Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
104 lines (73 loc) · 11.7 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

104 lines (73 loc) · 11.7 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for gradleup/shadow

Mitigation Strategy: Utilize Shadow's Dependency Transform Capabilities (Relocate and Shade)

  • Description:

    1. Identify Potential Class Name Collisions: Analyze dependencies for potential class name collisions, especially when merging libraries with overlapping namespaces or when using different versions of the same library.
    2. Configure relocate Transforms: In your Shadow configuration, use the relocate transform to rename packages and classes of specific dependencies. Target dependencies that are likely to cause collisions or those you want to isolate within your application's namespace.
    3. Configure shade Transforms (Less Common, More Risky): Use shade transforms with caution. shade can rename classes within a dependency, which is more complex and can potentially break functionality if not done correctly. Use it only when relocate is insufficient and with thorough testing.
    4. Thoroughly Test After Applying Transforms: After configuring relocate or shade transforms, perform extensive testing of your application. Ensure that the transforms haven't broken any functionality and that dependencies still work as expected.
    5. Document Transform Configurations: Clearly document the relocate and shade transforms applied in your Shadow configuration, explaining the reasons behind them and any potential implications.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Class Name Collisions (High Severity): Transforms directly address class name collisions, preventing runtime errors and unexpected behavior caused by conflicting classes.
      • Dependency Confusion/Spoofing (Medium Severity): relocate can offer a degree of namespace isolation, making it slightly harder for attackers to exploit vulnerabilities by relying on specific class names in dependencies.

    • Impact:

      • Class Name Collisions: Significantly Reduces risk. Transforms are a direct solution to class name collisions when configured correctly.
      • Dependency Confusion/Spoofing: Minimally Reduces risk. Provides a slight layer of obfuscation but is not a primary defense against sophisticated attacks.

    • Currently Implemented: Not Implemented. relocate or shade transforms are not currently used in the Shadow configuration.

    • Missing Implementation: Analyze dependencies for potential class name collisions. Implement relocate transforms for dependencies that are known to cause conflicts or are considered high-risk. Document the rationale and configuration of any applied transforms.

Mitigation Strategy: Verify Shadow Plugin Integrity

  • Description:

    1. Use a Trusted Source: Obtain the Shadow Gradle plugin from a reputable source, such as the official Gradle Plugin Portal or Maven Central.
    2. Verify Plugin Checksum/Signature: Before using the Shadow plugin, verify its checksum or digital signature against the official published values. This ensures that the plugin hasn't been tampered with during download or distribution.
    3. Pin Plugin Version: Explicitly declare and pin the version of the Shadow Gradle plugin in your build.gradle or build.gradle.kts file. Avoid using dynamic version ranges for plugins.
    4. Regularly Review Plugin Updates: Monitor for updates to the Shadow Gradle plugin and review release notes for security fixes or improvements. Update the plugin version periodically, verifying the integrity of the new version.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Compromised Build Plugin (High Severity): Verifying plugin integrity prevents using a compromised version of the Shadow plugin that could inject malicious code into the build process.
      • Supply Chain Attacks (Direct Mitigation - High Severity): Ensuring the integrity of the build plugin is a direct defense against supply chain attacks targeting build tools.

    • Impact:

      • Compromised Build Plugin: Significantly Reduces risk. Plugin verification is a crucial step in ensuring the trustworthiness of build tools.
      • Supply Chain Attacks: Significantly Reduces risk. Directly mitigates the risk of using a compromised build plugin in the supply chain.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially Implemented. The Shadow plugin is obtained from Maven Central, but checksum/signature verification is not routinely performed. Plugin version is pinned in build.gradle.kts.

    • Missing Implementation: Implement a process for verifying the checksum or signature of the Shadow Gradle plugin during setup or updates. Document the plugin verification process.

Mitigation Strategy: Carefully Configure Shadow's Inclusion and Exclusion Rules

  • Description:

    1. Review Default Inclusion/Exclusion: Understand Shadow's default inclusion and exclusion rules. Be aware of what is included and excluded by default.
    2. Define Explicit Inclusion/Exclusion: Explicitly configure inclusion and exclusion rules in your Shadow configuration using from, include, exclude, and mergeServiceFiles directives. Avoid relying solely on defaults.
    3. Minimize Included Resources: Only include necessary resources in the Shadow JAR. Exclude development artifacts, configuration files, sensitive data, and unnecessary files that are not required for runtime execution.
    4. Regularly Review Configuration: Periodically review your Shadow inclusion and exclusion configuration to ensure it remains appropriate and doesn't inadvertently include sensitive or unnecessary files.
    5. Test JAR Contents: After building the Shadow JAR, inspect its contents to verify that only intended files are included and that no sensitive or unwanted files are present.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Information Disclosure (Medium Severity): Accidentally including sensitive data or configuration files in the Shadow JAR can lead to information disclosure if the JAR is exposed.
      • Increased Attack Surface (Low Severity): Including unnecessary files can slightly increase the attack surface by providing more potential targets for attackers.

    • Impact:

      • Information Disclosure: Moderately Reduces risk. Careful configuration minimizes the chance of accidentally including sensitive data.
      • Increased Attack Surface: Minimally Reduces risk. Reduces the attack surface by excluding unnecessary files, but the impact is generally low unless sensitive files are involved.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially Implemented. Basic inclusion/exclusion rules are configured, but not regularly reviewed or optimized.

    • Missing Implementation: Conduct a thorough review of Shadow inclusion/exclusion configuration. Optimize rules to minimize included resources. Implement a process for regularly reviewing and updating the configuration. Document the configuration and rationale behind inclusion/exclusion rules.

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Output Verification (JAR Content Scanning)

  • Description:

    1. Develop Automated JAR Content Scanning: Create automated scripts or tools to scan the generated Shadow JAR after the build process.
    2. Scan for Sensitive Information: Configure the scanning tool to search for patterns or keywords that indicate the presence of sensitive information (e.g., API keys, passwords, internal paths, development comments).
    3. Validate JAR Structure: Verify the expected structure of the JAR file. Check for the presence of necessary files and the absence of unexpected files.
    4. Integrate Scanning into CI/CD: Integrate the JAR content scanning into your CI/CD pipeline. Configure it to fail the build or generate alerts if sensitive information or unexpected content is detected.
    5. Regularly Update Scanning Rules: Keep the scanning rules and patterns up-to-date to detect new types of sensitive information or changes in expected JAR structure.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Information Disclosure (Medium Severity): Output verification helps detect accidental inclusion of sensitive information in the Shadow JAR before deployment.
      • Build Process Anomalies (Low Severity): Verification can detect unexpected changes in JAR structure, potentially indicating build process anomalies or unintended inclusions.

    • Impact:

      • Information Disclosure: Moderately Reduces risk. Automated scanning provides a safety net to catch accidental inclusion of sensitive data.
      • Build Process Anomalies: Minimally Reduces risk. Can detect anomalies, but primarily serves as a sanity check rather than a strong security control.

    • Currently Implemented: Not Implemented. Automated JAR content scanning is not currently performed.

    • Missing Implementation: Develop and implement automated JAR content scanning. Integrate scanning into the CI/CD pipeline. Define scanning rules for sensitive information and JAR structure validation. Document the output verification process.

Mitigation Strategy: Document Included Dependencies and Licenses

  • Description:

    1. Utilize Shadow Manifest Configuration: Configure Shadow to include dependency information in the JAR's MANIFEST.MF file. This can include dependency names, versions, and potentially licenses.
    2. Generate Dependency License Reports: Use Gradle plugins or external tools to generate reports listing all included dependencies and their licenses. (While report generation is not Shadow specific, the need for it is amplified by Shadow merging).
    3. Include License Information in Distribution: Include license information (e.g., a LICENSE file or a dedicated dependency license file) alongside the Shadow JAR in your application distribution.
    4. Maintain a Dependency Inventory: Maintain a separate inventory of all third-party dependencies used in your project, including their licenses and sources. (While inventory is not Shadow specific, the complexity is increased by Shadow merging).
    5. Regularly Review License Compliance: Periodically review your dependency licenses to ensure compliance with their terms and conditions. (While review is not Shadow specific, the scope is impacted by Shadow merging).

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • License Violations (Legal/Reputational Risk - Low Security Impact): While not a direct security threat, license violations can lead to legal issues and reputational damage. Transparency and documentation help mitigate this risk, and Shadow makes license tracking more complex.

    • Impact:

      • License Violations: Significantly Reduces risk. Clear documentation and manifest inclusion make license tracking and compliance much easier, especially in the context of Shadow's dependency merging.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially Implemented. Dependency licenses are generally tracked, but not systematically documented or included in the JAR manifest or distribution.

    • Missing Implementation: Configure Shadow to include dependency information in MANIFEST.MF. Implement automated generation of dependency license reports. Include license information in the application distribution. Document the process for maintaining dependency inventory and ensuring license compliance.