Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
167 lines (134 loc) · 16.6 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

167 lines (134 loc) · 16.6 KB

Deep Analysis of Security Considerations for Polly

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep analysis is to conduct a thorough security assessment of the Polly library (https://github.com/app-vnext/polly), focusing on its key components, architecture, data flow, and build process. The analysis aims to identify potential security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for improvement, specifically related to how Polly itself operates and how it might be misused, not general security advice for applications using Polly. We will focus on the security implications of Polly's core functionalities: Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead Isolation, Fallback, and PolicyWrap.

Scope:

This analysis covers:

  • The Polly library's core components (Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead, Fallback, PolicyWrap).
  • The library's interaction with external services (as a conduit, not the services themselves).
  • The build and deployment process of the Polly library itself, not applications using it.
  • Potential misuse scenarios of Polly that could lead to security vulnerabilities.
  • Input validation within the Polly library.
  • Thread safety of the Polly library.
  • Dependency management of the Polly library.

This analysis does not cover:

  • Security of external services called through Polly.
  • Application-specific security concerns unrelated to Polly's functionality.
  • General .NET security best practices (except where directly relevant to Polly's operation).

Methodology:

  1. Code Review (Inferred): Since we don't have direct access to execute code, we will infer the code behavior and potential vulnerabilities based on the provided documentation, design diagrams, and common patterns used in similar resilience libraries. We will assume best practices are followed unless evidence suggests otherwise.
  2. Design Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and design documentation to understand the architecture, components, and data flow.
  3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the library's functionality and interactions.
  4. Vulnerability Analysis: Analyze potential vulnerabilities based on identified threats and common security weaknesses.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: Provide specific, actionable recommendations to mitigate identified risks.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

We'll analyze each component for potential security issues, focusing on misuse, configuration errors, and inherent vulnerabilities.

  • Retry:

    • Threats:
      • Denial of Service (DoS) on External Service: Aggressive retry policies (short intervals, many retries) could overwhelm an external service, especially if many clients are using the same policy. This is a form of amplification attack.
      • Resource Exhaustion (Client-Side): Excessive retries could consume client-side resources (threads, memory, connections) if not properly bounded.
      • Information Leakage (Timing Attacks): Consistent retry behavior might reveal information about the external service's state or error handling to an attacker through timing analysis.
      • Logic Flaws: Incorrectly handling exceptions during retries could lead to unexpected application behavior or state corruption.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Enforce Maximum Retry Counts and Backoff Strategies: Polly should strongly recommend (and potentially enforce limits on) maximum retry attempts and provide built-in, secure-by-default backoff strategies (e.g., exponential backoff with jitter). Documentation should clearly warn against unbounded retries.
      • Circuit Breaker Integration: Recommend using Retry in conjunction with a Circuit Breaker to prevent sustained overload of the external service.
      • Configurable Jitter: Polly should always include jitter in its backoff calculations to prevent synchronized retries from multiple clients. This should be a non-optional, built-in feature.
      • Exception Handling Guidance: Documentation should clearly explain how to handle exceptions within the onRetry delegate to avoid swallowing critical errors or creating vulnerabilities.
      • Input Validation: Validate retry count, delay times, and any user-provided functions (e.g., onRetry) to prevent excessively large values or malicious code injection.

  • Circuit Breaker:

    • Threats:
      • DoS on Fallback: If the circuit is open and a fallback mechanism is used, the fallback itself could become a target for DoS.
      • Premature Opening/Closing: Incorrectly configured thresholds (e.g., too few failures to open, too short a sampling duration) could lead to the circuit opening or closing prematurely, impacting availability or masking underlying issues.
      • State Manipulation: If the circuit breaker's state is stored in a shared, mutable location without proper synchronization, it could be vulnerable to race conditions or manipulation by malicious actors.
      • Information Leakage: The state of the circuit breaker (open/closed/half-open) could leak information about the health of the external service.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Secure State Management: Ensure thread-safe and atomic operations on the circuit breaker's state. If using a distributed cache for state, ensure the cache is secured and access is controlled.
      • Sensible Defaults and Validation: Provide secure-by-default values for thresholds and sampling durations. Validate user-provided configurations to prevent obviously incorrect settings.
      • Fallback Protection: Recommend using Bulkhead Isolation or rate limiting on fallback mechanisms to prevent them from being overwhelmed.
      • Monitoring and Alerting: Provide mechanisms for monitoring circuit breaker state transitions and alerting administrators to potential issues. This is crucial for detecting attacks or misconfigurations.
      • Half-Open State Security: Carefully manage the half-open state to prevent attackers from forcing the circuit to stay open by sending a small number of malicious requests.

  • Timeout:

    • Threats:
      • Resource Exhaustion: Long timeouts could lead to resource exhaustion (threads, connections) if many requests are waiting.
      • DoS Amplification: An attacker could send requests that intentionally take a long time to process, tying up resources and amplifying the impact of a DoS attack.
      • Inconsistent Timeouts: Using different timeout values in different parts of the application or across different layers could lead to unexpected behavior and race conditions.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Short, Consistent Timeouts: Encourage the use of short, consistent timeouts throughout the application. Provide guidance on choosing appropriate timeout values based on the expected response time of the external service.
      • Timeout Cancellation: Ensure that timed-out operations are properly cancelled and resources are released. This is critical for preventing resource leaks. Polly must handle CancellationToken correctly and propagate it to the executed action.
      • Input Validation: Validate timeout durations to prevent excessively large values.
      • Bulkhead Isolation: Combine Timeout with Bulkhead Isolation to limit the number of concurrent requests and prevent resource exhaustion.

  • Bulkhead Isolation:

    • Threats:
      • Resource Starvation: If the bulkhead is too small, it could lead to resource starvation for legitimate requests.
      • Configuration Errors: Incorrectly configuring the bulkhead size or queue size could lead to unexpected behavior.
      • Deadlocks: If not carefully implemented, bulkhead isolation could potentially introduce deadlocks, especially when combined with other policies.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Dynamic Sizing: Consider providing mechanisms for dynamically adjusting the bulkhead size based on load or other metrics.
      • Careful Queue Management: Ensure that the queue used for bulkhead isolation is properly managed and does not grow unbounded. Consider using a bounded queue with a well-defined rejection policy.
      • Deadlock Prevention: Thoroughly test bulkhead implementations to prevent deadlocks. Provide clear guidance on how to use bulkhead isolation in conjunction with other policies safely.
      • Input Validation: Validate bulkhead and queue sizes to prevent excessively small or large values.

  • Fallback:

    • Threats:
      • Security Bypass: A poorly designed fallback mechanism could bypass security controls that are enforced by the primary service. For example, a fallback might return cached data without proper authorization checks.
      • Data Inconsistency: A fallback might return stale or inconsistent data, leading to data integrity issues.
      • DoS on Fallback: As mentioned earlier, the fallback itself could become a target for DoS.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Secure Fallback Design: Ensure that fallback mechanisms implement appropriate security controls, mirroring those of the primary service as closely as possible.
      • Data Validation: Validate data returned by fallback mechanisms to ensure its integrity and consistency.
      • Rate Limiting/Bulkhead: Protect fallback mechanisms with rate limiting or bulkhead isolation to prevent them from being overwhelmed.
      • Clear Error Handling: Define how errors within the fallback mechanism itself are handled. Avoid silently failing or returning incorrect data.

  • PolicyWrap:

    • Threats:
      • Complexity and Misconfiguration: Combining multiple policies can increase complexity and the risk of misconfiguration. Incorrectly ordered policies or incompatible policies could lead to unexpected behavior.
      • Performance Overhead: Wrapping many policies together could introduce significant performance overhead.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Clear Documentation and Examples: Provide clear documentation and examples of how to use PolicyWrap safely and effectively. Explain the order in which policies are executed and any potential interactions.
      • Policy Compatibility Checks: Consider providing mechanisms to detect incompatible policy combinations (e.g., two policies that both attempt to handle the same exception type).
      • Performance Testing: Encourage users to performance test their applications with PolicyWrap to ensure that the overhead is acceptable.

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

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

  • Architecture: Polly is a library that acts as an intermediary between the application code and external services. It's a layered architecture where policies wrap around each other and the core action being executed.
  • Components: The key components are the individual policy types (Retry, Circuit Breaker, etc.) and the PolicyWrap mechanism for combining them. Each policy likely has internal state (e.g., retry count, circuit breaker state).
  • Data Flow:
    1. Application code calls a Polly policy.
    2. The policy (or chain of policies) intercepts the call.
    3. Based on the policy's logic and configuration, the call is either:
      • Passed to the external service.
      • Retried (with delays and backoff).
      • Blocked (by the circuit breaker or bulkhead).
      • Timed out.
      • Handled by a fallback mechanism.
    4. The result (success or failure) is returned to the application code.

4. Specific Security Considerations

  • Thread Safety: The security design review mentions thread safety. This is critical for Polly. All policy components and state management must be thread-safe to prevent race conditions and data corruption. This needs rigorous testing, including concurrent access scenarios.
  • Input Validation: All policy parameters (retry counts, timeout durations, thresholds, etc.) must be validated to prevent excessively large or small values, negative values where inappropriate, and potentially malicious input (e.g., code injection into onRetry delegates).
  • Dependency Management: Polly's dependencies should be regularly scanned for known vulnerabilities (SCA). The project should have a clear policy for updating dependencies and addressing vulnerabilities promptly. Minimize dependencies to reduce the attack surface.
  • NuGet Package Signing: The Polly NuGet package must be signed to ensure its integrity and authenticity. This prevents attackers from distributing a modified version of Polly with malicious code.
  • Vulnerability Reporting Process: A clear and accessible vulnerability reporting process is essential. This should include a security contact email address and a documented process for handling reported vulnerabilities.
  • Supply Chain Security: Use of SLSA framework is a good start. Polly should also consider using tools like Dependabot to automatically update dependencies and address known vulnerabilities.
  • GitHub Actions Security: The build process should be secured. This includes:
    • Least Privilege: GitHub Actions workflows should run with the least privileges necessary.
    • Secrets Management: Secrets (e.g., API keys, signing certificates) should be securely stored and managed using GitHub Secrets.
    • CodeQL: CodeQL should be used for static analysis to identify potential security vulnerabilities.
    • Regular Audits: The GitHub Actions workflows should be regularly audited to ensure they are secure and up-to-date.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Tailored to Polly)

These are in addition to the component-specific mitigations listed above:

  1. Secure Configuration Defaults: Polly should ship with secure-by-default configurations for all policies. For example, a default Retry policy should include a reasonable maximum retry count, exponential backoff with jitter, and a circuit breaker integration.
  2. Input Validation Framework: Implement a robust input validation framework for all policy parameters. This framework should:
    • Define allowed ranges and types for each parameter.
    • Reject invalid input with clear error messages.
    • Prevent code injection into delegates (e.g., onRetry, onTimeout).
    • Be centrally managed and consistently applied across all policies.
  3. Concurrency Testing: Implement a comprehensive suite of concurrency tests to verify thread safety. These tests should simulate high-concurrency scenarios and use tools like stress testers to identify potential race conditions.
  4. Fuzzing: Implement fuzzing tests to identify unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities when policies are provided with invalid or unexpected input.
  5. Dependency Scanning and Updates: Integrate a Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool (e.g., OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk) into the build process to automatically scan for known vulnerabilities in dependencies. Establish a process for promptly updating dependencies to address identified vulnerabilities.
  6. Security Documentation: Create a dedicated security section in the Polly documentation that covers:
    • Secure configuration guidelines for each policy.
    • Common misuse scenarios and how to avoid them.
    • The library's security model and assumptions.
    • The vulnerability reporting process.
    • Best practices for using Polly securely in different application contexts.
  7. Security Audits and Penetration Testing: Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing of the Polly library to identify potential vulnerabilities that may be missed by automated tools or code reviews.
  8. Deprecation Policy: Establish a clear policy for deprecating features or policies. This should include a communication plan to inform users of upcoming changes and provide guidance on migrating to alternative solutions.
  9. .NET Runtime Security: Since Polly relies on the .NET runtime, keep abreast of security updates and best practices for the .NET platform itself. Apply patches and updates promptly.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the Polly project can significantly enhance its security posture and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities that could impact applications relying on it. The focus should be on secure defaults, robust input validation, thorough testing, and clear documentation to guide developers in using Polly securely.