Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
150 lines (116 loc) · 12.2 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

150 lines (116 loc) · 12.2 KB

Threat Model Analysis for dotnet/orleans

Threat: Silo Impersonation

  • Threat: Silo Impersonation

    • Description: An attacker introduces a rogue silo into the Orleans cluster. This rogue silo could intercept messages intended for legitimate grains, modify grain state, inject malicious code, or launch further attacks against the system.
    • Impact: Complete system compromise, data breaches, denial of service, and potential for lateral movement to other systems.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Cluster membership management, Silo-to-silo communication.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Enable and require TLS for all silo-to-silo communication.
      • Implement a secure membership protocol that requires authentication and authorization for new silos joining the cluster. This often involves using a trusted certificate authority (CA) for silo certificates.
      • Continuously monitor cluster membership for unexpected changes or unauthorized silos. Alert on any deviations from the expected configuration.

Threat: Grain State Tampering (via Malicious Grain)

  • Threat: Grain State Tampering (via Malicious Grain)

    • Description: A compromised or intentionally malicious grain sends invalid or crafted messages to other grains, attempting to corrupt their state, trigger unexpected behavior, or exploit vulnerabilities in their message handling logic.
    • Impact: Data corruption, denial of service, potential for code execution within the target grain, and cascading failures.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain communication (message passing), Grain state management, Grain method implementation.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Implement rigorous input validation and sanitization in every grain's message handlers. Never trust input from other grains, even within the same cluster.
      • Use immutable data structures for grain state whenever possible to reduce the risk of unintended modification.
      • Apply the principle of least privilege: grains should only have access to the resources (other grains, storage, etc.) they absolutely require.
      • Consider sandboxing techniques or separate AppDomains (if feasible and performance allows) to isolate grains with different trust levels.

Threat: Grain State Tampering (via Storage)

  • Threat: Grain State Tampering (via Storage)

    • Description: An attacker gains direct access to the persistent storage provider (e.g., Azure Table Storage, SQL Server) used by Orleans and modifies grain state directly, bypassing Orleans's internal mechanisms and security checks.
    • Impact: Data corruption, unauthorized modification of application state, potential for bypassing security controls implemented within grains.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain persistence (storage providers), Grain state management.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Secure the storage provider using strong access controls (e.g., RBAC, IAM roles).
      • Encrypt data at rest and in transit to/from the storage provider.
      • Implement integrity checks on grain state loaded from storage. This could involve using cryptographic hashes or digital signatures to detect unauthorized modifications.
      • Choose a storage provider that supports transactional updates to ensure data consistency and prevent partial writes.

Threat: Message Tampering (in transit)

  • Threat: Message Tampering (in transit)

    • Description: An attacker intercepts and modifies messages exchanged between grains or between clients and silos. This could involve altering message contents, reordering messages, or injecting malicious messages.
    • Impact: Data corruption, unauthorized actions, denial of service, potential for man-in-the-middle attacks.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain communication (message passing), Client-to-silo communication, Silo-to-silo communication.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use TLS for all communication: client-to-silo and silo-to-silo. This is crucial for protecting message confidentiality and integrity.
      • For highly sensitive data, consider using message-level encryption or digital signatures in addition to TLS.

Threat: Grain Overload (DoS)

  • Threat: Grain Overload (DoS)

    • Description: An attacker sends a large number of requests to a specific grain, overwhelming its resources (CPU, memory, network) and preventing it from processing legitimate requests.
    • Impact: Denial of service for the targeted grain and potentially for other grains hosted on the same silo.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain activation, Message processing, Scheduling.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Implement rate limiting and throttling mechanisms within grains to limit the number of requests processed per unit of time.
      • Utilize Orleans' built-in load shedding capabilities to automatically reject requests when a grain is overloaded.
      • Design grains to handle high load gracefully by using asynchronous operations and avoiding long-running or blocking calls.
      • Consider using a circuit breaker pattern to prevent cascading failures by temporarily stopping requests to an overloaded grain.

Threat: Silo Overload (DoS)

  • Threat: Silo Overload (DoS)

    • Description: An attacker targets a specific silo with a high volume of requests or malicious traffic, causing it to become unresponsive or crash.
    • Impact: Denial of service for all grains hosted on the targeted silo, potential for cluster instability.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Silo hosting, Networking, Resource management.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use load balancing across multiple silos to distribute the workload and prevent any single silo from becoming a bottleneck.
      • Implement resource limits (CPU, memory, network) and monitoring for each silo.
      • Design the system to be resilient to silo failures. Orleans automatically reactivates grains on other silos when a silo fails, but this should be tested and monitored.

Threat: Storage Overload (DoS)

  • Threat: Storage Overload (DoS)

    • Description: An attacker floods the persistent storage provider (e.g., database, cloud storage) with a large number of read or write requests, making it unavailable or slow for legitimate operations.
    • Impact: Denial of service for all grains that rely on the affected storage provider, potential for data loss or corruption if the storage provider becomes completely unavailable.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain persistence (storage providers).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Choose a scalable and resilient storage provider that can handle high loads and has built-in mechanisms for dealing with overload (e.g., auto-scaling, throttling).
      • Implement rate limiting and throttling for storage access within grains.
      • Continuously monitor storage performance and capacity, and proactively scale the storage provider as needed.

Threat: Orleans Streams Overload (DoS)

  • Threat: Orleans Streams Overload (DoS)

    • Description: An attacker sends a massive number of events to an Orleans Stream, overwhelming the stream provider and consumers, leading to message loss or processing delays.
    • Impact: Denial of service for stream consumers, potential data loss, disruption of event-driven workflows.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Orleans Streams (providers and consumers).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Select an appropriate stream provider and configure it for the expected load and resilience requirements.
      • Implement backpressure mechanisms to allow consumers to signal to producers when they are overloaded, slowing down the event flow.
      • Use multiple stream partitions to distribute the load across multiple consumers and storage resources.
      • Implement error handling and retry logic in stream consumers to handle transient failures.

Threat: Unauthorized Grain Activation

  • Threat: Unauthorized Grain Activation

    • Description: An attacker attempts to activate a grain that they should not have access to, potentially bypassing security controls or gaining access to sensitive data.
    • Impact: Unauthorized access to data or functionality, potential for privilege escalation.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain activation, Grain factory.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Implement authorization checks within grains to verify that the caller (client or another grain) is authorized to activate the grain or invoke specific methods.
      • Avoid using easily guessable or predictable grain IDs.
      • Consider using a custom IGrainActivator or IIncomingGrainCallFilter to enforce fine-grained security policies during grain activation.

Threat: Exploiting Grain Vulnerabilities (Elevation of Privilege)

  • Threat: Exploiting Grain Vulnerabilities (Elevation of Privilege)

    • Description: An attacker exploits a vulnerability in a grain's code (e.g., a buffer overflow, injection flaw, logic error) to gain elevated privileges within the silo or the cluster.
    • Impact: Code execution within the silo, potential for complete system compromise, data breaches, lateral movement.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain method implementation, Grain code.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Follow secure coding practices when developing grains. This includes input validation, output encoding, proper error handling, and avoiding common vulnerabilities (e.g., OWASP Top 10).
      • Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities.
      • Keep Orleans and all its dependencies (including the .NET runtime) up to date to patch known security vulnerabilities.
      • Use static analysis tools to automatically scan grain code for potential security issues.

Threat: Grain Identity Spoofing

  • Threat: Grain Identity Spoofing

    • Description: An attacker crafts messages with a forged grain ID, attempting to impersonate a legitimate grain. They might do this by guessing grain IDs (if predictable), replaying captured messages (if not properly secured), or exploiting a vulnerability that allows them to generate arbitrary grain IDs.
    • Impact: The attacker can execute actions as the impersonated grain, potentially accessing sensitive data, modifying state, or triggering unauthorized operations. This could lead to data breaches, financial loss, or system compromise.
    • Orleans Component Affected: Grain communication (message passing), Grain ID generation (if custom keying is used), Grain activation.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use strong, unpredictable grain IDs (GUIDs are the default and generally sufficient).
      • Avoid custom grain keying schemes that use sequential or easily guessable IDs.
      • Implement authentication and authorization within the grain's methods, validating the caller's identity even if the client is authenticated at the application boundary. Don't rely solely on client-side authentication.
      • If inter-silo communication is sensitive, consider using signed messages or mutual TLS (mTLS) to prevent spoofing between silos.