Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
189 lines (155 loc) · 18.5 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

189 lines (155 loc) · 18.5 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of HashiCorp Vault based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the key components of HashiCorp Vault, identifying potential vulnerabilities and weaknesses in its design, deployment, and operation. The analysis will focus on inferring the architecture, components, and data flow from the provided documentation and codebase references, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. The primary goal is to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of secrets managed by Vault, and to prevent unauthorized access, data loss, and denial-of-service attacks.

  • Scope: This analysis covers the following key components of HashiCorp Vault, as described in the design review:

    • Vault API
    • Vault Core
    • Secret Engines (with specific focus on common types like KV, Transit, and PKI)
    • Authentication Methods (with focus on AppRole, Kubernetes, and cloud IAM)
    • Audit Devices
    • Storage Backend (specifically Integrated Storage - Raft)
    • Deployment Model (High Availability Cluster with Integrated Storage)
    • Build Process

  • Methodology:

    1. Component Breakdown: Analyze each component's role, responsibilities, and interactions with other components.
    2. Threat Identification: Identify potential threats specific to each component, considering the business risks and security posture outlined in the design review. This will leverage common threat modeling techniques (e.g., STRIDE) adapted to the specific context of Vault.
    3. Vulnerability Analysis: Assess the likelihood and impact of each identified threat, considering existing security controls.
    4. Mitigation Strategies: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies to address the identified vulnerabilities and reduce the overall risk. These strategies will be tailored to Vault's architecture and capabilities.
    5. Focus on Inferences: Since we are working from a design review and codebase references, we will explicitly state any inferences made about the architecture or implementation details.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down each component and analyze its security implications:

2.1 Vault API

  • Role: Entry point for all interactions with Vault.

  • Threats:

    • Injection Attacks (STRIDE - Spoofing, Tampering): Malicious input to the API could exploit vulnerabilities in input validation or parsing, leading to unauthorized access or data manipulation. Inference: Vault likely uses a well-defined API schema and input validation routines, but these must be rigorously tested.
    • Authentication Bypass (STRIDE - Spoofing): Attackers could attempt to bypass authentication mechanisms by exploiting flaws in the API's handling of authentication tokens or credentials.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (STRIDE - Denial of Service): Flooding the API with requests could overwhelm the server, making Vault unavailable.
    • Information Disclosure (STRIDE - Information Disclosure): Error messages or verbose responses could leak sensitive information about the Vault configuration or internal state.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks (STRIDE - Tampering, Information Disclosure): If TLS is not properly configured or enforced, attackers could intercept and modify API traffic.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • Strict Input Validation: Implement rigorous input validation on all API endpoints, using a whitelist approach and validating data types, lengths, and formats. Use a well-defined API schema (e.g., OpenAPI/Swagger) and validate requests against it.
    • Secure Authentication Handling: Ensure that authentication tokens are securely generated, stored, and validated. Implement robust session management with appropriate timeouts and invalidation mechanisms.
    • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting to prevent DoS attacks. Configure different rate limits for different API endpoints and authentication methods based on their sensitivity and expected usage.
    • Generic Error Messages: Return generic error messages to clients to avoid disclosing sensitive information.
    • Enforce TLS: Enforce TLS 1.3 for all API communication, using strong ciphers and properly configured certificates. Disable weak or outdated TLS versions and ciphers. Implement certificate pinning where appropriate.
    • Regular Security Audits of API: Conduct regular penetration testing and vulnerability scanning of the Vault API.

2.2 Vault Core

  • Role: The central logic of Vault, enforcing policies, managing leases, and coordinating other components.

  • Threats:

    • Policy Bypass (STRIDE - Spoofing, Tampering): Flaws in the policy engine could allow users or applications to access secrets they are not authorized to access. Inference: Vault's policy engine is a critical security component and likely undergoes extensive testing, but edge cases and complex policy interactions must be carefully considered.
    • Lease Management Issues (STRIDE - Tampering, Denial of Service): Exploiting vulnerabilities in lease management could allow attackers to extend leases indefinitely or revoke leases prematurely, disrupting access to secrets.
    • Revocation Failures (STRIDE - Tampering): If revocation mechanisms fail, compromised credentials could remain valid, allowing unauthorized access.
    • Logic Errors (STRIDE - Tampering): Bugs in the core logic could lead to unexpected behavior, potentially compromising security.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • Formal Policy Verification: Use formal methods or automated tools to verify the correctness and security of Vault policies. Test policies extensively with a variety of scenarios, including edge cases and complex policy combinations.
    • Robust Lease Management: Ensure that lease management is implemented securely, with proper validation of lease IDs and timestamps. Implement safeguards against lease exhaustion and premature revocation.
    • Reliable Revocation: Ensure that revocation mechanisms are reliable and cannot be bypassed. Test revocation scenarios thoroughly.
    • Extensive Code Review and Testing: Conduct thorough code reviews and testing of the Vault Core, focusing on security-critical areas. Use static analysis tools to identify potential vulnerabilities.
    • Fuzzing: Use fuzzing techniques to test the Vault Core with unexpected or malformed inputs.

2.3 Secret Engines

  • Role: Manage different types of secrets (KV, Transit, PKI, etc.).

  • Threats (Specific Examples):

    • KV Engine:
      • Data Exposure (STRIDE - Information Disclosure): If access control is not properly configured, unauthorized users could read or modify secrets stored in the KV engine.
      • Version History Issues (STRIDE - Tampering): If versioning is enabled, attackers might try to access older, potentially vulnerable versions of secrets.
    • Transit Engine:
      • Key Compromise (STRIDE - Tampering, Information Disclosure): If the encryption keys used by the Transit engine are compromised, attackers could decrypt data.
      • Weak Cryptographic Algorithms (STRIDE - Tampering): Using weak or outdated cryptographic algorithms could make the Transit engine vulnerable to attacks.
    • PKI Engine:
      • CA Compromise (STRIDE - Spoofing, Tampering, Information Disclosure): If the root CA or intermediate CAs managed by the PKI engine are compromised, attackers could issue fraudulent certificates.
      • Weak Certificate Configuration (STRIDE - Tampering): Generating certificates with weak keys or short lifetimes could make them vulnerable to attacks.

  • Mitigation Strategies (Specific Examples):

    • KV Engine:
      • Strict ACLs: Implement strict ACLs to control access to secrets stored in the KV engine. Use the principle of least privilege.
      • Version Control and Auditing: Enable versioning and auditing to track changes to secrets and identify potential misuse. Regularly review and prune old versions of secrets.
    • Transit Engine:
      • Key Rotation: Implement regular key rotation for the Transit engine. Use strong, randomly generated keys. Consider using an HSM to protect the encryption keys.
      • Strong Cryptography: Use strong, industry-standard cryptographic algorithms (e.g., AES-256-GCM). Disable weak or outdated algorithms.
    • PKI Engine:
      • Secure CA Management: Protect the root CA and intermediate CAs with strong security controls, including physical security, access control, and multi-factor authentication. Consider using an HSM to protect the CA keys.
      • Strong Certificate Configuration: Generate certificates with strong keys (e.g., RSA 2048-bit or higher, ECDSA with appropriate curves) and appropriate lifetimes. Use appropriate key usage extensions. Enforce certificate policies.

2.4 Authentication Methods

  • Role: Authenticate users and applications.

  • Threats (Specific Examples):

    • AppRole:
      • SecretID and RoleID Theft (STRIDE - Spoofing, Information Disclosure): If the SecretID or RoleID are compromised, attackers could impersonate the application.
      • CIDR Restrictions Bypass (STRIDE - Spoofing): If CIDR restrictions are not properly enforced, attackers could authenticate from unauthorized IP addresses.
    • Kubernetes:
      • Service Account Token Compromise (STRIDE - Spoofing, Information Disclosure): If a Kubernetes service account token is compromised, attackers could access Vault.
      • RBAC Misconfiguration (STRIDE - Elevation of Privilege): Misconfigured Kubernetes RBAC could grant excessive permissions to service accounts, allowing them to access more secrets than necessary.
    • Cloud IAM (e.g., AWS IAM):
      • IAM Role/Policy Misconfiguration (STRIDE - Elevation of Privilege): Overly permissive IAM roles or policies could grant excessive access to Vault.
      • Credential Theft (STRIDE - Spoofing, Information Disclosure): Compromised AWS credentials could be used to access Vault.

  • Mitigation Strategies (Specific Examples):

    • AppRole:
      • Secure SecretID Generation and Distribution: Generate strong, random SecretIDs and distribute them securely to applications. Consider using short-lived SecretIDs and wrapping them in response wrapping tokens.
      • Enforce CIDR Restrictions: Enforce CIDR restrictions to limit the IP addresses from which applications can authenticate.
      • Regularly Rotate RoleID and SecretID: Implement a process for regularly rotating RoleIDs and SecretIDs.
    • Kubernetes:
      • Secure Service Account Tokens: Use Kubernetes secrets to securely store and manage service account tokens. Limit the scope of service account tokens using Kubernetes RBAC.
      • Regularly Audit RBAC: Regularly audit Kubernetes RBAC configurations to ensure that service accounts have only the necessary permissions.
    • Cloud IAM:
      • Principle of Least Privilege: Grant IAM roles and policies only the minimum necessary permissions to access Vault. Use IAM conditions to further restrict access.
      • Monitor CloudTrail Logs: Monitor AWS CloudTrail logs for suspicious activity related to IAM roles and policies.
      • Use Instance Metadata Service v2 (IMDSv2): Enforce the use of IMDSv2 for EC2 instances to prevent SSRF attacks that could be used to obtain IAM credentials.

2.5 Audit Devices

  • Role: Record all Vault requests and responses.

  • Threats:

    • Log Tampering (STRIDE - Tampering): Attackers could attempt to modify or delete audit logs to cover their tracks.
    • Log Flooding (STRIDE - Denial of Service): Attackers could flood the audit device with bogus log entries, making it difficult to identify legitimate events.
    • Information Disclosure (STRIDE - Information Disclosure): Audit logs could contain sensitive information, such as secret names or values, if not properly configured.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • Secure Log Storage: Store audit logs in a secure location with restricted access. Use a dedicated logging system with strong security controls.
    • Log Integrity Monitoring: Implement log integrity monitoring to detect any unauthorized modifications to audit logs. Use checksums or digital signatures to verify log integrity.
    • Rate Limiting (for Log Flooding): Implement rate limiting on the audit device to prevent log flooding.
    • Log Filtering and Masking: Configure audit devices to filter or mask sensitive information from audit logs. Avoid logging secret values directly.
    • Regular Log Review: Regularly review audit logs to identify suspicious activity. Use a SIEM system to automate log analysis and alerting.
    • Dedicated Network: Send audit logs over a dedicated, secure network.

2.6 Storage Backend (Integrated Storage - Raft)

  • Role: Persistently store Vault's encrypted data.

  • Threats:

    • Data Loss (STRIDE - Denial of Service): Failure of multiple Raft nodes could lead to data loss.
    • Data Corruption (STRIDE - Tampering): Corruption of the Raft data could render Vault unusable.
    • Unauthorized Access (STRIDE - Information Disclosure): If an attacker gains access to the Raft storage, they could potentially access the encrypted data.
    • Network Partitioning (STRIDE - Denial of Service): Network issues could cause a Raft cluster to become partitioned, leading to split-brain scenarios and data inconsistency.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • Sufficient Raft Nodes: Deploy a sufficient number of Raft nodes (at least 3, preferably 5) to tolerate node failures. Distribute the nodes across different availability zones or data centers.
    • Regular Backups: Implement regular backups of the Raft data. Store backups in a secure, offsite location. Test the backup and restore process regularly.
    • Secure Raft Communication: Enforce TLS encryption for all Raft communication. Use strong ciphers and properly configured certificates.
    • Network Segmentation: Isolate the Raft cluster on a dedicated network segment with strict firewall rules.
    • Monitoring: Monitor the health and performance of the Raft cluster. Use monitoring tools to detect and alert on any issues, such as node failures or network partitions.
    • Disaster Recovery Plan: Have a well-defined disaster recovery plan that outlines the steps to recover from a catastrophic failure of the Raft cluster.

2.7 Deployment Model (High Availability Cluster with Integrated Storage)

  • Role: Ensure high availability and fault tolerance.

  • Threats:

    • Single Point of Failure: If the active Vault server fails, the system could become unavailable until a standby server takes over.
    • Split-Brain Scenario: Network partitioning could lead to a split-brain scenario, where multiple Vault servers believe they are the active server, leading to data inconsistency.
    • Load Balancer Misconfiguration: A misconfigured load balancer could direct traffic to an unhealthy or unauthorized Vault server.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • Automated Failover: Configure automated failover between Vault servers. Use health checks to monitor the status of each server.
    • Quorum-Based Decision Making: Raft consensus ensures that only one server can be active at a time, preventing split-brain scenarios.
    • Secure Load Balancer Configuration: Configure the load balancer securely, using TLS termination and health checks. Regularly review and audit the load balancer configuration.
    • Redundant Network Infrastructure: Use redundant network infrastructure to minimize the risk of network partitions.

2.8 Build Process

  • Role: Build and package Vault for distribution.

  • Threats:

    • Supply Chain Attacks: Compromised dependencies or build tools could introduce vulnerabilities into Vault.
    • Malicious Code Injection: Attackers could attempt to inject malicious code into the Vault codebase.
    • Build Artifact Tampering: Attackers could tamper with the build artifacts (binaries, Docker images) after they are built.

  • Mitigation Strategies:

    • Dependency Scanning: Regularly scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities. Use tools like go mod verify and vulnerability scanners.
    • Code Review: Require code reviews for all changes to the Vault codebase.
    • Static Analysis: Use static analysis tools (SAST) to identify potential vulnerabilities in the code.
    • Software Bill of Materials (SBOM): Generate and maintain an SBOM for Vault to track all dependencies.
    • Signed Artifacts: Digitally sign the build artifacts to ensure their integrity and authenticity.
    • Reproducible Builds: Strive for reproducible builds to allow independent verification of the build process.
    • Secure Build Environment: Use a secure build environment with restricted access.
    • Regular Audits of Build Process: Conduct regular security audits of the build process.

3. Conclusion

This deep security analysis has identified numerous potential threats and vulnerabilities across various components of HashiCorp Vault. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, organizations can significantly reduce the risk of a security breach and ensure the secure and reliable operation of their Vault deployments. The key takeaways are:

  • Defense in Depth: Implement multiple layers of security controls to protect Vault.
  • Principle of Least Privilege: Grant users and applications only the minimum necessary access to secrets.
  • Regular Auditing and Monitoring: Continuously monitor Vault's activity and audit logs to detect and respond to suspicious events.
  • Secure Configuration: Configure Vault securely, following best practices and hardening guidelines.
  • Stay Updated: Keep Vault and its dependencies up to date with the latest security patches.

This analysis provides a strong foundation for securing a HashiCorp Vault deployment. However, it is crucial to remember that security is an ongoing process, and continuous vigilance and improvement are essential.