Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
54 lines (45 loc) · 8.02 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

54 lines (45 loc) · 8.02 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for knative/community

Attack Surface: Malicious Pull Requests (PRs)

  • Description: The risk of malicious code being introduced into the codebase through seemingly legitimate contributions submitted as Pull Requests.
  • Community Contribution: The open and welcoming nature of the community encourages contributions from a wide range of individuals, increasing the volume of PRs and potentially making it more challenging to thoroughly vet each one for malicious intent. The trust-based system can be exploited.
  • Example: A contributor, potentially with a compromised account or malicious intent, submits a PR that appears to fix a minor bug but also includes a subtly hidden backdoor that could compromise systems using Knative components built with this code.
  • Impact: System compromise, data breaches, supply chain attacks affecting applications that depend on Knative.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Mandatory Multi-Maintainer Review: Require all PRs, especially those from external contributors, to be reviewed and approved by multiple trusted maintainers with security expertise.
    • Automated Security Gate: Implement automated security scanning tools (SAST, vulnerability scanners) as a mandatory gate in the PR process. Fail builds and block merging for identified security issues.
    • Contributor Vetting: Establish a process to assess the reputation and trustworthiness of new contributors, especially for significant code contributions.
    • Comprehensive Testing: Employ rigorous automated testing (unit, integration, security, fuzzing) to detect unexpected or malicious behavior introduced by new code in PRs.

Attack Surface: Compromised Maintainer Accounts

  • Description: The risk of an attacker gaining control of a maintainer account with write access to the repository and using it to inject malicious code, tamper with releases, or compromise the project's integrity.
  • Community Contribution: Open-source projects rely on a distributed set of maintainers from the community. Compromising even one maintainer account can have severe consequences for the entire community and project ecosystem.
  • Example: An attacker successfully compromises a maintainer's GitHub account through phishing, credential stuffing, or malware. They then use this compromised account to directly commit malicious code to critical branches, create backdoored releases, or modify project infrastructure.
  • Impact: Widespread and severe supply chain attacks, distribution of backdoored Knative components to a large user base, erosion of trust in the Knative project and community.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Enforce Strong Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Mandate and strictly enforce MFA for all maintainer accounts to significantly reduce the risk of account compromise.
    • Regular Security Audits of Maintainer Accounts: Conduct periodic security audits of maintainer accounts, including password strength checks, activity monitoring, and access reviews.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Apply the principle of least privilege to maintainer roles, granting only necessary permissions and limiting write access to critical repositories and infrastructure.
    • Code Signing and Release Verification: Implement robust code signing for all official releases to ensure integrity and allow users to verify the origin and authenticity of downloaded software.

Attack Surface: Dependency on Compromised Community Infrastructure

  • Description: The risk associated with relying on community-managed infrastructure (build systems, CI/CD pipelines, websites, package repositories) that could be vulnerable to attacks and used to inject malicious code into the software supply chain.
  • Community Contribution: To foster collaboration and reduce costs, open-source communities often utilize shared or community-provided infrastructure. However, the security of this infrastructure might be less rigorously managed or funded compared to enterprise-grade systems, making it a potential target.
  • Example: An attacker compromises the community's build server infrastructure and modifies the build process to inject malware into the binaries of Knative components during the release process. This results in users unknowingly downloading and deploying compromised versions of Knative.
  • Impact: Large-scale supply chain attacks affecting a vast number of users who rely on official Knative releases. Potential for widespread system compromise and data breaches.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Independent Security Assessment of Community Infrastructure: If relying heavily on Knative, conduct or request an independent security assessment of the community's build and release infrastructure to understand its security posture and identify potential vulnerabilities.
    • Mirroring and Multi-Source Verification: Consider mirroring official releases from trusted sources and implementing processes to verify releases from multiple independent sources to reduce reliance on a single point of failure.
    • Reproducible Builds and Transparency: Advocate for and support the implementation of reproducible builds within the Knative community to allow for independent verification of the build process and output.
    • Internal Build and Verification (For Critical Deployments): For highly sensitive or critical deployments, consider building Knative components from source within your own secure and controlled environment, bypassing reliance on community infrastructure for the build process.

Attack Surface: Social Engineering via Community Channels

  • Description: The risk of attackers using community communication channels (mailing lists, forums, Slack, GitHub issues/discussions) to impersonate trusted members and trick developers or users into performing malicious actions.
  • Community Contribution: The open and collaborative nature of the community, with readily accessible communication channels, can be exploited by attackers to target community members through social engineering tactics. The inherent trust within the community can be leveraged for attacks.
  • Example: An attacker impersonates a Knative maintainer in a community Slack channel and sends a direct message to a developer, requesting them to download and install a "critical security patch" from a malicious link. This patch is actually malware designed to compromise the developer's system.
  • Impact: Compromised developer environments, credential theft, introduction of malware into development workflows and potentially production systems, data breaches.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Heightened Security Awareness Training (Community Focused): Provide targeted security awareness training to developers and users specifically focused on social engineering tactics prevalent in open-source communities and communication channels.
    • Verify Identity and Authenticity: Encourage users to always verify the identity of individuals in community channels, especially when asked to perform actions, download files, or visit links. Be skeptical of unsolicited requests and urgent demands.
    • Official Communication Channels Only for Sensitive Actions: Establish clear guidelines that sensitive actions or official announcements will only be communicated through official, verified channels (e.g., official website, signed emails from known maintainers).
    • Report Suspicious Activity: Encourage community members to report any suspicious activity or potential social engineering attempts within community channels to maintainers for investigation and community-wide alerts.