Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
128 lines (99 loc) · 10.4 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

128 lines (99 loc) · 10.4 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for nasa/trick

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Schema Validation for Trick Input Files

1. Strict Schema Validation for Trick Input Files

  • Description:

    1. Define Formal Schemas: Create formal schemas (e.g., using a custom, strongly-typed data definition language understood by Trick, or potentially adapting XML/JSON Schema concepts within Trick's input file parsing) for all Trick input file types (S_define, parameter files, etc.). This schema must be internal to Trick's parsing logic.
    2. Integrate Validation into Trick's Parser: Modify Trick's core input file parsing code (likely within Trick's C++ source) to:
      • Load the appropriate schema definition before parsing any input file.
      • Implement validation logic within the parser, checking each element and attribute against the schema as it's parsed. This is not using an external library; it's building validation into Trick's parser.
      • Immediately terminate parsing and report a detailed error if any validation failure occurs. Trick should not proceed with an invalid input file.
    3. Trick-Specific Error Handling: Enhance Trick's error reporting mechanism to provide clear, informative error messages when schema validation fails, indicating the specific line number, element, and reason for the failure.
    4. Internal Fuzz Testing: Integrate fuzz testing directly into Trick's build process. Create a fuzzer that generates malformed Trick input files and feeds them to Trick's internal parser, verifying robustness.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Buffer Overflow (Severity: Critical): By enforcing size limits and data types within Trick's parser, this prevents malformed inputs from causing overflows.
    • Injection Attacks (Severity: Critical): Prevents injection of malicious code into Trick's input files that could be misinterpreted by Trick itself.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Severity: High): Limits input complexity, preventing DoS attacks that target Trick's parser.
    • Logic Errors (Severity: Medium): Ensures that Trick receives data in the expected format, reducing Trick-specific logic errors.

  • Impact:

    • Buffer Overflow: Risk reduced from Critical to Low.
    • Injection Attacks: Risk reduced from Critical to Low.
    • Denial of Service: Risk reduced from High to Medium.
    • Logic Errors: Risk reduced from Medium to Low.

  • Currently Implemented: (Hypothetical - within Trick's codebase)

    • Basic data type checks exist in trick/input_processor/parse.cpp, but they are not comprehensive or schema-based.

  • Missing Implementation: (Within Trick's codebase)

    • No formal, internal schema definition language exists.
    • No schema-based validation is integrated into trick/input_processor/parse.cpp.
    • Error reporting for parsing failures is not sufficiently detailed.
    • No internal fuzz testing of the input parser.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Inter-Process Communication (IPC) within Trick

2. Secure Inter-Process Communication (IPC) within Trick

  • Description:

    1. Audit Trick's IPC: Thoroughly analyze Trick's source code to identify all internal IPC mechanisms used (e.g., shared memory segments, message queues between Trick processes, internal socket communication).
    2. Replace/Harden IPC: For each identified IPC mechanism:
      • Shared Memory: If Trick uses shared memory, ensure strict synchronization using Trick-managed mutexes/semaphores (potentially extending Trick's existing synchronization primitives). Implement access control within Trick to limit which processes/threads can access each shared memory segment.
      • Internal Sockets: If Trick uses internal sockets (even loopback), implement TLS encryption within Trick's socket handling code. Use Trick-managed certificates for mutual authentication.
      • Message Queues: If Trick uses internal message queues, implement authentication and encryption within Trick's message queue handling.
    3. Data Integrity within Trick: Modify Trick's IPC code to calculate and verify checksums (e.g., SHA-256) for all data exchanged between Trick processes. This should be built into Trick's core communication routines.
    4. Sequence Numbers/Timestamps: Add sequence numbers or timestamps to all messages within Trick's IPC to prevent replay attacks. This must be handled by Trick's internal messaging system.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Data Interception (Severity: High): Encryption within Trick prevents eavesdropping on internal communication.
    • Data Modification (Severity: High): Integrity checks and authentication within Trick prevent modification.
    • Replay Attacks (Severity: Medium): Sequence numbers/timestamps within Trick's messaging prevent replays.
    • Impersonation (Severity: High): Mutual TLS authentication within Trick prevents impersonation of Trick processes.

  • Impact:

    • Data Interception: Risk reduced from High to Low.
    • Data Modification: Risk reduced from High to Low.
    • Replay Attacks: Risk reduced from Medium to Low.
    • Impersonation: Risk reduced from High to Low.

  • Currently Implemented: (Hypothetical - within Trick's codebase)

    • Trick uses shared memory for some inter-process communication, with basic mutexes for synchronization.
    • Trick uses unencrypted loopback sockets for communication between the scheduler and the variable server.

  • Missing Implementation: (Within Trick's codebase)

    • Shared memory access control is not granular enough.
    • No encryption or authentication is used for loopback socket communication.
    • No data integrity checks are performed on data exchanged via IPC.
    • No sequence numbers or timestamps.

Mitigation Strategy: API Access Control within Trick

3. API Access Control within Trick

  • Description:

    1. Define a Restricted API: Create a well-defined, minimal API within Trick that exposes only the necessary functions to user-provided models and scripts. This API should be a core part of Trick's architecture.
    2. Whitelist Approach: Implement a strict whitelist within Trick's code that controls which API functions are accessible to user code. Deny access to any function not explicitly on the whitelist.
    3. Context-Based Access Control: Consider implementing context-based access control, where the permissions granted to user code depend on the context in which it's running (e.g., different permissions for initialization scripts vs. runtime models). This would be managed by Trick's internal execution engine.
    4. Isolate User Code Execution: Modify Trick's execution engine to isolate the execution of user-provided code. This could involve techniques like:
      • Restricted Namespaces: Limit the global namespace accessible to user code, preventing access to Trick's internal data structures and functions.
      • Code Rewriting (Advanced): Potentially rewrite user code (e.g., Python bytecode) to insert security checks or remove dangerous operations. This is a complex but powerful technique.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Privilege Escalation (Severity: Critical): Prevents user code from gaining unauthorized access to Trick's internal functions or system resources through Trick's API.
    • Arbitrary Code Execution (Severity: Critical): Limits the capabilities of user code, preventing it from executing arbitrary system commands via Trick.
    • Data Exfiltration (Severity: High): Prevents user code from accessing and exfiltrating sensitive data through Trick's API.

  • Impact:

    • Privilege Escalation: Risk reduced from Critical to Low.
    • Arbitrary Code Execution: Risk reduced from Critical to Low.
    • Data Exfiltration: Risk reduced from High to Low.

  • Currently Implemented: (Hypothetical - within Trick's codebase)

    • User-provided Python scripts have relatively unrestricted access to Trick's internal Python API.

  • Missing Implementation: (Within Trick's codebase)

    • No formal, restricted API is defined.
    • No whitelist-based access control is implemented.
    • No context-based access control is implemented.
    • User code execution is not sufficiently isolated.

Mitigation Strategy: Rate Limiting within Trick's Variable Server

4. Rate Limiting within Trick's Variable Server

  • Description:

    1. Integrate Rate Limiting into Variable Server: Modify Trick's Variable Server code (likely C++) to implement rate limiting directly within the server's request handling logic.
    2. Choose Algorithm: Select a suitable rate limiting algorithm (e.g., token bucket, leaky bucket) and implement it within the Variable Server.
    3. Track Client Requests: The Variable Server must track requests from each client (e.g., by IP address, client ID, or a Trick-specific identifier).
    4. Enforce Limits: The Variable Server must reject or delay requests that exceed the configured rate limits.
    5. Trick-Specific Configuration: Add configuration options to Trick (e.g., in a configuration file) to allow users to set rate limits for different Variable Server operations.
    6. Internal Logging: Enhance Trick's logging to record rate limiting events, including the client, operation, and whether the request was rejected or delayed.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Severity: High): Prevents attackers from flooding Trick's Variable Server with requests.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Severity: Medium): Prevents excessive resource consumption by the Variable Server.

  • Impact:

    • Denial of Service (DoS): Risk reduced from High to Medium.
    • Resource Exhaustion: Risk reduced from Medium to Low.

  • Currently Implemented: (Hypothetical - within Trick's codebase)

    • No rate limiting is implemented in trick/variable_server/server.cpp.

  • Missing Implementation: (Within Trick's codebase)

    • All aspects of rate limiting are missing within the Variable Server code.