Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
119 lines (94 loc) · 9.24 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

119 lines (94 loc) · 9.24 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for knative/community

Mitigation Strategy: Mandatory Code Reviews with Multiple Approvers (Community-Focused Aspects)

Description:

  1. Community Reviewers: Actively encourage and recruit community members (beyond core maintainers) to participate in code reviews. This broadens the pool of reviewers and brings diverse perspectives.
  2. CODEOWNERS for Community Engagement: Use CODEOWNERS not just for maintainers, but also to identify and involve knowledgeable community members in reviewing specific areas of the codebase. This fosters ownership and expertise within the community.
  3. Public Review Discussions: Conduct code review discussions publicly on GitHub pull requests. This allows for transparency and enables other community members to learn from the review process.
  4. Reviewer Recognition: Acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of community reviewers (e.g., in release notes, community meetings). This encourages continued participation.
  5. Mentorship for Reviewers: Provide mentorship and guidance to new community reviewers to help them develop their skills and confidence.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Code Injection (High Severity): A larger, more diverse reviewer pool makes it harder for malicious actors to slip in harmful code.
    • Unintentional Vulnerabilities (Medium to High Severity): More eyes on the code increase the chances of catching subtle bugs and vulnerabilities.
    • "Bus Factor" Reduction (Medium Severity): Distributes knowledge and review responsibility across a wider group, reducing reliance on a small number of core maintainers.
    • Community Building (Low Severity, but High Importance): Fosters a sense of shared responsibility and collaboration within the community.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Code Injection: Risk reduction: Medium to High.
    • Unintentional Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: Medium.
    • "Bus Factor": Risk reduction: High.
    • Community Building: Positive impact.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Public Reviews: Knative reviews are public on GitHub.
    • CODEOWNERS: Used, but likely primarily for core maintainers.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Active Community Reviewer Recruitment: A structured program to recruit and onboard community reviewers is likely missing.
    • Community-Focused CODEOWNERS: Expanding CODEOWNERS to include more community members.
    • Reviewer Recognition Program: Formal recognition of community reviewer contributions.
    • Reviewer Mentorship: A structured mentorship program for new reviewers.

Mitigation Strategy: Contributor Verification (GPG Signing and Reputation)

Description:

  1. Community Education on GPG: Actively educate the community about the importance of GPG signing and provide easy-to-follow instructions. This should be part of contributor onboarding.
  2. Community Norms: Establish GPG signing as a strong community norm, encouraging its use by all contributors.
  3. Public Key Sharing: Encourage contributors to publicly share their GPG public keys (e.g., on their GitHub profiles, keyservers).
  4. Community-Based Reputation: Foster a culture where contributors build and maintain a positive reputation within the Knative community through consistent, high-quality contributions. This reputation becomes a factor in assessing the trustworthiness of their code.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Code Injection (High Severity): Makes impersonation more difficult.
    • Account Takeover (High Severity): Provides protection if a contributor's account is compromised (assuming GPG keys are secure).
    • Sockpuppet Accounts (Medium Severity): Raises the bar for creating fake accounts.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Code Injection: Risk reduction: Medium.
    • Account Takeover: Risk reduction: Medium to High.
    • Sockpuppet Accounts: Risk reduction: Medium.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • GitHub Verification: GitHub automatically verifies signatures.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Active Community Education: A strong, proactive campaign to educate the community about GPG signing.
    • Community Norm Enforcement: Making GPG signing a widely accepted and expected practice.
    • Public Key Sharing Encouragement: Actively promoting the sharing of public keys.
    • Formalized Reputation Building: While informal reputation exists, a more structured approach could be beneficial.

Mitigation Strategy: Security Training and Awareness for Contributors

Description:

  1. Community-Accessible Security Guide: Create a comprehensive, easily accessible security guide specifically for Knative contributors. This should be prominently linked from the community repository and contributor guidelines.
  2. Open Security Workshops/Webinars: Host regular, open-to-all workshops or webinars on secure development topics relevant to Knative. These should be recorded and made available for later viewing.
  3. Community Security Champions: Identify and empower community members who are passionate about security to act as champions, promoting best practices and answering questions.
  4. Security Discussions in Community Forums: Encourage discussions about security topics in community forums (e.g., Slack, mailing lists).
  5. Security-Focused Onboarding: Integrate security awareness and training into the onboarding process for new contributors.
  6. Security office hours: Create security office hours, where community members can ask questions.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Unintentional Vulnerabilities (Medium to High Severity): Reduces vulnerabilities caused by lack of knowledge.
    • Insecure Coding Practices (Medium Severity): Promotes secure coding habits.
    • Slow Response to Vulnerabilities (Medium Severity): Improves vulnerability reporting.

  • Impact:

    • Unintentional Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: Medium.
    • Insecure Coding Practices: Risk reduction: Medium.
    • Slow Response to Vulnerabilities: Risk reduction: Medium.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • SECURITY.md: Exists for vulnerability reporting.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Comprehensive Community Security Guide: A dedicated, detailed guide.
    • Open Security Workshops/Webinars: Regular, community-wide training events.
    • Community Security Champions Program: A formal program to identify and support security champions.
    • Active Security Discussions: Dedicated channels or forums for security discussions.
    • Security-Focused Onboarding: Integrating security into the new contributor onboarding process.
    • Security office hours: Dedicated time for security questions.

Mitigation Strategy: Community-Driven Vulnerability Disclosure and Response

Description:

  1. Clear and Accessible Reporting Process: Maintain a clear, easy-to-find, and easy-to-understand vulnerability reporting process (typically in SECURITY.md). This should be welcoming to community members.
  2. Public Acknowledgement of Reporters: Publicly acknowledge and thank community members who responsibly disclose vulnerabilities (unless they request anonymity). This encourages participation.
  3. Community Involvement in Triage (Optional): For non-critical vulnerabilities, consider involving trusted community members in the triage and assessment process (with appropriate confidentiality safeguards).
  4. Transparent Communication: Keep the community informed about the status of vulnerability reports and fixes (without disclosing sensitive details prematurely).
  5. Bug Bounty Program (Optional): Consider a bug bounty program to incentivize community members to find and report vulnerabilities.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Unreported Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Encourages community members to report vulnerabilities they discover.
    • Delayed Vulnerability Response (Medium Severity): Facilitates faster and more efficient response to vulnerabilities.
    • Negative Community Perception (Low Severity): Demonstrates a commitment to security and transparency.

  • Impact:

    • Unreported Vulnerabilities: Risk Reduction: High
    • Delayed Vulnerability Response: Risk Reduction: Medium
    • Negative Community Perception: Risk Reduction: High

  • Currently Implemented:

    • SECURITY.md: Provides a reporting process.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Public Acknowledgement: Consistent public acknowledgement of reporters.
    • Community Involvement in Triage: This is likely not done.
    • Transparent Communication: While some communication exists, it could be more consistent and proactive.
    • Bug Bounty Program: A formal bug bounty program is likely not in place.