Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
175 lines (137 loc) · 20.3 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

175 lines (137 loc) · 20.3 KB

Okay, let's perform the deep security analysis of liblognorm based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of liblognorm's key components, identify potential vulnerabilities, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will focus on the library's internal mechanisms and its interactions with external entities (rulebases, input logs, and the consuming application). We aim to identify vulnerabilities that could lead to crashes, denial of service, information disclosure, or potentially arbitrary code execution (though less likely in a well-designed parsing library).

  • Scope:

    • The core parsing engine of liblognorm.
    • The rulebase interpreter and the format of rulebase files.
    • The public API of liblognorm and its interaction with the calling application.
    • Input validation mechanisms for both log data and rulebase definitions.
    • Error handling and reporting.
    • Memory management practices.
    • The build process and existing security controls (fuzzing, static analysis).
    • Exclusion: We will not analyze the security of the application using liblognorm, nor the security of the systems generating the logs. We assume the application handles the normalized data securely.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Data Flow Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and descriptions to understand the library's architecture, components, and data flow. We'll infer details from the documentation and, if necessary, examine the GitHub repository (https://github.com/rsyslog/liblognorm) to clarify specific implementation details.
    2. Component-Specific Threat Modeling: For each key component (parser engine, rulebase interpreter, API), we'll identify potential threats based on common attack patterns and the component's specific responsibilities.
    3. Vulnerability Analysis: Based on the identified threats, we'll analyze potential vulnerabilities in the design and (hypothetically) the implementation. We'll consider common vulnerability classes like buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, injection flaws, and denial-of-service vulnerabilities.
    4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified vulnerability, we'll propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to liblognorm. These will be practical and consider the library's performance goals.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component:

  • 2.1 Parser Engine (Element 7 in Container Diagram):

    • Responsibilities: Applies parsing rules to log messages, extracts data based on those rules. This is the core of the library and the most critical component from a security perspective.
    • Threats:
      • Buffer Overflows/Underflows: If the parser doesn't correctly handle input lengths or allocate sufficient memory for extracted data, a crafted log message could cause a buffer overflow or underflow, potentially leading to a crash or, in a worst-case scenario, arbitrary code execution. This is the primary concern for a C-based parsing library.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): A complex or maliciously crafted log message, or a very large log message, could consume excessive CPU or memory, leading to a denial of service for the application using liblognorm. This could be due to inefficient parsing algorithms or resource exhaustion vulnerabilities.
      • Logic Errors: Errors in the parsing logic could lead to incorrect data extraction, potentially causing the consuming application to misinterpret the log data and make incorrect decisions. This could have security implications depending on how the application uses the data (e.g., incorrect authorization decisions).
      • Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS): If regular expressions are used extensively in the parsing rules, a carefully crafted regular expression could cause exponential backtracking, leading to a DoS.
      • Integer Overflows: Integer overflows could occur during calculations related to string lengths, offsets, or array indices, potentially leading to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities.

  • 2.2 Rulebase Interpreter (Element 8 in Container Diagram):

    • Responsibilities: Loads, parses, and validates rulebase files. Provides the parsed rules to the parser engine.
    • Threats:
      • Rule Injection: If an attacker can modify the rulebase files, they could inject malicious rules that cause the parser to behave unexpectedly, potentially leading to data exfiltration, denial of service, or even (though less likely) code execution. This is a major concern.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): A malformed or excessively large rulebase file could cause the interpreter to consume excessive resources, leading to a DoS. This could be due to inefficient parsing of the rulebase format or resource exhaustion.
      • Logic Errors: Errors in the rulebase interpreter could lead to incorrect parsing of rules, which could then cause the parser engine to misinterpret log data.
      • Path Traversal: If the rulebase loading mechanism is not careful, an attacker might be able to specify a path outside the intended directory, potentially accessing or overwriting sensitive files.

  • 2.3 liblognorm API (Element 6 in Container Diagram):

    • Responsibilities: Provides the interface for applications to interact with liblognorm.
    • Threats:
      • Input Validation Failures: If the API functions don't properly validate their input parameters (e.g., pointers, lengths, rulebase names), they could be vulnerable to various attacks, including crashes, denial of service, or potentially more severe vulnerabilities.
      • Information Leakage: Error messages or return values from the API could inadvertently leak information about the internal state of the library or the system, potentially aiding an attacker.

  • 2.4 Rulebase Files (Element 3 in Context Diagram):

    • Responsibilities: Store the parsing rules.
    • Threats:
      • Unauthorized Modification: As mentioned above, if an attacker can modify the rulebase files, they can control the parsing process. This is the primary threat to the rulebase files themselves.
      • Integrity Compromise: If the rulebase files are corrupted (e.g., due to a disk error), the parser may behave unpredictably.

  • 2.5 Input Logs (Element 5 in Context Diagram):

    • Threats:
      • Maliciously crafted log entries designed to exploit vulnerabilities in the parser.

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow (Inferences)

Based on the C4 diagrams and the nature of the library, we can infer the following:

  • Data Flow:

    1. The application calls liblognorm API functions to initialize the library and load rulebases.
    2. The Rulebase Interpreter reads and parses the rulebase files from the file system.
    3. The application passes log messages (likely as strings) to the liblognorm API.
    4. The Parser Engine uses the parsed rules from the Rulebase Interpreter to process the log message.
    5. The Parser Engine extracts data and constructs a normalized output (e.g., a JSON object) in memory.
    6. The liblognorm API returns the normalized data (or a pointer to it) to the application.

  • Key Components (Confirmed and Inferred):

    • Parser Engine: Likely implemented as a state machine or a recursive descent parser, iterating through the log message and applying rules. This is where the bulk of the complex parsing logic resides.
    • Rulebase Interpreter: Likely uses a custom parsing algorithm to interpret the rulebase syntax. This component needs to be very robust against malformed rulebase input.
    • Memory Management: liblognorm will need to allocate memory dynamically to store the parsed data and intermediate results. This is a potential source of vulnerabilities.
    • Error Handling: The library needs to handle errors gracefully, both in the parsing of log messages and in the interpretation of rulebases. Error handling should not leak sensitive information.

4. Specific Security Considerations and Recommendations

Now, let's provide specific security considerations and recommendations tailored to liblognorm:

  • 4.1 Rulebase Security (CRITICAL):

    • Consideration: The security of the rulebase files is paramount. An attacker who can control the rulebase can control the parsing process.
    • Recommendations:
      • Strict File Permissions: The application using liblognorm must enforce strict file permissions on the rulebase files, allowing read-only access to the user running the application and write access only to trusted administrators. This is the most important mitigation.
      • Digital Signatures (Strong Recommendation): Implement a mechanism to digitally sign rulebase files and verify the signatures before loading them. This would prevent an attacker from tampering with the rulebase files without detection. This adds complexity but significantly enhances security.
      • Rulebase Validation: The Rulebase Interpreter must thoroughly validate the syntax and semantics of the rulebase files before using them. This includes:
        • Checking for valid rule syntax.
        • Detecting potential infinite loops or excessive recursion in rules.
        • Limiting the complexity and size of rulebase files.
        • Preventing path traversal vulnerabilities when loading rulebases.
      • Input Sanitization: Sanitize any user-provided input that is used to construct rulebase queries or access rulebase files.
      • Least Privilege: Run the application that uses liblognorm with the least necessary privileges. This limits the damage an attacker can do if they exploit a vulnerability.
      • Rulebase Change Management: Implement a secure process for updating and deploying rulebase files. This might involve a review process, version control, and automated deployment tools.

  • 4.2 Input Validation (Log Messages and API Parameters):

    • Consideration: Robust input validation is essential to prevent a wide range of vulnerabilities.
    • Recommendations:
      • Length Checks: The Parser Engine and API functions must perform strict length checks on all input strings (log messages and API parameters) to prevent buffer overflows/underflows.
      • Data Type Validation: Validate that input data conforms to the expected data types (e.g., integers, strings).
      • Whitelist, Not Blacklist: If possible, use a whitelist approach to input validation, accepting only known-good characters or patterns, rather than trying to blacklist known-bad characters.
      • Null Termination: Ensure all strings are properly null-terminated.
      • Pointer Validation: API functions should validate all input pointers to ensure they are not NULL and point to valid memory regions.
      • API Parameter Validation: Thoroughly validate all parameters passed to API functions, including lengths, offsets, and any user-provided data.

  • 4.3 Memory Management:

    • Consideration: Incorrect memory management in C can lead to serious vulnerabilities.
    • Recommendations:
      • Consistent Allocation/Deallocation: Use a consistent strategy for allocating and deallocating memory (e.g., always use malloc and free in pairs).
      • Bounds Checking: Implement bounds checking on all array and buffer accesses to prevent overflows and underflows. Consider using safer string handling functions (e.g., strlcpy, strlcat) if available.
      • Memory Leak Prevention: Carefully manage memory to prevent leaks, especially in error handling paths.
      • Double-Free Prevention: Ensure that memory is not freed twice, which can lead to crashes or exploitable vulnerabilities.
      • Consider Safer Alternatives: If feasible, explore using safer memory management techniques, such as custom allocators with built-in security checks, or even consider rewriting critical components in a memory-safe language like Rust (as suggested in the security posture).

  • 4.4 Error Handling:

    • Consideration: Error handling should be robust and secure.
    • Recommendations:
      • Consistent Error Codes: Use consistent and well-defined error codes to indicate different types of errors.
      • No Information Leakage: Error messages should not reveal sensitive information about the internal state of the library or the system. Avoid including file paths, memory addresses, or other potentially sensitive data in error messages.
      • Fail Securely: In case of an error, the library should fail securely, releasing any allocated resources and returning to a safe state.
      • Logging Errors: Log errors appropriately, but be mindful of the sensitivity of the data being logged.

  • 4.5 Regular Expression Handling (If Applicable):

    • Consideration: If regular expressions are used, they must be handled carefully to prevent ReDoS.
    • Recommendations:
      • Avoid Complex Regexes: Keep regular expressions as simple as possible.
      • Regex Timeout: Implement a timeout mechanism for regular expression matching to prevent excessive backtracking.
      • Regex Validation: Validate user-provided regular expressions (if any) to ensure they are not maliciously crafted.
      • Consider Alternatives: If possible, consider using alternative parsing techniques that are less susceptible to ReDoS, such as parsing expression grammars (PEGs) or custom parsing logic.

  • 4.6 Build Process and Continuous Security:

    • Consideration: The build process should incorporate security checks.
    • Recommendations:
      • Continue Fuzzing and Static Analysis: Maintain the existing fuzzing and static analysis (Coverity Scan) as part of the continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline.
      • Software Composition Analysis (SCA): Integrate an SCA tool to identify vulnerabilities in dependencies. This is a critical addition.
      • Security Linter: Implement a security linter to enforce secure coding practices.
      • Compiler Warnings: Enable and address all compiler warnings, treating warnings as errors.
      • Address Sanitizer (ASan): Use Address Sanitizer (ASan) during testing to detect memory errors at runtime.
      • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security reviews of the codebase, both manual and automated.
      • Vulnerability Disclosure Program: Establish a clear vulnerability disclosure and response process.

  • 4.7 Integer Overflow Handling

    • Consideration: Integer overflows can lead to unexpected behavior and potential vulnerabilities.
    • Recommendations:
      • Use Safe Integer Libraries: Consider using safe integer libraries or techniques to prevent integer overflows.
      • Explicit Checks: Add explicit checks for potential integer overflows before performing arithmetic operations that could result in overflows.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary)

The following table summarizes the actionable mitigation strategies:

Threat Mitigation Strategy Priority
Rule Injection Strict file permissions on rulebase files, digital signatures for rulebase files, thorough rulebase validation, input sanitization, least privilege for the application, secure rulebase change management. CRITICAL
Buffer Overflows/Underflows Strict length checks on all input strings, bounds checking on array/buffer accesses, use of safer string handling functions, memory-safe language for critical components (long-term). CRITICAL
Denial of Service (Parser & Interpreter) Input validation (length limits, complexity limits), resource limits, efficient parsing algorithms, timeouts for regular expression matching (if applicable), rulebase size and complexity limits. HIGH
Logic Errors (Parser & Interpreter) Thorough testing (unit tests, fuzzing), code reviews, static analysis, clear and well-defined specifications. HIGH
Path Traversal (Rulebase Interpreter) Input validation, avoid using user-provided input directly in file paths, use a whitelist of allowed characters for file names. HIGH
Information Leakage (API) Avoid revealing sensitive information in error messages, use consistent and well-defined error codes. MEDIUM
ReDoS (If Applicable) Avoid complex regexes, regex timeout, regex validation, consider alternative parsing techniques. MEDIUM
Integer Overflows Use safe integer libraries or techniques, explicit overflow checks. MEDIUM
Dependency Vulnerabilities Software Composition Analysis (SCA). HIGH
General Coding Errors Security linter, compiler warnings as errors, Address Sanitizer (ASan), regular security audits, vulnerability disclosure program. HIGH

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for liblognorm. By implementing these mitigation strategies, the development team can significantly reduce the risk of vulnerabilities and improve the overall security of the library. Remember that security is an ongoing process, and continuous monitoring and improvement are essential.