Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
150 lines (107 loc) · 11 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

150 lines (107 loc) · 11 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for alibaba/sentinel

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Rule Review Process

Description:

  1. Establish a Formal Review Team: Create a dedicated team or assign specific individuals responsible for reviewing Sentinel rule configurations. This team should include developers, security engineers, and operations personnel.
  2. Define a Checklist: Develop a comprehensive checklist for rule reviews. This checklist should cover:
    • Correct rule type selection (Flow, Degrade, System, Authority, Hotspot).
    • Appropriate threshold values based on load testing and expected traffic.
    • Properly configured fallback mechanisms and their security implications.
    • Consistent resource naming conventions.
    • Potential conflicts between different rules.
    • Verification of any external dependencies (e.g., databases for authority rules).
  3. Mandatory Code Review: Integrate Sentinel rule configuration into the existing code review process. No rule changes should be deployed to production without approval from the review team.
  4. Documentation: Require clear documentation for each rule, explaining its purpose, expected behavior, and any dependencies.
  5. Regular Training: Provide regular training to developers and reviewers on Sentinel best practices and the specifics of the review process.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Misconfiguration of Rules (Flow, Degrade, System, Authority, Hotspot Param): Severity: High. Incorrect rules can lead to denial of service (overly restrictive) or allow malicious traffic (underly permissive).
  • Rule Interaction Conflicts: Severity: Medium. Conflicting rules can cause unpredictable behavior and potentially bypass security controls.

Impact:

  • Misconfiguration of Rules: Risk reduced significantly (e.g., 70-80%). The review process catches most errors before deployment.
  • Rule Interaction Conflicts: Risk reduced moderately (e.g., 50-60%). The checklist and review process help identify potential conflicts.

Currently Implemented: Partially. Code reviews are mandatory, but a dedicated Sentinel rule review checklist and formal team are not yet established. Implemented in the feature-x and service-y modules.

Missing Implementation: A formal checklist and dedicated review team are missing across all projects. Formal training on Sentinel rule best practices is also lacking. Needs to be implemented in service-z and the core library.

Mitigation Strategy: Automated Rule Validation

Description:

  1. Identify Validation Requirements: Determine the specific validation checks needed for your rules. This includes:
    • Schema validation for XML/YAML configurations.
    • Range checks for numerical thresholds (e.g., QPS must be between 100 and 1000).
    • Dependency checks (e.g., ensuring required databases are accessible).
    • Regular expression checks for resource names.
  2. Develop Validation Scripts: Create scripts (e.g., Python, Bash) or integrate with existing validation tools to perform the identified checks.
  3. Integrate with CI/CD: Add the validation scripts to your CI/CD pipeline. Any rule change that fails validation should automatically block the deployment.
  4. Reporting and Alerting: Configure the validation process to generate reports and alerts for any failed checks.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Misconfiguration of Rules: Severity: High. Automated checks catch common errors like invalid syntax, out-of-range values, and missing dependencies.
  • Rule Interaction Conflicts: Severity: Low to Medium. Some basic conflict detection can be automated (e.g., checking for duplicate resource names).

Impact:

  • Misconfiguration of Rules: Risk reduced significantly (e.g., 60-70%). Automated checks catch many errors that might be missed in manual reviews.
  • Rule Interaction Conflicts: Risk reduced slightly (e.g., 20-30%). Automated checks can catch some basic conflicts.

Currently Implemented: Not Implemented.

Missing Implementation: This strategy is entirely missing. Needs to be implemented across all projects, integrated with the CI/CD pipeline.

Mitigation Strategy: Dynamic Rule Management with Auditing

Description:

  1. Choose a Dynamic Rule Source: Select a supported dynamic rule source (e.g., Nacos, Apollo, ZooKeeper).
  2. Implement RBAC: Configure role-based access control (RBAC) within the chosen rule source. Define roles with specific permissions (e.g., "rule-admin," "rule-viewer").
  3. Enable Auditing: Enable detailed audit logging within the rule source. Logs should record:
    • Timestamp of the change.
    • User who made the change.
    • Specific details of the change (old value, new value).
    • IP address of the user.
  4. Implement a Change Approval Workflow: Configure a workflow that requires approval from designated personnel before rule changes are applied.
  5. Regularly Review Audit Logs: Periodically review the audit logs to detect any unauthorized or suspicious activity.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Unauthorized Rule Modification: Severity: High. RBAC and audit logs prevent and detect unauthorized changes.
  • Insider Threats: Severity: Medium. Audit logs and change approval workflows deter malicious insiders.

Impact:

  • Unauthorized Rule Modification: Risk reduced significantly (e.g., 80-90%). RBAC and auditing provide strong controls.
  • Insider Threats: Risk reduced moderately (e.g., 40-50%). The audit trail and approval process provide a deterrent.

Currently Implemented: Partially. Nacos is used as a dynamic rule source, but RBAC and comprehensive auditing are not fully configured. Change approval workflow is not implemented. Implemented for service-a.

Missing Implementation: Full RBAC configuration, comprehensive audit logging, and a change approval workflow are missing in service-a and are not implemented at all for other services.

Mitigation Strategy: Server-Side Enforcement

Description:

  1. Identify Critical Resources: Determine the most critical resources that need protection.
  2. Implement Sentinel on Server: Integrate Sentinel into your server-side application code (e.g., Spring Boot controllers, gRPC services).
  3. Define Server-Side Rules: Create Sentinel rules that are enforced on the server, independent of any client-side logic.
  4. Prioritize Server-Side Rules: Ensure that server-side rules take precedence over any client-side rules.
  5. Test Thoroughly: Rigorously test the server-side enforcement to ensure it's working correctly.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Bypassing Sentinel (Client-Side Manipulation): Severity: High. Server-side enforcement prevents clients from bypassing protection.

Impact:

  • Bypassing Sentinel: Risk reduced very significantly (e.g., 90-95%). Client-side manipulation becomes ineffective.

Currently Implemented: Mostly Implemented. Sentinel is primarily used on the server-side in most services.

Missing Implementation: Some legacy services (service-b) still rely heavily on client-side enforcement. These need to be refactored.

Mitigation Strategy: High Availability for Control Plane

Description:

  1. Redundant Instances: Deploy multiple instances of the Sentinel dashboard and any dynamic rule sources (Nacos, Apollo, ZooKeeper).
  2. Load Balancing: Use a load balancer to distribute traffic across the instances.
  3. Automatic Failover: Configure automatic failover mechanisms to ensure that if one instance fails, another takes over seamlessly.
  4. Monitoring: Continuously monitor the health and performance of all instances.
  5. Regular Backups: Regularly back up the configuration data of the control plane components.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) Against Sentinel Itself: Severity: High. High availability ensures that the control plane remains operational even if some instances fail.

Impact:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) Against Sentinel Itself: Risk reduced significantly (e.g., 80-90%). The system can tolerate failures without losing protection.

Currently Implemented: Partially. Nacos is deployed in a cluster, but the Sentinel dashboard is a single instance.

Missing Implementation: The Sentinel dashboard needs to be deployed in a high-availability configuration. Monitoring and alerting for the control plane need improvement.

Mitigation Strategy: Local Rule Caching

Description:

  1. Enable Caching: Configure Sentinel clients to enable local rule caching.
  2. Set Cache Expiration: Configure an appropriate cache expiration policy. This should balance the need for up-to-date rules with the need for resilience in case of control plane unavailability.
  3. Test Cache Behavior: Test the application's behavior when the control plane is unavailable to ensure that the cached rules are being used correctly.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) Against Sentinel Itself: Severity: Medium. Local caching allows the application to continue functioning even if the control plane is temporarily unavailable.

Impact:

  • Denial of Service (DoS) Against Sentinel Itself: Risk reduced moderately (e.g., 50-60%). The application can continue to operate with cached rules.

Currently Implemented: Implemented. Sentinel clients are configured to cache rules locally.

Missing Implementation: The cache expiration policy needs to be reviewed and potentially adjusted based on observed control plane availability.

Mitigation Strategy: Principle of Least Privilege (for Authority Rules)

Description:

  1. Identify Specific Needs: Carefully analyze which clients require authority rules and for what specific purposes.
  2. Create Granular Rules: Define authority rules that grant only the minimum necessary permissions. Avoid using wildcard characters or overly broad permissions.
  3. Regularly Review: Periodically review authority rules to ensure they are still necessary and that the principle of least privilege is being followed.

List of Threats Mitigated:

  • Improper use of Authority Rules: Severity: High. Misused authority rules can lead to unauthorized access.

Impact:

  • Improper use of Authority Rules: Risk reduced significantly (e.g., 70-80%).

Currently Implemented: Partially. Some effort is made to limit authority rules, but a systematic review process is lacking.

Missing Implementation: A formal process for defining and reviewing authority rules based on the principle of least privilege is needed.