Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
137 lines (100 loc) · 12.9 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

137 lines (100 loc) · 12.9 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for apache/arrow

Mitigation Strategy: Schema Validation

Description:

  1. Define a strict and explicit schema that your application expects for Arrow data. This schema should specify data types, field names, and structure.
  2. When receiving Arrow data from external sources (e.g., via IPC, Flight, or file deserialization), use Arrow's schema validation capabilities to compare the incoming data's schema against your predefined schema.
  3. Implement a validation step before any data processing. This step should explicitly check if the received schema matches the expected schema.
  4. If the schema validation fails (schemas do not match), reject the incoming data. Log an error message indicating schema mismatch and the reason for rejection.
  5. Only proceed with data processing if the schema validation is successful.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Unexpected Data Structure Exploitation (High Severity): Malicious actors could craft Arrow data with unexpected structures to exploit parsing vulnerabilities or bypass security checks that rely on schema assumptions.
  • Application Crashes due to Parsing Errors (Medium Severity): Unexpected schema variations can lead to parsing errors within the application, causing crashes or unpredictable behavior.

Impact:

  • Unexpected Data Structure Exploitation: High Risk Reduction - Prevents exploitation by ensuring data conforms to expected structure.
  • Application Crashes due to Parsing Errors: Medium Risk Reduction - Reduces crashes by handling schema mismatches gracefully.

Currently Implemented:

  • Implemented in the data ingestion service when receiving data from external partners via Arrow Flight. Schema is validated against a schema defined in the service configuration.

Missing Implementation:

  • Schema validation is not consistently applied across all internal components that exchange Arrow data via IPC. Validation should be added to processing components to ensure data integrity throughout the pipeline.

Mitigation Strategy: Size Limits and Resource Quotas (for Arrow Messages)

Description:

  1. Determine reasonable upper bounds for the size of Arrow messages (batches, streams) your application can handle without performance degradation or resource exhaustion. Consider memory limits and processing capacity related to Arrow data processing.
  2. Implement checks to enforce these size limits when receiving Arrow data. This can be done at the application level or, if using Arrow Flight, through Flight server configuration.
  3. For streaming data, consider implementing limits on the total size of an Arrow stream or the duration of a stream processing operation.
  4. If size limits are exceeded, reject the incoming data or terminate the stream processing. Log an event indicating the size limit violation.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks (High Severity): Attackers could send excessively large Arrow messages to overwhelm the application's Arrow processing capabilities, exhaust resources (memory, CPU), and cause service disruption.
  • Resource Exhaustion (Medium Severity): Accidental or unintentional transmission of very large Arrow datasets can lead to resource exhaustion and application instability during Arrow processing.

Impact:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks: High Risk Reduction - Limits the impact of large message attacks by preventing resource exhaustion related to Arrow processing.
  • Resource Exhaustion: Medium Risk Reduction - Prevents accidental resource exhaustion due to large Arrow datasets.

Currently Implemented:

  • Size limits are configured in the Arrow Flight server for incoming requests, limiting the maximum size of a single Flight message.

Missing Implementation:

  • Application-level size limits are not enforced within data processing components when handling Arrow data internally via IPC. Size limits should be implemented to protect against internal data processing issues and potential amplification attacks related to Arrow data size.

Mitigation Strategy: Data Type and Value Range Checks (within Arrow Arrays)

Description:

  1. Beyond schema validation, define expected ranges and constraints for the values within Arrow arrays. This includes data type specific constraints (e.g., integer ranges, string lengths, date/time formats) relevant to your application's use of Arrow data.
  2. After schema validation, implement data validation logic to check the values within the Arrow arrays. Use Arrow's array accessors to efficiently iterate and inspect values.
  3. Validate that numerical values are within expected minimum and maximum bounds.
  4. Validate that string values conform to expected formats (e.g., length limits, character sets, regex patterns).
  5. For date/time values, validate ranges and formats.
  6. If data values fail validation, reject the data and log an error detailing the validation failure.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Injection Attacks (Medium Severity): Malicious data values could be injected into Arrow arrays to exploit vulnerabilities in downstream processing logic that operates on Arrow data (e.g., SQL injection if Arrow data is used to construct queries).
  • Application Logic Errors (Medium Severity): Unexpected or out-of-range values within Arrow arrays can lead to errors in application logic, causing incorrect results or unexpected behavior when processing Arrow data.

Impact:

  • Injection Attacks: Medium Risk Reduction - Reduces the risk of injection by sanitizing data values within Arrow arrays.
  • Application Logic Errors: Medium Risk Reduction - Prevents errors caused by unexpected data values within Arrow arrays.

Currently Implemented:

  • Basic data type checks are implicitly performed by Arrow schema validation.

Missing Implementation:

  • Detailed value range and format checks are not implemented for data within Arrow arrays. Specific validation logic needs to be added to data processing components to enforce data integrity and prevent injection attacks related to Arrow data content. For example, validating string lengths and numerical ranges in user input fields that are processed and stored as Arrow arrays.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Deserialization Practices (for Arrow IPC/Flight)

Description:

  1. Always use the latest stable version of the Apache Arrow library to benefit from the latest security patches and bug fixes related to Arrow's deserialization functionalities.
  2. Rely on Arrow's built-in deserialization functions (e.g., ipc.read_message, flight.FlightStreamReader) for deserializing Arrow IPC and Flight messages. Avoid implementing custom deserialization logic if possible.
  3. If custom deserialization logic is absolutely necessary (e.g., for highly specialized data formats integrated with Arrow), ensure it undergoes rigorous security review and testing, specifically focusing on secure handling of Arrow's serialization format. Pay close attention to buffer handling and memory management in custom deserialization code related to Arrow.
  4. Regularly review and update any custom deserialization code to address potential vulnerabilities that might arise in the context of Arrow's evolving serialization format.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Deserialization Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Vulnerabilities in deserialization logic, especially when handling complex formats like Arrow IPC or Flight messages, can be exploited by crafting malicious serialized data to execute arbitrary code, cause memory corruption, or lead to other security breaches specifically related to Arrow data processing.

Impact:

  • Deserialization Vulnerabilities: High Risk Reduction - Using well-maintained and standard Arrow deserialization functions minimizes the risk of introducing vulnerabilities when handling Arrow data.

Currently Implemented:

  • Project uses standard Arrow deserialization functions for IPC and Flight.

Missing Implementation:

  • No custom deserialization is currently implemented. However, if custom deserialization is needed in the future (e.g., for integrating with a legacy system using a custom format alongside Arrow), a formal security review process specifically for the custom Arrow-related deserialization code needs to be established.

Mitigation Strategy: Careful Buffer Management (for Arrow Buffers)

Description:

  1. When working directly with Arrow buffers (e.g., in custom Arrow extensions, custom kernels, or low-level integrations with Arrow), strictly adhere to Arrow's memory management APIs.
  2. Utilize Arrow's MemoryPool and Buffer classes for memory allocation and deallocation when dealing with Arrow data. Avoid manual memory management (e.g., malloc, free) where possible in the context of Arrow buffers.
  3. When creating or manipulating Arrow buffers, carefully track buffer ownership and lifetimes to prevent memory leaks or use-after-free errors specifically related to Arrow's memory management.
  4. Implement thorough unit and integration tests for any custom code that directly manipulates Arrow buffers, focusing on memory safety and error handling within the Arrow memory management framework.
  5. Conduct code reviews for any custom buffer management logic related to Arrow to identify potential vulnerabilities arising from incorrect Arrow buffer handling.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Incorrect buffer handling when working with Arrow buffers can lead to buffer overflows, use-after-free errors, and other memory corruption vulnerabilities that can be exploited for code execution or denial of service specifically within Arrow-based components.

Impact:

  • Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities: High Risk Reduction - Using Arrow's memory management APIs and rigorous testing minimizes the risk of memory corruption when working with Arrow data at a low level.

Currently Implemented:

  • Project primarily uses high-level Arrow APIs and relies on Arrow's built-in buffer management.

Missing Implementation:

  • No custom buffer management is currently implemented. However, if future development requires custom Arrow extensions or low-level buffer manipulation, strict guidelines and review processes for secure Arrow buffer management need to be established and enforced.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Flight Configuration (if using Arrow Flight)

Description:

  1. If using Arrow Flight, enable authentication and authorization to control access to Flight services. Use strong authentication mechanisms (e.g., mutual TLS, OAuth 2.0) to secure Arrow Flight connections.
  2. Enforce authorization policies to restrict access to specific Flight endpoints and data based on user roles or permissions when using Arrow Flight for data exchange.
  3. Always use TLS/SSL encryption for Flight connections to protect Arrow data in transit from eavesdropping and tampering.
  4. Configure Flight servers to listen only on secure network interfaces and restrict network access to authorized clients using firewalls and network segmentation specifically for Arrow Flight services.
  5. Regularly review Flight server configuration for any default or insecure settings and harden the configuration according to security best practices for Arrow Flight deployments.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Unauthorized Access to Data via Flight (High Severity): Insecure Flight configuration can allow unauthorized users to access sensitive data exposed through Arrow Flight services.
  • Data Breaches via Flight (High Severity): Lack of encryption in Flight connections can expose Arrow data in transit to eavesdropping, leading to data breaches.
  • Man-in-the-Middle Attacks on Flight (High Severity): Without TLS/SSL, Flight connections are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, compromising Arrow data transfer.

Impact:

  • Unauthorized Access to Data via Flight: High Risk Reduction - Authentication and authorization prevent unauthorized access to Arrow data through Flight.
  • Data Breaches via Flight: High Risk Reduction - Encryption protects Arrow data in transit over Flight connections.
  • Man-in-the-Middle Attacks on Flight: High Risk Reduction - TLS/SSL prevents MITM attacks on Arrow Flight communication.

Currently Implemented:

  • Arrow Flight is used for data ingestion from external partners. TLS/SSL encryption is enabled for Flight connections.

Missing Implementation:

  • Authentication and authorization are not fully implemented for the Flight server. Access control needs to be implemented to restrict data access via Flight based on partner agreements and roles.