Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
210 lines (164 loc) · 17.7 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

210 lines (164 loc) · 17.7 KB

Okay, let's proceed with creating the deep security analysis of the Folly library based on the provided security design review.

Deep Security Analysis of Folly C++ Library

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep security analysis is to thoroughly evaluate the security posture of the Folly C++ library project, based on the provided security design review. This analysis aims to identify potential security vulnerabilities and risks associated with the library's architecture, components, and development lifecycle. The focus is on providing actionable and specific security recommendations to enhance the overall security of the Folly library and mitigate identified threats for both the project maintainers and its users.

Scope:

This analysis is scoped to the Folly C++ library project as described in the provided security design review document. It encompasses the following aspects:

  • Codebase: Analysis of the C++ source code and its potential vulnerabilities, considering the nature of a high-performance, general-purpose library.
  • Development Lifecycle: Examination of the security controls integrated into the development process, including code review, static analysis, CI/CD pipeline, and vulnerability management.
  • Deployment and Distribution: Review of how the library is made available to users, including source code access, package managers, and build processes.
  • Infrastructure: Assessment of the security of the GitHub repository, build environment, and related infrastructure components.
  • Documentation: Evaluation of the security guidance provided in the documentation for library users.

This analysis will primarily utilize the information provided in the security design review document, inferring architectural details and data flows from the C4 diagrams and descriptions. Direct code analysis or dynamic testing is outside the scope of this analysis, but recommendations will be made to incorporate these in the future.

Methodology:

The methodology for this deep security analysis will involve the following steps:

  1. Document Review: In-depth review of the provided security design review document, including business posture, security posture, C4 diagrams, deployment architecture, build process, risk assessment, questions, and assumptions.
  2. Component Decomposition: Breaking down the Folly library project into its key components as outlined in the C4 Context, Container, Deployment, and Build diagrams.
  3. Threat Modeling (Lightweight): For each key component, identify potential security threats and vulnerabilities based on common software security weaknesses, the nature of C++ libraries, and the specific context of Folly. This will be informed by the OWASP Top Ten and CWE/SANS Top 25 where applicable, but tailored to the project.
  4. Security Implication Analysis: Analyze the security implications of each identified threat for the Folly library and its users. Consider the potential impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
  5. Mitigation Strategy Formulation: Develop specific, actionable, and tailored mitigation strategies for each identified threat. These strategies will be practical and applicable to the Folly project's open-source nature and development environment.
  6. Recommendation Prioritization: Prioritize the mitigation strategies based on their potential impact and feasibility of implementation.
  7. Documentation and Reporting: Document the entire analysis process, findings, identified threats, security implications, and mitigation strategies in a structured report.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the C4 diagrams and descriptions, we can break down the key components of the Folly project and analyze their security implications:

2.1. Folly Library Repository (C4 Context)

  • Component: Folly Library Repository (GitHub)
  • Security Implications:
    • Unauthorized Access/Modification: Compromise of GitHub accounts with maintainer access could lead to malicious code injection, backdoors, or tampering with the library's source code, build scripts, or documentation. This could severely impact all downstream users.
    • Data Breach: Exposure of repository metadata, issue tracker data, or internal communications (if stored within the repository) could lead to information disclosure.
    • Denial of Service: Attacks on the GitHub repository (e.g., DDoS, spamming issue tracker) could disrupt development and maintenance activities.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Compromised maintainer accounts (phishing, credential stuffing).
    • Insider threats (malicious maintainer).
    • GitHub platform vulnerabilities.

2.2. C++ Source Code (C4 Container)

  • Component: C++ Source Code
  • Security Implications:
    • Memory Safety Vulnerabilities: C++ is prone to memory safety issues like buffer overflows, use-after-free, double-free, and memory leaks. These vulnerabilities can lead to crashes, arbitrary code execution, and data corruption in applications using Folly. Given Folly's focus on performance, there might be optimizations that inadvertently introduce such issues.
    • Logic Errors and Algorithmic Vulnerabilities: Flaws in the library's logic or algorithms could lead to unexpected behavior, incorrect data processing, or vulnerabilities exploitable by malicious inputs.
    • Concurrency and Threading Issues: Folly is likely to utilize concurrency and threading for performance. Incorrect synchronization or race conditions can lead to unpredictable behavior and security vulnerabilities.
    • Input Validation Flaws: Insufficient or incorrect input validation in library functions accepting external data can lead to injection attacks (e.g., format string bugs), buffer overflows, or other input-related vulnerabilities.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Buffer overflows in string handling or data processing functions.
    • Use-after-free vulnerabilities in memory management.
    • Format string bugs in logging or string formatting utilities.
    • Race conditions in concurrent data structures or algorithms.
    • Integer overflows or underflows in arithmetic operations.

2.3. Build Scripts (C4 Container)

  • Component: Build Scripts (CMake, etc.)
  • Security Implications:
    • Malicious Build Modifications: Compromised build scripts could be modified to inject malicious code into the build artifacts, introduce backdoors, or alter the build process to create vulnerable libraries.
    • Dependency Vulnerabilities: Build scripts might rely on external dependencies. Vulnerabilities in these dependencies could be inherited by Folly if not properly managed.
    • Insecure Build Configurations: Incorrect compiler flags or build settings could disable security features (e.g., stack canaries, ASLR) or introduce vulnerabilities.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Supply chain attacks targeting build dependencies.
    • Injection of malicious commands into build scripts.
    • Misconfiguration of compiler flags, leading to less secure builds.

2.4. Documentation (C4 Container)

  • Component: Documentation
  • Security Implications:
    • Misleading or Insecure Usage Instructions: Documentation that provides incorrect or insecure usage examples could lead users to implement vulnerable applications when using Folly.
    • Lack of Security Guidance: Absence of security best practices or warnings in the documentation could result in users overlooking security considerations when integrating Folly.
    • Social Engineering: Maliciously crafted documentation could be used to trick users into performing insecure actions or downloading compromised versions of the library.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Users implementing insecure code based on flawed documentation examples.
    • Lack of awareness among users about potential security pitfalls when using specific Folly components.

2.5. CI/CD Pipeline (C4 Container & Build Process)

  • Component: CI/CD Pipeline (GitHub Actions, etc.)
  • Security Implications:
    • Pipeline Compromise: Compromised CI/CD pipeline credentials or configurations could allow attackers to inject malicious code, bypass security checks, or manipulate the build and release process.
    • Insecure Pipeline Configuration: Weak access controls, insecure secrets management, or lack of security scanning in the pipeline can create vulnerabilities.
    • Dependency Vulnerabilities in Pipeline Tools: Vulnerabilities in tools used within the CI/CD pipeline (e.g., static analyzers, build tools) could be exploited to compromise the build process.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Stolen CI/CD secrets (API keys, tokens).
    • Injection of malicious steps into the pipeline workflow.
    • Exploitation of vulnerabilities in CI/CD tools or plugins.

2.6. Package Manager Registry (Deployment)

  • Component: Package Manager Registry (ConanCenter, vcpkg, etc.)
  • Security Implications:
    • Package Tampering: Compromised package registry or distribution channels could allow attackers to replace legitimate Folly packages with malicious ones, leading to widespread supply chain attacks.
    • Lack of Package Integrity Verification: If users do not properly verify package signatures or checksums, they could unknowingly install compromised versions of Folly.
    • Registry Vulnerabilities: Vulnerabilities in the package registry platform itself could be exploited to compromise packages or user accounts.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Malicious actors uploading backdoored Folly packages to registries.
    • Man-in-the-middle attacks during package download if not using HTTPS and integrity checks.
    • Compromise of package registry infrastructure.

2.7. Build Artifacts (Deployment & Build Process)

  • Component: Build Artifacts (Libraries, Headers)
  • Security Implications:
    • Artifact Tampering: If build artifacts are not securely stored and distributed, they could be tampered with after the build process, leading to users downloading compromised libraries.
    • Lack of Provenance and Integrity: Without proper signing and verification mechanisms, users cannot reliably verify the authenticity and integrity of the downloaded build artifacts.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Compromise of build artifact storage locations.
    • Man-in-the-middle attacks during artifact download.
    • Distribution of unsigned or unverified artifacts.

3. Actionable and Tailored Mitigation Strategies

Based on the identified threats and security implications, here are actionable and tailored mitigation strategies for the Folly project:

3.1. Enhance Code Review Process:

  • Strategy: Implement mandatory security-focused code reviews for all contributions, especially for critical components and areas prone to vulnerabilities (e.g., memory management, string handling, concurrency).
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Train code reviewers on common C++ security vulnerabilities and secure coding practices.
    • Develop specific security checklists for code reviews, focusing on OWASP Top Ten and CWE/SANS Top 25 relevant to C++.
    • Utilize code review tools that can automatically detect potential security issues or enforce coding standards.
    • Ensure that security-relevant changes are reviewed by individuals with security expertise.

3.2. Implement and Enhance Static Analysis and SAST:

  • Strategy: Integrate automated static analysis and SAST tools into the CI/CD pipeline and development workflow to proactively identify potential vulnerabilities in the source code.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Select and integrate industry-standard SAST tools suitable for C++ (e.g., Coverity, SonarQube, Clang Static Analyzer, Semgrep).
    • Configure SAST tools to detect a wide range of vulnerability types, including memory safety issues, injection flaws, and coding standard violations.
    • Automate SAST scans in the CI/CD pipeline to run on every code commit or pull request.
    • Establish a process for triaging and addressing findings from SAST tools, prioritizing security-critical issues.
    • Regularly update SAST tools and rulesets to stay current with new vulnerability patterns.

3.3. Establish a Formal Security Vulnerability Disclosure and Response Policy:

  • Strategy: Create a clear and publicly documented security vulnerability disclosure and response policy to guide users and security researchers on how to report vulnerabilities and what to expect in terms of response and remediation.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Publish a security policy document in the Folly repository (e.g., SECURITY.md).
    • Designate a dedicated security contact or security team email address for vulnerability reports.
    • Define a process for receiving, triaging, and validating vulnerability reports.
    • Establish expected response times for acknowledgement, investigation, and patch release.
    • Consider using a platform like HackerOne or Bugcrowd for vulnerability disclosure management (optional, but can improve process).
    • Communicate security advisories and patch releases clearly to users through appropriate channels (e.g., GitHub releases, mailing lists, security announcements).

3.4. Conduct Regular Security Audits and Penetration Testing:

  • Strategy: Perform periodic security audits and penetration testing of the Folly library, especially before major releases or when significant new features are added.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Engage external security experts to conduct security audits and penetration testing.
    • Focus audits on critical components, complex algorithms, and areas identified as high-risk by SAST tools or code reviews.
    • Include both static code analysis and dynamic testing (fuzzing, manual penetration testing) in the audits.
    • Address findings from security audits and penetration testing promptly, prioritizing critical vulnerabilities.
    • Consider making audit reports (or summaries) publicly available to enhance transparency and user trust (with appropriate redaction of sensitive details if necessary).

3.5. Provide Security Guidelines and Best Practices for Users:

  • Strategy: Develop and publish security guidelines and best practices for users integrating Folly into their applications to help them use the library securely and avoid common pitfalls.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Create a dedicated section in the Folly documentation on security considerations.
    • Provide guidance on input validation when using Folly functions that accept external data.
    • Document any known security limitations or potential vulnerabilities in specific Folly components.
    • Offer secure coding examples and best practices for common use cases.
    • Warn users about potential memory safety issues and recommend using memory safety tools during development and testing of applications using Folly.
    • Encourage users to report any security issues they find while using the library.

3.6. Secure CI/CD Pipeline and Build Process:

  • Strategy: Harden the CI/CD pipeline and build process to prevent unauthorized access, malicious modifications, and ensure the integrity of build artifacts.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Implement strong access controls for the CI/CD pipeline and build environment, following the principle of least privilege.
    • Securely manage secrets (API keys, tokens, credentials) used in the CI/CD pipeline, using dedicated secret management tools (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, GitHub Secrets).
    • Regularly audit and review CI/CD pipeline configurations for security vulnerabilities.
    • Use hardened build environments and minimize the attack surface of build agents.
    • Implement dependency scanning in the CI/CD pipeline to detect and manage vulnerabilities in build dependencies.
    • Sign build artifacts (libraries, packages) cryptographically to ensure integrity and authenticity.
    • Store build artifacts in secure and access-controlled repositories.

3.7. Enhance Dependency Management:

  • Strategy: Implement robust dependency management practices to ensure that Folly's dependencies are secure and up-to-date.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Maintain a clear and up-to-date list of Folly's dependencies.
    • Use dependency scanning tools (e.g., OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk) to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
    • Regularly update dependencies to the latest secure versions.
    • Consider using dependency pinning or lock files to ensure reproducible builds and prevent unexpected dependency updates.
    • Evaluate the security posture of upstream dependencies and consider alternative dependencies if necessary.

3.8. Promote Memory Safety Practices:

  • Strategy: Encourage and enforce memory safety practices within the Folly codebase to mitigate memory-related vulnerabilities.
  • Actionable Steps:
    • Adopt modern C++ features and libraries that promote memory safety (e.g., smart pointers, RAII, std::string, std::vector).
    • Utilize memory safety tools during development and testing (e.g., AddressSanitizer, MemorySanitizer, Valgrind).
    • Provide developer training on memory safety best practices in C++.
    • Consider adopting coding guidelines that discourage unsafe memory management practices (e.g., raw pointers, manual memory allocation).

By implementing these tailored mitigation strategies, the Folly project can significantly enhance its security posture, reduce the risk of vulnerabilities, and build greater trust among its users. It is crucial to prioritize these recommendations and integrate them into the ongoing development and maintenance lifecycle of the Folly C++ library.