Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
80 lines (67 loc) · 10.5 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

80 lines (67 loc) · 10.5 KB

Threat Model Analysis for quantconnect/lean

Threat: Malicious Algorithm Injection (via Lean Interface)

  • Threat: Malicious Algorithm Injection (via Lean Interface)
    • Description: An attacker exploits a vulnerability within Lean's algorithm loading or execution mechanisms to inject and run a malicious algorithm. This differs from the previous "Malicious Algorithm Injection" in that it focuses on vulnerabilities within Lean itself, not just the surrounding deployment environment. For example, a flaw in how Lean handles user-provided algorithm code (if that's a feature) could be exploited.
    • Impact: Complete loss of funds, market manipulation, data breach, legal and regulatory consequences, reputational damage. Control over the Lean instance.
    • Affected Lean Component: AlgorithmManager, IAlgorithm interface (handling and execution of the algorithm), any Lean components responsible for loading or compiling user-provided code.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Input Validation: If Lean accepts algorithm code from external sources (e.g., user uploads, API calls), extremely rigorous validation and sanitization are crucial. Consider sandboxing or running the code in a highly restricted environment.
      • Code Signing (Internal): Even for internally managed algorithms, code signing can help prevent unauthorized modifications.
      • Vulnerability Scanning of Lean: Regularly scan the Lean codebase itself for vulnerabilities related to code execution and input handling.
      • Limit Algorithm Capabilities: Restrict the permissions and capabilities of algorithms running within Lean (e.g., network access, file system access).

Threat: Algorithm Logic Flaw - Unintended Market Manipulation (High Impact)

  • Threat: Algorithm Logic Flaw - Unintended Market Manipulation (High Impact)
    • Description: A developer unintentionally introduces a bug into the algorithm's logic that interacts with Lean's core order handling in a way that causes severe market disruption. This is specifically about flaws that leverage Lean's features to amplify the negative impact. For example, a bug that causes rapid-fire order placement through Lean's brokerage integration could be more impactful than a simple logic error.
    • Impact: Major market disruption (e.g., flash crash), significant financial losses, severe regulatory fines, reputational damage.
    • Affected Lean Component: IAlgorithm implementation (the flawed algorithm code), QCAlgorithm methods related to order placement (PlaceOrder, MarketOrder, etc.), IBrokerage implementations (how orders are sent to the market).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Enhanced Code Review (Lean-Specific): Focus code reviews on the interaction between the algorithm and Lean's order handling, brokerage integration, and data feed components.
      • Stress Testing (Lean Integration): Specifically test the algorithm's behavior under extreme market conditions and high order volumes within the Lean environment.
      • Lean-Specific Circuit Breakers: Implement circuit breakers within Lean itself that can detect and halt algorithms exhibiting dangerous behavior related to order placement or market interaction.
      • Transaction Rate Limiting (within Lean): Consider adding rate limiting features directly within Lean's brokerage integration to prevent algorithms from overwhelming the market.

Threat: Data Feed Poisoning - Exploiting Lean's Data Handling

  • Threat: Data Feed Poisoning - Exploiting Lean's Data Handling
    • Description: An attacker compromises the data feed and injects false data, specifically targeting vulnerabilities or weaknesses in how Lean processes and handles this data. This goes beyond simply providing bad data; it focuses on exploiting how Lean interprets or uses that data. For example, if Lean has a vulnerability in how it handles certain data types or edge cases, the attacker could craft malicious data to trigger that vulnerability.
    • Impact: Incorrect trading decisions leading to significant losses, potential exploitation of the Lean engine itself (if the data poisoning triggers a vulnerability).
    • Affected Lean Component: IDataFeed implementation, BaseData derived classes, HistoryProvider, any Lean components involved in data parsing, validation, and storage.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Robust Data Validation (within Lean): Implement very strict data validation checks within Lean's data handling components to detect and reject anomalous or potentially malicious data. This goes beyond simple range checks; it should include checks for data type consistency, expected patterns, and potential exploits.
      • Fuzz Testing of Lean's Data Handlers: Use fuzz testing techniques to identify vulnerabilities in how Lean processes different types of market data.
      • Redundant Data Feeds (with Lean-Level Comparison): Implement logic within Lean to compare data from multiple feeds and detect discrepancies.
      • Secure Data Deserialization: If Lean deserializes data from external sources, ensure that this process is secure and resistant to injection attacks.

Threat: Brokerage API Key Leakage (from Lean's Configuration)

  • Threat: Brokerage API Key Leakage (from Lean's Configuration)
    • Description: An attacker gains access to the API keys used by Lean specifically by exploiting a vulnerability in how Lean stores or manages these keys. This is distinct from general key leakage; it focuses on weaknesses within Lean's configuration system. For example, if Lean stores keys in an insecure format or has a vulnerability that allows unauthorized access to its configuration files, this would be the threat.
    • Impact: Unauthorized access to the brokerage account, potential complete loss of funds, access to sensitive account information.
    • Affected Lean Component: Brokerage implementations (how they access and use keys), Lean's configuration management system (e.g., config.json handling, environment variable handling).
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Secure Configuration Storage (within Lean): Review and harden how Lean stores and accesses sensitive configuration data, including API keys. Consider using a secure vault or key management service integrated with Lean.
      • Vulnerability Scanning of Lean's Configuration System: Specifically scan Lean for vulnerabilities related to configuration file handling and access control.
      • Least Privilege (Lean's Access to Keys): Ensure that Lean itself only has the minimum necessary access to the API keys.
      • Audit Trail for Key Access (within Lean): Implement logging within Lean to track when and how API keys are accessed.

Threat: Lean Library Vulnerability Exploitation (High Impact)

  • Threat: Lean Library Vulnerability Exploitation (High Impact)
    • Description: An attacker exploits a high-impact vulnerability in the Lean library or one of its core dependencies to gain control of the system, modify algorithm behavior, or steal data. This focuses on vulnerabilities that directly affect Lean's core functionality, not just peripheral components.
    • Impact: Remote code execution, data breach, algorithm manipulation, denial of service, specifically impacting the core trading operations managed by Lean.
    • Affected Lean Component: Potentially any critical part of the Lean library or its essential dependencies (e.g., those involved in order handling, data processing, brokerage communication).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Prioritized Updates: Immediately apply security updates for Lean and its core dependencies.
      • Targeted Vulnerability Scanning: Focus vulnerability scanning efforts on the critical components of Lean and its essential dependencies.
      • Dependency Analysis: Carefully analyze the dependencies of Lean and identify those that are most critical to its core functionality. Prioritize security reviews and updates for these dependencies.
      • Runtime Protection: Consider using runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools to detect and prevent exploitation of vulnerabilities in Lean at runtime.

Threat: Backtesting Data Manipulation (Impacting Lean's Integrity)

  • Threat: Backtesting Data Manipulation (Impacting Lean's Integrity)
    • Description: An attacker alters historical data used internally by Lean for backtesting, specifically targeting vulnerabilities in how Lean stores, accesses, or validates this data. This is about compromising the integrity of Lean's backtesting process itself, not just providing bad data.
    • Impact: Deployment of a losing algorithm due to manipulated backtest results, undermining the reliability of Lean's backtesting engine.
    • Affected Lean Component: IDataFeed, HistoryProvider, data storage files managed by Lean, any Lean components involved in loading, caching, or validating backtesting data.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Data Integrity Checks (within Lean): Implement robust data integrity checks within Lean's backtesting components to detect and prevent the use of manipulated data. This could involve checksums, digital signatures, or other techniques.
      • Secure Data Storage (for Lean's Internal Data): Protect the data files used by Lean for backtesting from unauthorized modification, using file system permissions and other security measures.
      • Audit Trail for Backtesting Data (within Lean): Implement logging within Lean to track access to and modifications of backtesting data.
      • Independent Verification of Backtesting Data: Periodically verify the integrity of Lean's backtesting data against independent sources.