Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
165 lines (146 loc) · 23.9 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

165 lines (146 loc) · 23.9 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for conductor-oss/conductor

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Workflow Definition Validation and Review Process

1. Implement Workflow Definition Validation and Review Process

  • Mitigation Strategy: Workflow Definition Validation and Review Process (Conductor Specific)
  • Description:
    1. Utilize Conductor's Workflow Definition Schema Validation (if available and configurable): Check if Conductor offers built-in schema validation for workflow definitions. If so, configure and enforce it to ensure definitions adhere to a predefined structure.
    2. Develop Custom Validation Logic (if needed): If Conductor's built-in validation is insufficient, develop custom validation logic that can be integrated into your workflow deployment pipeline. This logic should check for potentially insecure patterns or configurations within workflow definitions specific to Conductor's features (e.g., usage of specific task types, script tasks, or HTTP tasks).
    3. Establish a Security Review Process for Workflow Definitions (Conductor Context): Focus the security review process specifically on Conductor workflow definitions. Reviewers should understand Conductor's task types, expression language (if used), and potential security implications of different workflow constructs within Conductor.
    4. Version Control Workflow Definitions in Conductor's Context: Manage workflow definitions as code within your version control system, treating them as critical application components within the Conductor ecosystem.
    5. Use Pull Requests for Workflow Definition Changes (Conductor Focused Review): When using pull requests for workflow definition changes, ensure reviewers are specifically looking for security issues related to Conductor workflows and their interactions with tasks and external systems via Conductor.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Workflow Definition Injection via Conductor (High Severity): Malicious actors injecting harmful code or logic into workflow definitions within Conductor, potentially leading to command execution by task workers orchestrated by Conductor, data breaches through Conductor workflows, or service disruption of Conductor-managed workflows.
    • Logic Flaws in Conductor Workflows (Medium Severity): Unintentional errors or vulnerabilities in workflow logic defined in Conductor that could be exploited to bypass security controls within the workflow orchestration, manipulate data processed by Conductor, or cause unexpected behavior in Conductor-managed processes.
    • Unauthorized Workflow Modifications in Conductor (Medium Severity): Unauthorized users modifying workflow definitions directly within Conductor's management system to introduce malicious changes or disrupt operations of workflows managed by Conductor.
  • Impact:
    • Workflow Definition Injection via Conductor: High risk reduction. Validation and review focused on Conductor-specific aspects significantly reduce the likelihood of injecting malicious code through workflow definitions managed by Conductor.
    • Logic Flaws in Conductor Workflows: Medium risk reduction. Review process, when focused on Conductor workflow logic, helps identify potential flaws, but relies on reviewer expertise in Conductor and workflow security.
    • Unauthorized Workflow Modifications in Conductor: High risk reduction. Version control and pull requests, applied to Conductor workflow definitions, ensure auditability and controlled changes within the Conductor environment.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented.
    • Workflow definitions are stored in Git (Version Control - Conductor Context).
    • Basic schema validation is in place for syntax correctness (Schema Validation - partially, needs Conductor focus).
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Formalized Security Review Process specifically for Conductor workflow definitions.
    • Comprehensive and strict Workflow Definition Schema enforcing security best practices relevant to Conductor features.
    • Automated Schema Validation integrated into the deployment pipeline for Conductor workflows.
    • Pull Request requirement for all workflow definition changes within the Conductor management process.

Mitigation Strategy: Restrict Access to Workflow Definition Management (Conductor RBAC)

2. Restrict Access to Workflow Definition Management (Conductor RBAC)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) for Conductor Workflow Definition Management
  • Description:
    1. Utilize Conductor's Built-in RBAC (if available): Explore and implement Conductor's built-in RBAC features, if any, to control access to workflow definition management functionalities within the Conductor UI and APIs.
    2. Integrate with External RBAC System (if Conductor supports): If Conductor allows integration with external RBAC systems (like Keycloak, LDAP, or similar), leverage this to manage access to Conductor's workflow definition features centrally within your organization's identity and access management infrastructure.
    3. Define Conductor-Specific Roles: Create roles specifically tailored to Conductor workflow management needs (e.g., "Conductor Workflow Viewer," "Conductor Workflow Editor," "Conductor Workflow Admin"). These roles should map to permissions within Conductor's workflow definition management features.
    4. Assign Roles to Users/Groups for Conductor Access: Assign these Conductor-specific roles to users and groups based on their responsibilities related to workflow management within Conductor. Apply the principle of least privilege for access to Conductor's workflow definition features.
    5. Audit Conductor Access Logs: Regularly review Conductor's access logs, specifically focusing on actions related to workflow definition management, to detect and investigate any unauthorized access attempts or suspicious activities within the Conductor platform.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Unauthorized Workflow Modifications via Conductor UI/API (Medium Severity): Users without proper authorization modifying or deleting workflow definitions through Conductor's interfaces, potentially causing disruption or introducing malicious changes to workflows managed by Conductor.
    • Insider Threats Exploiting Conductor Access (Medium Severity): Malicious insiders with excessive privileges within Conductor abusing their access to manipulate workflows for malicious purposes via Conductor's workflow management features.
    • Accidental Workflow Corruption via Conductor UI (Low Severity): Accidental modifications by users without sufficient understanding of workflow definitions using Conductor's UI, leading to operational issues in Conductor-managed workflows.
  • Impact:
    • Unauthorized Workflow Modifications via Conductor UI/API: High risk reduction. RBAC within Conductor effectively prevents unauthorized users from making changes to workflow definitions through Conductor's interfaces.
    • Insider Threats Exploiting Conductor Access: Medium risk reduction. RBAC within Conductor limits the potential damage an insider can cause by restricting their privileges within the Conductor system, but doesn't eliminate the insider threat entirely.
    • Accidental Workflow Corruption via Conductor UI: Medium risk reduction. RBAC in Conductor reduces the likelihood of accidental changes by limiting editing access within Conductor's UI to trained personnel.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented.
    • Basic user authentication is in place for Conductor UI (Conductor UI Authentication).
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Fine-grained RBAC for workflow definition management within Conductor itself.
    • Clearly defined Conductor-specific roles and permissions for workflow management within Conductor.
    • Integration with an external RBAC system for centralized user and role management for Conductor access.
    • Auditing of workflow definition access and modification events within Conductor's logs.

Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and Validate Workflow Inputs (Conductor Workflow Context)

3. Sanitize and Validate Workflow Inputs (Conductor Workflow Context)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Input Sanitization and Validation in Conductor Workflows
  • Description:
    1. Define Input Schemas for Conductor Workflows and Tasks (within Conductor): Utilize Conductor's features (if available) to define input schemas directly within workflow and task definitions in Conductor. This makes input expectations explicit within the workflow orchestration itself.
    2. Implement Input Validation at Conductor Workflow Start: Leverage Conductor's capabilities (e.g., pre-processing tasks, input transformers) to implement input validation at the very beginning of each workflow execution within Conductor. Reject workflow executions with invalid inputs as determined by Conductor's validation mechanisms.
    3. Implement Input Sanitization within Conductor Tasks (if applicable): If Conductor offers features for input transformation or pre-processing within task definitions, use these to sanitize inputs as they are passed to tasks by Conductor. This could involve using Conductor's expression language or built-in functions to sanitize data.
    4. Avoid Passing Unsanitized User Inputs Directly to Task Workers from Conductor: Design workflows so that Conductor itself handles initial input validation and sanitization before passing data to task workers. This reduces the burden on individual task workers to perform redundant input handling and centralizes input security within the workflow orchestration layer.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Command Injection via Conductor Workflow Inputs (High Severity): Attackers injecting malicious commands into workflow inputs that are then passed by Conductor to task workers and executed, potentially gaining unauthorized access or control of systems orchestrated by Conductor.
    • Script Injection via Conductor Workflow Inputs (High Severity): Attackers injecting malicious scripts into workflow inputs that are passed by Conductor to task workers and executed, leading to similar consequences as command injection within the Conductor-managed workflow execution.
    • Data Integrity Issues in Conductor Workflows (Medium Severity): Invalid or malformed inputs passed to Conductor workflows causing unexpected behavior, data corruption within the workflow execution flow managed by Conductor, or application errors within the Conductor-orchestrated process.
  • Impact:
    • Command Injection via Conductor Workflow Inputs: High risk reduction. Input validation and sanitization at the Conductor workflow level are crucial in preventing command injection attacks originating from workflow inputs managed by Conductor.
    • Script Injection via Conductor Workflow Inputs: High risk reduction. Similar to command injection, input validation and sanitization within Conductor workflows are effective in mitigating script injection threats originating from workflow inputs handled by Conductor.
    • Data Integrity Issues in Conductor Workflows: Medium risk reduction. Input validation enforced by Conductor ensures data conforms to expected formats as it enters workflows, reducing the likelihood of data integrity problems within Conductor-managed processes.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented.
    • Some basic input validation is performed in certain tasks (Input Validation - partially, needs to be moved to Conductor level).
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Comprehensive input schemas defined for all workflows and tasks within Conductor definitions.
    • Automated input validation at Conductor workflow start, leveraging Conductor's features.
    • Robust input sanitization implemented within Conductor workflow definitions where possible.
    • Workflow design focused on Conductor handling initial input validation before passing data to workers.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Task Input and Output Handling (Conductor Context)

4. Secure Task Input and Output Handling (Conductor Context)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Secure Task Input/Output Handling via Conductor
  • Description:
    1. Minimize Sensitive Data in Task Outputs Visible in Conductor UI/API: Configure Conductor workflows and tasks to avoid including sensitive information in task outputs that are directly visible through Conductor's UI or API. Redact or mask sensitive data in task outputs before they are stored or displayed by Conductor.
    2. Control Access to Task Output Logs within Conductor (if applicable): If Conductor provides access to task output logs, implement RBAC to restrict access to these logs within the Conductor platform. Only authorized personnel should be able to view logs containing potentially sensitive information accessible through Conductor.
    3. Encrypt Sensitive Data Passed as Task Inputs/Outputs via Conductor (if applicable): If Conductor offers features for encrypting data passed between workflow steps or to task workers, utilize these features to encrypt sensitive data in transit within the Conductor orchestration flow.
    4. Secure Storage for Task Outputs Managed by Conductor (if applicable): If Conductor manages the storage of task outputs, ensure that this storage is secure, with appropriate access controls and encryption as configured within Conductor or its storage backend.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Data Exposure in Task Outputs/Logs via Conductor UI/API (Medium to High Severity): Sensitive information inadvertently exposed in task outputs or logs accessible through Conductor's UI or API, potentially leading to data breaches or compliance violations due to information visible within Conductor.
    • Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Data via Conductor UI/API (Medium Severity): Unauthorized users gaining access to sensitive data stored in task outputs or logs through Conductor's interfaces due to inadequate access controls within Conductor.
  • Impact:
    • Data Exposure in Task Outputs/Logs via Conductor UI/API: High risk reduction. Minimizing sensitive data in Conductor-visible outputs, redacting, and controlling access within Conductor significantly reduces exposure risk through Conductor's interfaces.
    • Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Data via Conductor UI/API: High risk reduction. RBAC within Conductor prevents unauthorized access to sensitive data accessible through Conductor's UI and API.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented.
    • HTTPS is used for communication to Conductor API (Encryption in Transit - partially, needs to be leveraged within Conductor workflows if possible).
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Systematic review of task outputs visible in Conductor to minimize sensitive data exposure.
    • Redaction or masking of sensitive data in task output logs accessible through Conductor.
    • RBAC for access to task output logs within Conductor.
    • Encryption of sensitive data in transit within Conductor workflows if Conductor supports it.
    • Secure storage mechanisms for task outputs managed by Conductor with appropriate access controls and encryption configured within Conductor.

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Task Execution Monitoring and Logging (Conductor Context)

5. Implement Task Execution Monitoring and Logging (Conductor Context)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Task Execution Monitoring and Logging via Conductor
  • Description:
    1. Utilize Conductor's Built-in Monitoring and Logging Features: Leverage Conductor's built-in monitoring dashboards, metrics, and logging capabilities to track task execution, workflow status, and performance within Conductor.
    2. Configure Conductor to Log Relevant Task Execution Events: Ensure Conductor is configured to log relevant events related to task execution, workflow lifecycle, errors, and anomalies. Include information such as task IDs, workflow IDs, start/end times, status, and error messages in Conductor's logs.
    3. Integrate Conductor Logs with Centralized Logging System: Configure Conductor to send its logs to a centralized logging system (e.g., ELK stack, Splunk, cloud logging services) for aggregation, analysis, and long-term retention. This allows for comprehensive monitoring and incident investigation related to Conductor-orchestrated workflows.
    4. Set up Alerts Based on Conductor Metrics and Logs: Configure alerting mechanisms based on Conductor's metrics and logs to notify security and operations teams of anomalies, errors, or suspicious patterns in task execution within Conductor. Focus alerts on events relevant to security and operational stability of Conductor workflows.
    5. Analyze Conductor Logs for Security Incidents and Performance Issues: Regularly analyze Conductor logs for security incidents, performance bottlenecks, and operational issues within the workflow orchestration layer. Use Conductor's logs for incident response, root cause analysis, and performance optimization of Conductor-managed workflows.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Delayed Incident Detection in Conductor Workflows (Medium to High Severity): Without monitoring and logging of Conductor workflow execution, security incidents or operational problems related to tasks orchestrated by Conductor may go undetected for extended periods, increasing potential damage within the Conductor-managed system.
    • Difficulty in Incident Response and Forensics for Conductor Issues (Medium Severity): Lack of logs from Conductor makes it challenging to investigate security incidents, identify root causes, and perform effective incident response related to Conductor workflow execution.
    • Performance Issues and Operational Disruptions in Conductor Workflows (Medium Severity): Monitoring of Conductor metrics helps identify performance bottlenecks and operational issues in task execution orchestrated by Conductor, allowing for proactive remediation and preventing service disruptions in Conductor-managed processes.
  • Impact:
    • Delayed Incident Detection in Conductor Workflows: High risk reduction. Real-time monitoring and alerting based on Conductor data significantly reduce the time to detect security incidents within Conductor-managed workflows.
    • Difficulty in Incident Response and Forensics for Conductor Issues: High risk reduction. Comprehensive logs from Conductor provide crucial data for incident investigation and forensics related to Conductor workflow execution.
    • Performance Issues and Operational Disruptions in Conductor Workflows: Medium risk reduction. Monitoring of Conductor metrics enables proactive identification and resolution of performance issues, improving system stability of Conductor-orchestrated processes.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented.
    • Basic logging is configured for task workers (Logging - partially, needs to include Conductor logs).
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Centralized logging system specifically configured to collect Conductor logs.
    • Real-time monitoring dashboards leveraging Conductor's metrics.
    • Automated alerting for anomalies and errors detected in Conductor logs and metrics.
    • Formal log retention and analysis policies for Conductor logs.

Mitigation Strategy: General Conductor Configuration Security

6. General Conductor Configuration Security

  • Mitigation Strategy: Secure Conductor Configuration
  • Description:
    1. Review Conductor Configuration for Security Best Practices: Thoroughly review Conductor's configuration settings and ensure they align with security best practices. This includes settings related to authentication, authorization, communication protocols, storage, and logging.
    2. Harden Conductor Server Configuration: Harden the operating system and server environment hosting the Conductor server component. Follow security hardening guidelines for the specific OS and server software used.
    3. Secure Conductor Database and Message Queue Connections: Ensure secure connections to Conductor's database and message queue. Use strong authentication, encryption for connections (e.g., TLS/SSL), and restrict access to these components to only authorized processes.
    4. Regularly Update Conductor Server and Components: Keep the Conductor server and all its components (database, message queue, etc.) up-to-date with the latest security patches and updates provided by the Conductor OSS project and the respective software vendors.
    5. Follow Conductor Security Documentation and Recommendations: Stay informed about the latest security recommendations and best practices provided in the official Conductor documentation and community forums. Apply these recommendations to your Conductor deployment.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Exploitation of Conductor Server Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Unpatched vulnerabilities in the Conductor server or its components could be exploited by attackers to gain unauthorized access, execute arbitrary code, or disrupt Conductor services.
    • Unauthorized Access to Conductor Server and Data (Medium Severity): Weak or misconfigured security settings in Conductor could allow unauthorized access to the Conductor server, its configuration, workflow definitions, task data, and other sensitive information managed by Conductor.
    • Data Breaches via Insecure Conductor Storage (Medium Severity): Insecure configuration of Conductor's database or message queue could lead to data breaches if sensitive workflow data is stored without proper encryption or access controls.
    • Denial of Service against Conductor Server (Medium Severity): Misconfigurations or lack of resource limits for Conductor server could make it vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks, disrupting workflow orchestration.
  • Impact:
    • Exploitation of Conductor Server Vulnerabilities: High risk reduction. Regular updates and patching significantly reduce the risk of exploiting known vulnerabilities in Conductor.
    • Unauthorized Access to Conductor Server and Data: High risk reduction. Secure configuration and hardening of Conductor server and its components effectively prevent unauthorized access.
    • Data Breaches via Insecure Conductor Storage: Medium risk reduction. Secure database and message queue configurations, including encryption and access controls, mitigate the risk of data breaches through Conductor's storage.
    • Denial of Service against Conductor Server: Medium risk reduction. Proper configuration and resource management for Conductor server can reduce its vulnerability to DoS attacks.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented.
    • Basic server hardening practices are in place (Server Hardening - partially).
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Formal security review of Conductor configuration settings.
    • Detailed hardening guidelines specifically for the Conductor server environment.
    • Enforced secure connection configurations for Conductor database and message queue.
    • Automated process for regularly updating Conductor server and components.
    • Continuous monitoring of Conductor security advisories and documentation for best practices.