Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
34 lines (29 loc) · 5.06 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

34 lines (29 loc) · 5.06 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for catchorg/catch2

Attack Surface: Malicious or Compromised Test Code Execution

  • Description: The execution of untrusted or malicious code embedded within test cases. This is possible because Catch2 is designed to execute arbitrary C++ code defined as tests.
  • Catch2 Contribution: Catch2's core functionality is to execute user-provided C++ code as test cases. This inherent capability directly enables the execution of any code, including malicious code if present in the test suite. Catch2 provides no built-in mechanism to prevent or sandbox the execution of test code.
  • Example: A compromised developer account is used to add a test case that, when run by Catch2, attempts to exfiltrate sensitive environment variables or files from the build system to an external server.
  • Impact:
    • Data Breach (exfiltration of sensitive development environment data).
    • Supply Chain Compromise (potential for introducing backdoors or malicious modifications during the build process, although less direct via test execution itself).
    • Development Environment Compromise (potential for further exploitation of the development system from within the test execution context).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Mandatory Code Review for Test Code: Implement rigorous code reviews for all test code changes, treating test code with the same security scrutiny as production code. Focus on understanding the purpose and potential side effects of each test.
    • Secure and Isolated Development Environments: Harden development environments with strong access controls, monitoring, and consider using isolated environments (like containers or VMs) for development and testing to limit the impact of malicious test code.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Grant developers only the necessary permissions within development environments to minimize the potential damage from compromised accounts or malicious code.
    • Regular Security Audits of Development Processes: Conduct periodic security audits of the entire development lifecycle, including test development and execution processes, to identify and address potential vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Vulnerabilities in Custom Reporters and Listeners

  • Description: Security vulnerabilities (such as buffer overflows, memory corruption, or logic flaws) within user-defined custom reporters or listeners that extend Catch2's reporting and event handling capabilities. These vulnerabilities can be triggered when Catch2 interacts with these custom components, especially when processing test results or metadata.
  • Catch2 Contribution: Catch2 provides extension points (reporters and listeners) that allow users to inject and execute custom C++ code within the Catch2 framework. If these extensions are not implemented securely, they introduce new attack vectors directly into the test execution process managed by Catch2.
  • Example: A custom reporter is implemented with a buffer overflow vulnerability when handling long test case names. When Catch2 passes a test case name exceeding the buffer size to this reporter, it could lead to a crash or, in a more severe scenario, arbitrary code execution if the overflow is exploitable.
  • Impact:
    • Arbitrary Code Execution (if memory safety vulnerabilities in reporters/listeners are exploited).
    • Denial of Service (if vulnerabilities cause reporters/listeners to crash or consume excessive resources).
    • Information Disclosure (if reporters/listeners inadvertently expose sensitive information due to vulnerabilities).
  • Risk Severity: High (can be Critical depending on the exploitability and impact of vulnerabilities in custom extensions).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Development Practices for Custom Extensions: Enforce strict secure coding practices when developing custom reporters and listeners. Pay close attention to memory management, input validation, and error handling to prevent common vulnerabilities.
    • Thorough Security Testing of Custom Extensions: Conduct comprehensive security testing (including static analysis, dynamic testing, and code review) of all custom reporters and listeners before they are used in development or CI/CD pipelines.
    • Favor Well-Established Reporters: Prioritize using well-vetted, community-maintained, or officially provided reporters whenever possible. These are more likely to have undergone security scrutiny and be less prone to vulnerabilities compared to custom-built solutions.
    • Sandboxing or Isolation for Custom Extensions (Advanced): For highly sensitive environments, consider running custom reporters and listeners in sandboxed or isolated processes to limit the potential impact if a vulnerability in an extension is exploited. This can prevent a compromised reporter from directly affecting the main test execution process or the wider system.