Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
93 lines (78 loc) · 14.6 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

93 lines (78 loc) · 14.6 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for microsoft/semantic-kernel

Attack Surface: Malicious Plugin Injection

  • Description: Injecting and loading malicious plugins into the Semantic Kernel application, exploiting Semantic Kernel's plugin loading mechanism.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel's design allows dynamic loading of plugins from various sources. If the application doesn't strictly control these sources, it directly enables the injection of malicious code through the plugin system.
  • Example: An attacker exploits a vulnerability in the application's plugin path handling to load a malicious plugin from a user-controlled location. This plugin executes arbitrary code within the Semantic Kernel application's context.
  • Impact: Full application compromise, data exfiltration, remote code execution, system takeover.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Plugin Source Control: Semantic Kernel applications must load plugins only from explicitly trusted and verified sources. Hardcode plugin paths or use internal, curated repositories.
    • Input Validation and Sanitization (Plugin Paths): If plugin paths are dynamically determined (discouraged), Semantic Kernel applications must rigorously validate and sanitize any input used to construct plugin paths to prevent path traversal and injection.
    • Plugin Sandboxing/Isolation: Semantic Kernel applications should implement sandboxing or isolation mechanisms to limit the capabilities and access of plugins, minimizing the impact of a compromised plugin.
    • Code Review and Security Audits (Plugins): Developers using Semantic Kernel must conduct thorough code reviews and security audits of all plugins, especially those not developed in-house, before integration.

Attack Surface: Plugin Code Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities within the code of plugins used by Semantic Kernel, leveraging the execution context provided by Semantic Kernel.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel executes plugin code. Vulnerabilities within these plugins become directly exploitable within the application's runtime environment facilitated by Semantic Kernel.
  • Example: A Semantic Kernel application uses a plugin with an unpatched dependency containing a remote code execution vulnerability. An attacker crafts a prompt that triggers the vulnerable code path within the plugin, leading to system compromise via Semantic Kernel's plugin execution.
  • Impact: Plugin-specific compromise, potentially leading to broader application compromise, data breaches, unauthorized access to resources managed by the plugin.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Plugin Development Practices: Developers creating Semantic Kernel plugins must adhere to secure coding practices, including input validation, output encoding, and regular vulnerability testing.
    • Dependency Management (Plugins): Developers and users of Semantic Kernel plugins must diligently manage plugin dependencies, keeping them updated and scanning for known vulnerabilities.
    • Regular Plugin Security Audits: Organizations using Semantic Kernel should conduct regular security audits and penetration testing specifically targeting plugins to identify and remediate vulnerabilities within the plugin ecosystem.
    • Vulnerability Scanning (Plugins): Implement automated vulnerability scanning for plugin code and their dependencies as part of the Semantic Kernel application's security pipeline.

Attack Surface: Prompt Injection

  • Description: Manipulating the behavior of the Large Language Model (LLM) integrated with Semantic Kernel by injecting malicious instructions or prompts through user input, bypassing intended application logic within Semantic Kernel.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel's core functionality revolves around prompt orchestration and interaction with LLMs. If user input is directly incorporated into prompts without proper handling, Semantic Kernel applications become directly vulnerable to prompt injection attacks.
  • Example: A user provides input designed to override the intended prompt structure within a Semantic Kernel skill. This injected prompt manipulates the LLM to perform actions outside the application's intended scope, such as revealing sensitive data or executing unauthorized commands.
  • Impact: Information disclosure, unauthorized actions, manipulation of application logic, reputation damage, jailbreaking the LLM, bypassing Semantic Kernel's intended functionality.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Robust Prompt Sanitization and Validation: Semantic Kernel applications must implement rigorous input sanitization and validation before incorporating user input into prompts. Employ techniques like input filtering, escaping, and content security policies.
    • Contextual Awareness and Prompt Engineering (Defensive Prompts): Developers using Semantic Kernel should design prompts defensively, incorporating clear instructions and context to guide the LLM and minimize the effectiveness of injection attempts.
    • Output Validation and Filtering (LLM Responses): Semantic Kernel applications should validate and filter LLM outputs to detect and mitigate potentially harmful or unintended responses resulting from prompt injection, before presenting them to users or acting upon them.
    • Principle of Least Privilege for LLM Access (within Semantic Kernel): Limit the LLM's access to sensitive data and functionalities within the Semantic Kernel application to minimize the potential damage from successful prompt injection.

Attack Surface: Connector Credential Exposure

  • Description: Exposing or insecurely storing credentials (API keys, tokens, connection strings) used by Semantic Kernel connectors to access external services, due to improper handling within the Semantic Kernel application.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel relies on connectors to interact with external services. If the application's configuration or code handling connector credentials is weak, Semantic Kernel applications directly contribute to the risk of credential exposure.
  • Example: Connector credentials for accessing a vector database are stored in plain text within a configuration file accessible to unauthorized users or are inadvertently logged by the Semantic Kernel application. An attacker gains access to these credentials and compromises the connected service.
  • Impact: Unauthorized access to external services, data breaches in connected services, financial costs due to service abuse, service disruption, compromise of systems connected via Semantic Kernel.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Credential Storage (Semantic Kernel Configuration): Semantic Kernel applications must utilize secure credential storage mechanisms like secrets management solutions (e.g., Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault) or environment variables. Never hardcode credentials in code or configuration files directly accessible within the application.
    • Principle of Least Privilege for Credentials (Connectors): Configure Semantic Kernel connectors with the minimum necessary permissions to access external services, limiting the potential impact of credential compromise.
    • Credential Rotation (Connectors): Implement regular rotation of connector credentials to reduce the window of opportunity if credentials are compromised.
    • Access Control for Credentials (Configuration Management): Restrict access to credential storage and configuration management systems used by Semantic Kernel applications to authorized personnel and processes only.

Attack Surface: Data Exfiltration via Connectors

  • Description: Manipulating Semantic Kernel connectors to exfiltrate sensitive data processed by the application to external, attacker-controlled locations, exploiting connector functionality within Semantic Kernel.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel manages data flow through connectors. Vulnerabilities or misconfigurations in connector logic within a Semantic Kernel application can be exploited to redirect data flow and facilitate data exfiltration.
  • Example: An attacker compromises a custom connector used by a Semantic Kernel application or exploits a vulnerability in its data handling logic to redirect sensitive data intended for internal processing to an external server controlled by the attacker.
  • Impact: Data breach, privacy violation, loss of confidential information, unauthorized disclosure of data processed by Semantic Kernel.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Connector Output Validation and Control: Semantic Kernel connector implementations must rigorously validate and control the destination of data output by connectors, ensuring data is only sent to intended and authorized locations.
    • Data Flow Monitoring and Auditing (Connectors): Implement monitoring and logging of data flow through Semantic Kernel connectors, tracking data transfer activities for auditing and security analysis to detect anomalies and potential exfiltration attempts.
    • Principle of Least Privilege for Connector Data Access: Grant Semantic Kernel connectors only the necessary access to data and restrict their ability to transfer data to unauthorized or external locations.
    • Secure Connector Development Practices: Developers creating Semantic Kernel connectors must adhere to secure coding practices to prevent vulnerabilities that could be exploited for data exfiltration, paying special attention to data handling and output mechanisms.

Attack Surface: Insecure Configuration (Leading to High Impact)

  • Description: Using insecure default configurations or misconfiguring Semantic Kernel application settings in ways that directly lead to high-impact vulnerabilities, such as enabling malicious plugin loading or exposing sensitive functionalities.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel's flexibility relies on configuration. Insecure default configurations or misconfigurations within a Semantic Kernel application can directly create pathways for critical vulnerabilities.
  • Example: A Semantic Kernel application is misconfigured to load plugins from a world-writable directory, or default security settings are not hardened, allowing for easy exploitation of other vulnerabilities like plugin injection or unintended functionality exposure.
  • Impact: Varies depending on the specific misconfiguration, potentially leading to full application compromise, data exfiltration, remote code execution, or denial of service, stemming directly from the configuration weakness.
  • Risk Severity: High (when misconfiguration leads to high-impact vulnerabilities)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Default Configurations (Semantic Kernel): Semantic Kernel applications should be deployed with secure default configurations. Review and harden default settings before deployment.
    • Configuration Hardening (Semantic Kernel Specific Settings): Focus on hardening Semantic Kernel specific configurations, such as plugin loading paths, access control settings, and connector configurations, following security best practices.
    • Configuration Validation (Automated Checks): Implement automated configuration validation checks during application startup to detect and prevent insecure settings in the Semantic Kernel application.
    • Configuration Management (Version Control and Auditing): Utilize secure configuration management practices, including version control, access control, and regular security reviews of Semantic Kernel configurations to prevent and detect misconfigurations.

Attack Surface: Unintended Plugin Functionality Exposure (High Impact Scenarios)

  • Description: Unintentionally exposing sensitive or high-risk plugin functionalities through the Semantic Kernel interface, leading to potential abuse and significant security impact.
  • Semantic Kernel Contribution: Semantic Kernel's plugin exposure mechanisms, if not carefully managed, can inadvertently make powerful or sensitive plugin functions accessible in ways not originally intended, creating a high-risk attack surface.
  • Example: A plugin contains a function designed for internal system administration tasks. Due to misconfiguration or lack of proper access control within the Semantic Kernel application, this function becomes accessible through user prompts, allowing an attacker to execute privileged commands or access sensitive system resources via Semantic Kernel.
  • Impact: Data disclosure, unauthorized actions, business logic bypass, privilege escalation, potentially leading to system compromise if highly sensitive functionalities are exposed.
  • Risk Severity: High (when sensitive functionalities are unintentionally exposed)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Principle of Least Privilege for Plugin Exposure: Carefully define and strictly control which plugin functionalities are exposed through the Semantic Kernel interface. Expose only the absolutely necessary functions.
    • Access Control Mechanisms (Plugin Function Level): Implement robust access control mechanisms within the Semantic Kernel application to restrict access to plugin functionalities based on user roles, permissions, or other authorization policies.
    • Functionality Scoping and Documentation (Security Focused): Clearly define the intended scope and security implications of each plugin function. Document the intended usage and security risks associated with each exposed function to guide secure integration and usage within Semantic Kernel applications.
    • Regular Security Reviews of Plugin Exposure (Functionality Audit): Periodically review the exposed plugin functionalities and access controls within the Semantic Kernel application to ensure they remain aligned with security requirements and minimize unintended exposure of sensitive capabilities.