Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
88 lines (67 loc) · 5.99 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

88 lines (67 loc) · 5.99 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for bchavez/bogus

Mitigation Strategy: Conditional bogus Usage (Environment Checks)

  • Description:

    1. Environment Variable Check: Wrap all code that uses bogus (importing, instantiating, and generating data) within conditional blocks that check an environment variable (e.g., NODE_ENV, ASPNETCORE_ENVIRONMENT, DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE).

    2. Strict Comparison: Use a strict comparison (e.g., === in JavaScript, == in Python) to ensure the environment variable is exactly one of the allowed values (e.g., 'development', 'test', 'staging'). Do not use loose comparisons or rely on the absence of a variable.

    3. Error Handling: If the environment is not one of the allowed values, throw an error or log a severe warning. This prevents accidental execution of bogus code in production. Ideally, the application should refuse to start. Example (JavaScript):

      const allowedEnvironments = ['development', 'test', 'staging'];
if (!allowedEnvironments.includes(process.env.NODE_ENV)) {
  throw new Error("Bogus cannot be used in this environment!"); // Or log.error and exit
}

const { faker } = require('@faker-js/faker'); // Or any other library
// ... use faker ...

    4. Test Coverage: Write unit tests to specifically verify that the environment checks are working correctly and that bogus is not used in the production environment.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Data Leakage (Production Exposure): (Severity: Critical) - Prevents bogus from being used in the production environment, eliminating the risk of exposing fake data.

  • Impact:

    • Data Leakage: Reduces the risk to near zero if implemented correctly and consistently. This is the most direct and effective mitigation for this specific threat.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Environment variables are used, but the checks are not consistently applied to all bogus usage.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Comprehensive and consistent application of environment checks around every instance of bogus usage.
    • Unit tests specifically verifying the environment checks.

Mitigation Strategy: Controlled Seeding Strategy

  • Description:

    1. Avoid Hardcoded Seeds: Never hardcode seeds directly within the code that will be shared or deployed.
    2. Default Seeding (Usually Best): In most cases, do not explicitly seed bogus. Allow it to use its default seeding mechanism (typically based on the current time). This provides sufficient randomness for most development and testing scenarios.
    3. Isolated Seeding (Reproducible Tests): For tests that absolutely require reproducible data:
      • Use a mechanism completely separate from the main application code. This could be:
        • A dedicated configuration file only loaded during those specific tests (and excluded from version control or production builds).
        • Environment variables set only when running those tests.
        • Command-line arguments passed to the test runner.
      • Ensure the seed itself is not committed to the main code repository.
    4. Cryptographically Secure Random Number Generator (If Seeding): If you must provide a seed programmatically, use a cryptographically secure random number generator to create it. Do not use simple random number generators or predictable values like timestamps.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Predictability: (Severity: Medium) - Prevents attackers from predicting future generated values by avoiding deterministic or easily guessable seeds.

  • Impact:

    • Predictability: Significantly reduces the risk of predictable data generation.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Hardcoded seeds are generally avoided.
    • Default bogus seeding is used in most cases.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • A consistent, well-defined strategy for isolated seeding in reproducible tests is not fully implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: bogus-Specific Code Reviews and Static Analysis

  • Description:

    1. Targeted Code Reviews: During code reviews, specifically look for:
      • Any usage of bogus outside of allowed contexts (test files, development-only code blocks).
      • Violations of the controlled seeding strategy (hardcoded seeds, insecure random number generators).
      • Missing or incorrect environment checks around bogus usage.
    2. Custom Static Analysis Rules: Configure static analysis tools (e.g., ESLint, SonarQube) with custom rules to:
      • Flag any import or usage of bogus outside of designated directories (e.g., test/, spec/).
      • Detect hardcoded seeds passed to bogus.
      • Enforce the use of environment checks around bogus calls.
    3. Automated Enforcement: Integrate these static analysis checks into the CI/CD pipeline to automatically prevent merging code that violates the rules.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Data Leakage (Production Exposure): (Severity: Critical) - Acts as a secondary defense against accidental bogus usage in production.
    • Predictability: (Severity: Medium) - Helps enforce the use of secure seeding practices.

  • Impact: * Data Leakage: Significantly reduces the risk when combined with environment checks. * Predictability: Reduces the risk of predictable data.

  • Currently Implemented: * General code reviews are in place. * ESLint is used, but without bogus-specific rules.

  • Missing Implementation: * Custom ESLint rules specifically targeting bogus usage. * Integration of these rules into the CI/CD pipeline.