decoupled as possible within the Skynet architecture. Reduce direct message dependencies and avoid shared mutable state between Skynet services to limit the blast radius of a compromise.
  2. Implement Skynet Resource Quotas: Utilize Skynet's configuration to set resource limits specifically for each Skynet service. This includes:
    • CPU Affinity (Skynet Configuration): If OS supports it, use CPU affinity settings in Skynet configuration to limit CPU cores available to each service.
    • Memory Limits (Skynet Configuration): Use Skynet's memory limit settings to restrict memory usage per service.
    • Message Queue Limits (Skynet Configuration): Leverage Skynet's message queue size limits to prevent queue overflow attacks targeting individual Skynet services.
  3. Skynet Node Isolation (if applicable): For deployments spanning multiple machines, consider deploying Skynet nodes in a way that isolates services with different security levels onto separate nodes. This leverages Skynet's distributed nature for security.
  4. Monitor Skynet Service Resources: Implement monitoring specifically for Skynet service resource usage (CPU, memory, message queue size). Use Skynet's monitoring APIs or external tools to track resource consumption of individual Skynet services. Set up alerts for anomalies in Skynet service resource usage. List of Threats Mitigated:
  • Lateral Movement within Skynet (High Severity): Limits attacker's ability to move from a compromised Skynet service to other services within the Skynet application.
  • Denial of Service within Skynet (High Severity): Prevents a single compromised or malfunctioning Skynet service from causing a DoS to the entire Skynet application by consuming all Skynet resources.
  • Resource Exhaustion of Skynet Services (Medium Severity): Protects against resource exhaustion attacks targeting specific Skynet services by enforcing resource limits within the Skynet framework. Impact:
  • Lateral Movement: Significantly reduces risk of lateral movement within the Skynet application's service mesh.
  • DoS: Significantly reduces risk of Skynet-wide DoS originating from a single service.
  • Resource Exhaustion: Significantly reduces risk of resource exhaustion for individual Skynet services. Currently Implemented: Basic memory and message queue size limits are configured in the main Skynet configuration file, applying to all Skynet services. Service dependencies are considered in design, but further reduction within the Skynet context is possible. Missing Implementation: CPU affinity settings in Skynet configuration are not utilized. Detailed, per-Skynet-service resource usage monitoring and alerting are not fully implemented. Skynet node isolation for security zones is not currently used.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Lua Scripting Practices within Skynet Services

Description:

  1. Skynet-Context Secure Lua Coding: Focus secure Lua coding practices specifically within the context of Skynet services. Avoid vulnerabilities relevant to Lua in Skynet, such as misuse of loadstring for message processing, insecure handling of Skynet service addresses, or vulnerabilities in Lua C modules used by Skynet services.
  2. Minimize Dynamic Lua Code in Skynet: Strictly minimize the use of loadstring, load, or similar dynamic code execution functions within Skynet Lua services. If absolutely necessary for Skynet service logic, rigorously sanitize and validate any input used in dynamic code execution and consider very restricted sandboxing within Lua.
  3. Least Privilege in Skynet Lua Services: Design Lua scripts for Skynet services to operate with the minimum necessary privileges within the Skynet environment. Avoid granting unnecessary access to Skynet APIs, other Skynet services, or Lua C modules that could be misused.
  4. Input Validation and Sanitization in Skynet Lua: Reinforce input validation and sanitization within Lua scripts of Skynet services, even if message validation is done at a higher level. Treat all data received via Skynet messages as potentially untrusted within the Lua service code.
  5. Skynet Lua Code Reviews and Audits: Conduct regular code reviews of Lua scripts specifically for Skynet services, focusing on security aspects relevant to Skynet's architecture and Lua integration. Perform security audits to identify vulnerabilities in Lua code within the Skynet context.
  6. Lua Sandboxing for Skynet Services (if feasible): Explore Lua sandboxing libraries or techniques compatible with Skynet to restrict the capabilities of Lua scripts within Skynet services. Evaluate performance impact and compatibility with Skynet's event loop and message passing before implementation. List of Threats Mitigated:
  • Code Injection into Skynet Services (High Severity): Prevents attackers from injecting and executing arbitrary Lua code within Skynet services, potentially gaining control over the service or the Skynet node.
  • Privilege Escalation within Skynet (Medium to High Severity): Reduces risk of attackers escalating privileges within the Skynet environment by exploiting Lua vulnerabilities to access other Skynet services or resources.
  • Information Disclosure from Skynet Services (Medium Severity): Prevents Lua scripts in Skynet services from unintentionally leaking sensitive information through Skynet's logging, message responses, or interactions with other services. Impact:
  • Code Injection: Significantly reduces risk of malicious Lua code execution within Skynet.
  • Privilege Escalation: Partially to significantly reduces risk of privilege escalation within the Skynet application.
  • Information Disclosure: Partially reduces risk of information leaks from Skynet services. Currently Implemented: Developers are trained on basic secure Lua coding. Code reviews are done, but security focus on Skynet-specific Lua vulnerabilities is inconsistent. Dynamic Lua code is generally avoided in Skynet services, but not strictly prohibited. Missing Implementation: Formal secure Lua coding guidelines specific to Skynet service development are not documented and enforced. Static analysis tools for Lua in the Skynet context are not used. Lua sandboxing within Skynet services is not implemented. Security-focused code reviews for Skynet Lua code are not consistently performed.

Mitigation Strategy: Controlled Skynet Service Discovery and Naming

Description:

  1. Secure Skynet Service Naming Convention: Implement a service naming convention within Skynet that avoids predictable or easily guessable service names. Use unique, descriptive, and less easily brute-forced names for Skynet services.
  2. Access Control for Skynet Service Discovery (if custom registry): If using a custom service registry outside of Skynet's built-in mechanisms, implement access control to restrict which Skynet services can discover and communicate with others. Use authentication and authorization to verify Skynet service identities during discovery. (Note: Skynet's built-in discovery is simpler and might not offer granular access control).
  3. Skynet Service Registration Validation (if custom registry): If using a custom registry, when a new Skynet service registers, validate its identity and ensure it is authorized to register with the given name within the custom registry. Prevent unauthorized Skynet services from registering or impersonating legitimate ones in the registry.
  4. Minimize Skynet Service Visibility: Design Skynet services to only be discoverable and accessible within the Skynet application by other services that genuinely need to communicate with them. Avoid making all Skynet services universally discoverable if not necessary. List of Threats Mitigated:
  • Skynet Service Impersonation (High Severity): Prevents attackers from registering malicious Skynet services with legitimate names to intercept messages or disrupt communication within the Skynet application.
  • Message Interception within Skynet (Medium Severity): Reduces risk of attackers intercepting Skynet messages by impersonating services or manipulating service discovery within the Skynet environment.
  • Unauthorized Access to Skynet Services (Medium Severity): Prevents unauthorized Skynet services from discovering and communicating with sensitive services within the Skynet application.
  • Denial of Service against Skynet Communication (Medium Severity): Reduces risk of DoS attacks targeting Skynet service discovery mechanisms to disrupt communication between services within Skynet. Impact:
  • Skynet Service Impersonation: Significantly reduces risk of service impersonation within the Skynet application.
  • Message Interception: Partially reduces risk of message interception within Skynet.
  • Unauthorized Access: Partially reduces risk of unauthorized service access within Skynet.
  • DoS: Partially reduces risk of DoS against Skynet communication. Currently Implemented: Skynet service names are somewhat descriptive but not strictly enforced for unpredictability. Skynet's built-in service discovery is used. No custom service registry or access control for discovery is implemented beyond Skynet's default behavior. Missing Implementation: Formal secure Skynet service naming convention is not defined. Access control for Skynet service discovery is not implemented beyond default Skynet behavior. Service registration validation is basic within the current Skynet setup. Skynet service visibility is not actively minimized.

Mitigation Strategy: Skynet Framework Updates and Patching

Description:

  1. Track Skynet Project for Security Updates: Regularly monitor the official Skynet project repository (GitHub, cloudwu/skynet) and community channels specifically for security-related updates and patches.
  2. Establish Skynet Update Process: Define a process specifically for evaluating, testing, and applying Skynet framework updates and security patches. This should be tailored to the Skynet framework's update mechanism and your deployment environment.
  3. Test Skynet Updates in Staging: Before deploying Skynet framework updates to production, thoroughly test them in a staging environment that mirrors the production Skynet setup. Verify compatibility with existing Skynet services and overall Skynet application stability.
  4. Apply Skynet Security Patches Promptly: Apply security patches for the Skynet framework as soon as possible after testing and verification. Prioritize security patches released by the Skynet maintainers.
  5. Version Control Skynet Framework: Manage the specific version of the Skynet framework used in your project under version control (e.g., Git) as a dependency of your Skynet application. This allows tracking changes and facilitates rollbacks to previous Skynet versions if necessary. List of Threats Mitigated:
  • Exploitation of Known Skynet Framework Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Prevents attackers from exploiting publicly known security vulnerabilities present in outdated versions of the Skynet framework itself. Impact:
  • Exploitation of Known Skynet Vulnerabilities: Significantly reduces risk by ensuring the underlying Skynet framework is protected against known vulnerabilities. Currently Implemented: Developers are generally aware of Skynet updates. Updates are applied occasionally, but not on a regular, scheduled basis focused on security patching. Testing in staging is sometimes done before Skynet updates. Missing Implementation: A formal, documented process for tracking, evaluating, testing, and applying Skynet framework updates and security patches is not defined. Skynet updates are not applied promptly, especially security patches. Version control of the Skynet framework as a project dependency is not explicitly managed.