Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
145 lines (114 loc) · 13 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

145 lines (114 loc) · 13 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for flutter/packages

Mitigation Strategy: Dependency Scanning and Vulnerability Analysis

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Integrate a dependency scanning tool into your development workflow. This could be a dedicated security scanner or a plugin for your CI/CD pipeline.
    • Step 2: Configure the tool to scan your pubspec.yaml and pubspec.lock files regularly (e.g., daily or with each commit/build).
    • Step 3: The tool will analyze your dependencies against known vulnerability databases (like CVE, NVD).
    • Step 4: The tool will generate reports listing identified vulnerabilities, their severity, and potentially remediation advice.
    • Step 5: Review the reports and prioritize remediation based on vulnerability severity and exploitability.
    • Step 6: Update vulnerable packages to patched versions or implement workarounds if patches are not immediately available.
    • Step 7: Continuously monitor for new vulnerabilities and repeat the scanning and remediation process.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Vulnerable Dependency: Using a package with known security flaws (Severity: High)
    • Transitive Dependency Vulnerability: Vulnerabilities in dependencies of your direct dependencies (Severity: Medium to High)
    • Abandoned Package Vulnerability: Using unmaintained packages with potential unpatched vulnerabilities (Severity: Medium - increasing over time)

  • Impact:

    • Vulnerable Dependency: High Reduction - Directly identifies and allows remediation of known vulnerable packages.
    • Transitive Dependency Vulnerability: Medium to High Reduction - Scanners often detect transitive vulnerabilities, although complete coverage depends on the tool and vulnerability database.
    • Abandoned Package Vulnerability: Medium Reduction - Helps identify vulnerabilities in abandoned packages, prompting developers to find alternatives or fork and maintain the package.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Implemented in: CI/CD Pipeline (using a hypothetical security scanning tool integration)
    • Details: A basic security scan is run on each pull request and nightly build, reporting vulnerabilities found in dependencies.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing in: Local Development Environment, Regular Scheduled Scans outside of CI/CD.
    • Reason: Currently, scans are only triggered by code changes in CI/CD. Developers are not proactively scanning locally, and scheduled scans outside of CI/CD are not set up for continuous monitoring.

Mitigation Strategy: Regular Package Updates and Monitoring

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Establish a schedule for regularly checking for package updates (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly).
    • Step 2: Use the flutter pub outdated command to identify packages with available updates.
    • Step 3: Review the changelogs and release notes of updated packages to understand changes, including security fixes and bug fixes.
    • Step 4: Test your application thoroughly after updating packages to ensure compatibility and prevent regressions.
    • Step 5: Prioritize updating packages with security-related updates or critical bug fixes.
    • Step 6: Subscribe to package update notifications or monitor package repositories (e.g., GitHub) for announcements of security updates.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Vulnerable Dependency: Reduces the window of exposure to known vulnerabilities by promptly applying patches (Severity: High)
    • Abandoned Package Vulnerability: Encourages migration away from unmaintained packages if updates cease (Severity: Medium)
    • Zero-Day Vulnerabilities (Proactive): While not directly mitigating zero-days, staying updated reduces the time to patch once a vulnerability is disclosed (Severity: High - potential for faster patching)

  • Impact:

    • Vulnerable Dependency: High Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk by applying security patches promptly.
    • Abandoned Package Vulnerability: Low to Medium Reduction - Identifies packages that are not being updated, prompting further investigation and potential replacement.
    • Zero-Day Vulnerabilities (Proactive): Low Reduction - Reduces the time to patch after disclosure, but doesn't prevent zero-day exploitation before a patch is available.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Implemented in: Development Team's Weekly Workflow
    • Details: Developers are instructed to run flutter pub outdated weekly and review updates before merging code.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing in: Automated Update Checks, Centralized Update Tracking, Formalized Update Policy.
    • Reason: The update process is currently manual and relies on individual developers remembering to check. There's no automated system to track package update status or enforce a consistent update policy across the project.

Mitigation Strategy: Dependency Pinning with pubspec.lock

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Ensure that the pubspec.lock file is always committed to your version control system (e.g., Git).
    • Step 2: Treat pubspec.lock as a critical part of your codebase.
    • Step 3: During dependency updates, carefully review the changes in pubspec.lock to understand the specific version changes being introduced.
    • Step 4: Avoid manually modifying pubspec.lock unless you fully understand the consequences. Let flutter pub get or flutter pub upgrade manage the lock file.
    • Step 5: In your CI/CD pipeline, ensure that builds are performed using flutter pub get to respect the locked dependency versions in pubspec.lock.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Unexpected Dependency Updates: Prevents builds from breaking or introducing unexpected vulnerabilities due to automatic, uncontrolled dependency updates (Severity: Medium)
    • Supply Chain Attacks (Version Tampering): Reduces the risk of using a compromised version of a package if the lock file is properly managed and reviewed (Severity: Medium - limited protection against initial compromise, but prevents propagation)
    • Dependency Confusion/Typosquatting (Indirect): If combined with careful review, can help detect unexpected dependency changes that might indicate dependency confusion (Severity: Low - indirect benefit)

  • Impact:

    • Unexpected Dependency Updates: High Reduction - Completely eliminates the risk of builds being affected by uncontrolled dependency version changes.
    • Supply Chain Attacks (Version Tampering): Medium Reduction - Provides a degree of protection by ensuring consistent dependency versions across environments and making unexpected changes more noticeable during review.
    • Dependency Confusion/Typosquatting (Indirect): Low Reduction - Offers a slight indirect benefit by making unexpected dependency changes more visible during lock file review.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Implemented in: Version Control System (Git), CI/CD Pipeline
    • Details: pubspec.lock is committed to Git, and CI/CD uses flutter pub get.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing in: Formalized Lock File Review Process, Automated Lock File Integrity Checks.
    • Reason: While pubspec.lock is committed, there's no formal process to review changes in the lock file during updates. Automated integrity checks to ensure the lock file hasn't been tampered with are also not in place.

Mitigation Strategy: Selective Package Usage and Minimal Dependencies

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Before adding any new package, thoroughly evaluate its necessity.
    • Step 2: Consider if the desired functionality can be implemented in-house or by refactoring existing code.
    • Step 3: If a package is necessary, research and compare different packages offering similar functionality.
    • Step 4: Choose packages with a narrow scope and minimal dependencies themselves.
    • Step 5: Favor packages that are actively maintained, well-documented, and have a strong community.
    • Step 6: Avoid "kitchen sink" packages that offer a wide range of features, as they increase the attack surface.
    • Step 7: Regularly review your project's dependencies and remove any packages that are no longer needed.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Increased Attack Surface: Reduces the overall codebase and number of dependencies, minimizing potential entry points for attackers (Severity: Medium)
    • Transitive Dependency Vulnerability: By reducing the number of dependencies, you indirectly reduce the risk of transitive vulnerabilities (Severity: Medium)
    • Malicious Package (Reduced Exposure): Decreases the chance of accidentally including a malicious package by limiting the total number of packages used (Severity: Low to Medium - reduces probability)
    • Abandoned Package Vulnerability: By selecting actively maintained packages, you reduce the risk of relying on unpatched, vulnerable code (Severity: Medium)

  • Impact:

    • Increased Attack Surface: Medium Reduction - Reduces the overall attack surface by minimizing code and dependencies.
    • Transitive Dependency Vulnerability: Medium Reduction - Indirectly reduces risk by limiting the number of dependencies and their potential transitive dependencies.
    • Malicious Package (Reduced Exposure): Low to Medium Reduction - Reduces the probability of including a malicious package, but doesn't eliminate the risk entirely.
    • Abandoned Package Vulnerability: Medium Reduction - Increases the likelihood of using packages that will receive security updates and bug fixes.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Implemented in: Development Team's Package Selection Process (Informal)
    • Details: Developers are generally encouraged to be mindful of adding new packages, but there's no formal review process or enforced policy.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing in: Formal Package Review Process, Dependency Audit, Dependency Reduction Initiatives.
    • Reason: Package selection is currently ad-hoc. There's no formal process to review new package additions for necessity and security implications. Regular audits to identify and remove unnecessary dependencies are also not conducted.

Mitigation Strategy: Package Source Code Review (For Critical Packages)

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Identify critical packages in your project – those that handle sensitive data, core application logic, or network communication.
    • Step 2: For these critical packages, conduct manual source code reviews.
    • Step 3: Focus on reviewing code sections related to security-sensitive operations, such as data handling, authentication, authorization, and network interactions.
    • Step 4: Look for potential vulnerabilities like injection flaws, insecure data storage, insecure communication, or backdoors.
    • Step 5: Document your findings and report any identified issues to the package maintainers (if appropriate and responsible disclosure is followed).
    • Step 6: If critical vulnerabilities are found and not addressed by maintainers, consider forking the package, contributing fixes, or replacing it with a more secure alternative.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Package (Detection): Increases the chance of detecting intentionally malicious code or backdoors in packages (Severity: Critical)
    • Hidden Vulnerabilities: Can uncover vulnerabilities that are not yet publicly known or listed in vulnerability databases (Severity: High)
    • Insecure Implementation: Identifies insecure coding practices within packages that could lead to vulnerabilities (Severity: Medium to High)

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Package (Detection): High Reduction - Directly aims to detect malicious code through manual inspection.
    • Hidden Vulnerabilities: Medium to High Reduction - Can uncover vulnerabilities missed by automated tools and public databases.
    • Insecure Implementation: Medium Reduction - Identifies and allows for mitigation of insecure coding practices within reviewed packages.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Implemented in: Ad-hoc basis for highly sensitive projects (Limited)
    • Details: Source code reviews are occasionally performed for packages used in projects with extremely high security requirements, but it's not a standard practice.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing in: Standard Development Workflow, Defined Criteria for Package Review, Dedicated Security Review Time.
    • Reason: Source code review is time-consuming and requires specialized skills. It's not currently integrated into the standard development workflow or applied systematically to packages based on risk assessment. There's no dedicated time allocated for these reviews.