Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
133 lines (104 loc) · 10.6 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

133 lines (104 loc) · 10.6 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for go-kratos/kratos

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Kratos Configuration Validation

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Kratos Configuration Validation

Description:

  1. Leverage Kratos' conf Package: Utilize Kratos' built-in configuration loading and management features (typically within the kratos/config or kratos/v2/config packages). This often includes support for loading from various sources (files, environment variables, config servers).
  2. Define Protobuf Configuration: Define your configuration structures using Protobuf (.proto files). Kratos strongly encourages this for type safety and schema definition. This is a key Kratos-specific aspect.
  3. Use Kratos' Validation Features (if available): Explore if Kratos provides built-in validation helpers or integrations with validation libraries specifically for its configuration system. This might involve annotations within your Protobuf definitions.
  4. WithValidate Option (if applicable): If Kratos offers a WithValidate option (or similar) during configuration loading, use it. This often triggers built-in validation mechanisms.
  5. Custom Validation (if needed): If Kratos' built-in validation is insufficient, implement custom validation logic within the Kratos configuration loading process. This ensures validation happens early and consistently.
  6. Fail Fast: Ensure that the Kratos application fails to start if the configuration is invalid. Kratos' Run function should return an error in this case.

Threats Mitigated: * Threat: Injection of malicious configuration values into Kratos components (e.g., middleware, transport settings). * Severity: High - Could lead to complete system compromise. * Threat: Misconfiguration of Kratos-specific features (e.g., service discovery, tracing, logging). * Severity: Medium to High - Could disrupt service operation or security. * Threat: Use of default or insecure Kratos settings. * Severity: High - Could allow unauthorized access or expose vulnerabilities.

Impact: * Malicious configuration: Risk significantly reduced (90-95%). * Kratos misconfiguration: Risk significantly reduced (80-90%). * Default/insecure settings: Risk significantly reduced (90-95%).

Currently Implemented: * Protobuf configuration definitions are used (config/*.proto). * Kratos' config package is used for loading.

Missing Implementation: * WithValidate option (or equivalent) is not explicitly used. Need to investigate and enable if available. * Custom validation for specific Kratos settings (e.g., tracing sampling rate) is missing. Need to add custom validation logic within the configuration loading process.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Kratos Middleware Configuration

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Kratos Middleware Configuration

Description:

  1. Use Kratos' Middleware Framework: Utilize Kratos' built-in middleware framework (kratos/middleware or kratos/v2/middleware) for implementing cross-cutting concerns like authentication, authorization, logging, and tracing. Avoid implementing these functionalities outside of the middleware system.
  2. Configure Middleware via Kratos Config: Configure middleware options through the Kratos configuration system (using Protobuf definitions, as described above). This ensures consistency and allows for centralized management.
  3. Principle of Least Privilege (Middleware): When configuring Kratos middleware (especially authorization), grant only the minimum necessary permissions. Kratos middleware often has specific configuration options for access control.
  4. Kratos Interceptors (gRPC): If using gRPC, leverage Kratos' interceptor mechanism (which is essentially middleware for gRPC) for security-related tasks. This provides a consistent way to handle authentication, authorization, and other cross-cutting concerns.
  5. Review Kratos Middleware Source: For critical middleware, review the source code of the Kratos middleware itself (or the specific version you're using) to understand its security implications.

Threats Mitigated: * Threat: Misconfigured Kratos authorization middleware allowing unauthorized access. * Severity: High - Could lead to data breaches. * Threat: Bypassing security checks by not using Kratos' middleware framework. * Severity: High - Could lead to various vulnerabilities. * Threat: Vulnerabilities within Kratos' own middleware implementations. * Severity: Varies (Low to Critical) - Requires staying up-to-date with Kratos releases.

Impact: * Unauthorized access: Risk significantly reduced (80-90%). * Bypassing security: Risk eliminated (100%) if middleware is used correctly. * Kratos middleware vulnerabilities: Risk reduced by staying up-to-date with Kratos.

Currently Implemented: * Kratos' middleware framework is used for authentication and logging. * Basic configuration is done through the Kratos config system.

Missing Implementation: * Principle of least privilege is not strictly enforced for all middleware. Need to review and refine permissions. * No review of the Kratos middleware source code has been performed. Need to schedule a review. * gRPC interceptors are not fully utilized for all security aspects. Need to implement interceptors for authorization.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Kratos Transport Configuration (TLS)

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Kratos Transport Configuration (TLS)

Description:

  1. Use Kratos' Transport Options: Utilize Kratos' built-in transport configuration options (often within kratos/transport or kratos/v2/transport) to manage TLS settings for both HTTP and gRPC.
  2. Enable TLS via Kratos Config: Configure TLS settings (certificates, cipher suites, etc.) through the Kratos configuration system (using Protobuf definitions). This ensures consistency and centralizes management.
  3. Kratos WithTLSConfig (or similar): When creating Kratos servers (HTTP or gRPC), use the WithTLSConfig option (or a similarly named option) to provide the TLS configuration. This is a key Kratos-specific way to enable TLS.
  4. Kratos Client TLS: When creating Kratos clients (to connect to other services), ensure you also configure TLS using Kratos' client-side options.
  5. Disable Insecure Transports: Explicitly disable any insecure transport options within Kratos unless absolutely necessary and with a strong security justification.

Threats Mitigated: * Threat: Communication over insecure channels (exposing data to eavesdropping). * Severity: High - Could lead to data breaches. * Threat: Misconfiguration of TLS settings within Kratos (e.g., weak ciphers). * Severity: High - Could allow man-in-the-middle attacks. * Threat: Bypassing Kratos' transport layer and implementing TLS manually (increasing the risk of errors). * Severity: Medium - Could introduce vulnerabilities.

Impact: * Insecure communication: Risk eliminated (100%) with proper TLS configuration. * TLS misconfiguration: Risk significantly reduced (90-95%). * Bypassing Kratos transport: Risk eliminated (100%) by using Kratos' features.

Currently Implemented: * Kratos' transport options are used for HTTP. * TLS is enabled via Kratos config for external communication.

Missing Implementation: * TLS is not consistently configured for all internal gRPC communication using Kratos' options. Need to ensure all internal services use Kratos' TLS configuration. * Explicit disabling of insecure transports is not consistently enforced. Need to review and disable where appropriate.

Mitigation Strategy: Kratos Observability for Security

Mitigation Strategy: Kratos Observability for Security

Description:

  1. Leverage Kratos' Logging: Use Kratos' built-in logging features (often based on log/slog or a similar structured logging library). Ensure that security-relevant events are logged.
  2. Kratos Metrics Integration: Utilize Kratos' integration with metrics systems (e.g., Prometheus). Monitor Kratos-specific metrics related to security (e.g., authentication failures, authorization denials, request rates).
  3. Kratos Tracing Integration: Use Kratos' integration with distributed tracing systems (e.g., Jaeger, Zipkin). This helps track requests across services and identify security issues that span multiple components. Kratos often provides middleware for automatic tracing.
  4. Configure Kratos Log Levels: Set appropriate log levels for different environments (e.g., more verbose logging in development, less verbose in production). Ensure that Kratos' log level can be configured through the Kratos configuration system.
  5. Alerting on Kratos Metrics: Configure alerts based on Kratos-specific metrics that indicate potential security issues.

Threats Mitigated: * Threat: Lack of visibility into security-related events within the Kratos application. * Severity: Medium - Hinders incident response. * Threat: Difficulty in diagnosing security issues that span multiple Kratos services. * Severity: Medium - Increases troubleshooting time. * Threat: Inability to detect and respond to attacks in a timely manner. * Severity: High - Could lead to prolonged breaches.

Impact: * Visibility: Risk significantly reduced (70-80%) by enabling comprehensive logging, metrics, and tracing. * Diagnosis: Risk significantly reduced (60-70%) with distributed tracing. * Detection/Response: Risk moderately reduced (50-60%) with alerting based on Kratos metrics.

Currently Implemented: * Kratos' logging is used. * Basic metrics are exposed via Prometheus.

Missing Implementation: * Kratos' tracing integration is not fully utilized. Need to enable tracing middleware and configure a tracing backend. * No alerts are configured based on Kratos-specific security metrics. Need to define and implement alerts. * Log levels are not dynamically configurable through the Kratos config system. Need to integrate log level management.