Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
51 lines (42 loc) · 7.56 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

51 lines (42 loc) · 7.56 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for lucasg/dependencies

Attack Surface: Vulnerable Dependencies

  • Description: External libraries used by lucasg/dependencies contain known, exploitable security vulnerabilities.
    • How Dependencies Contribute: lucasg/dependencies directly incorporates external code. Vulnerabilities within these dependencies become direct pathways for attackers to compromise lucasg/dependencies.
    • Example: A dependency used for parsing YAML files has a critical remote code execution vulnerability. Processing a maliciously crafted YAML dependency file could allow an attacker to gain complete control of the system running lucasg/dependencies.
    • Impact: Critical: Full system compromise, arbitrary code execution, complete data breach, denial of service.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Mandatory Automated Dependency Scanning: Implement and enforce automated dependency vulnerability scanning in the CI/CD pipeline, failing builds on detection of critical or high severity vulnerabilities.
      • Proactive Vulnerability Monitoring & Patching: Establish a dedicated process for continuously monitoring security advisories for all direct and transitive dependencies and immediately patching or mitigating identified critical vulnerabilities.
      • Dependency Version Pinning & Controlled Updates: Pin dependency versions to known secure versions and implement a rigorous process for evaluating and testing updates, prioritizing security patches for critical vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Dependency Confusion/Substitution Attacks (High Severity Scenario)

  • Description: Attackers successfully substitute a legitimate private dependency with a malicious package hosted on a public repository due to misconfiguration or vulnerabilities in the dependency resolution process.
    • How Dependencies Contribute: Exploits the trust placed in dependency names and the potential for misdirection in dependency resolution, leading to the installation of attacker-controlled code instead of intended libraries.
    • Example: lucasg/dependencies is intended to use a private, internal library named core-security-lib. An attacker publishes a malicious package named core-security-lib to PyPI. Due to misconfigured repository priorities or lack of private repository usage, pip installs the malicious PyPI package, granting the attacker access to the application's environment.
    • Impact: High: Introduction of malicious code into the application, potential for backdoors, data exfiltration, or supply chain compromise affecting projects analyzed by lucasg/dependencies.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Enforce Private Package Repositories for Internal Dependencies: Mandate the use of private package repositories for all internal or proprietary dependencies and strictly control access.
      • Restrict Public Repository Access: Configure dependency management tools to only access explicitly trusted and necessary public repositories, and never by default.
      • Mandatory Package Verification with Hashes: Implement and enforce package verification using hashes (e.g., pip's --hash option or requirements.txt hash entries) to guarantee the integrity and authenticity of downloaded packages, preventing substitution.

Attack Surface: Supply Chain Attacks via Compromised Upstream Dependencies

  • Description: Critical vulnerabilities or malicious code are introduced into lucasg/dependencies through a compromise of an upstream dependency at its source (developer account, build system, repository compromise).
    • How Dependencies Contribute: lucasg/dependencies inherently trusts and relies on the integrity of its dependency chain. A compromise at any point upstream directly injects risk into lucasg/dependencies.
    • Example: A widely used, seemingly benign utility library deep in the dependency tree of lucasg/dependencies is compromised. Malicious code is injected into a new version of this utility library. When lucasg/dependencies or a project it analyzes updates dependencies, this compromised library is pulled in, introducing a backdoor or data exfiltration capability.
    • Impact: Critical: Widespread compromise affecting lucasg/dependencies and potentially numerous downstream projects it analyzes, deep and persistent backdoors, large-scale data breaches, severe reputational damage.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Rigorous Dependency Provenance Assessment: Implement a process to thoroughly assess the provenance, security practices, and reputation of all direct dependencies, and periodically review critical transitive dependencies.
      • Subresource Integrity (SRI) Principles & Dependency Signing (Future): Explore and advocate for stronger dependency integrity mechanisms like SRI principles or dependency signing to cryptographically verify the authenticity and integrity of dependencies throughout the supply chain.
      • Minimize Dependency Footprint: Actively work to minimize the number of dependencies used by lucasg/dependencies, reducing the overall attack surface and complexity of the dependency chain.
      • Regular & Deep Dependency Audits: Conduct regular, in-depth audits of the entire dependency tree, including transitive dependencies, to identify and assess potential risks and unexpected dependencies.

Attack Surface: Transitive Dependencies (High Severity Vulnerabilities)

  • Description: Critical or high severity vulnerabilities exist within transitive dependencies (indirect dependencies), which are often overlooked and harder to track than direct dependencies.
    • How Dependencies Contribute: lucasg/dependencies indirectly relies on a complex web of transitive dependencies. Vulnerabilities deep within this web can be exploited, even if lucasg/dependencies is directly secure.
    • Example: lucasg/dependencies directly depends on library X. Library X depends on library Y. Library Y contains a critical SQL injection vulnerability. Even if lucasg/dependencies and X are secure, lucasg/dependencies becomes vulnerable through the transitive dependency Y if it processes data that reaches the vulnerable code in Y.
    • Impact: High: Hidden and often overlooked vulnerabilities leading to potential system compromise, data breaches, or denial of service through indirect dependency paths.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Comprehensive Transitive Dependency Scanning: Ensure dependency scanning tools are configured to deeply scan all transitive dependencies for vulnerabilities, not just direct dependencies.
      • Dependency Tree Visualization & Management: Utilize tools to visualize and understand the full dependency tree, including transitive dependencies, to better manage and monitor the entire dependency landscape.
      • Proactive Transitive Dependency Monitoring: Extend vulnerability monitoring and patching processes to include critical transitive dependencies, recognizing their potential impact even if indirectly used.