Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
135 lines (122 loc) · 17.4 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

135 lines (122 loc) · 17.4 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for greenrobot/eventbus

Mitigation Strategy: 1. Define Clear Event Scopes and Data Minimization

  • Mitigation Strategy: Define Clear Event Scopes and Data Minimization
  • Description:
    1. Event Scope Review: Review all existing events and their intended purpose within the EventBus context. For each event, clearly define its scope – what specific action or state change does it represent within the application's event-driven architecture?
    2. Data Necessity Analysis (within EventBus Events): For each data field within an EventBus event, analyze if it is truly necessary for all intended subscribers listening on that specific event type. Question the inclusion of every data point within the event payload.
    3. Refactor Broad Events (in EventBus): If an event type is found to be overly broad (carrying data irrelevant to many subscribers of that event type), refactor it into more specific event types within EventBus. For example, instead of a single generic "DataUpdatedEvent", create specific EventBus event types like "UserProfileUpdatedEvent", "SettingsChangedEvent", etc., each carrying only relevant data for their respective subscribers.
    4. Create Specific Event Types (in EventBus): Introduce new, more specific EventBus event types to replace overly generic ones, ensuring each event type has a well-defined and limited scope.
    5. Documentation (for EventBus Events): Document the scope and intended data for each EventBus event type clearly for all developers to understand the purpose and data carried by each event within the EventBus system.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Information Disclosure (Medium Severity): Reduces the chance of accidental information disclosure through EventBus by limiting the amount of potentially sensitive data carried in each event type broadcasted via EventBus.
    • Logic Bugs (Low Severity): Clearer EventBus event scopes can reduce confusion and potential logic errors in subscribers that might arise from processing irrelevant data received through EventBus.
  • Impact:
    • Information Disclosure (Medium Risk Reduction): Moderately reduces risk by limiting data exposure within the EventBus system, especially if combined with data sanitization applied before publishing to EventBus.
    • Logic Bugs (Low Risk Reduction): Slightly reduces risk by improving code clarity and reducing potential for misinterpretation of EventBus event data by subscribers.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Some EventBus events are well-scoped (e.g., UI interaction events), but others, especially backend data synchronization events published through EventBus, are still quite broad.
  • Missing Implementation: Missing for backend data synchronization events and system status events published via EventBus. These events currently carry large data payloads through EventBus that could be broken down into more specific EventBus event types.

Mitigation Strategy: 2. Implement Rate Limiting on Event Publishing (if applicable)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Implement Rate Limiting on Event Publishing
  • Description:
    1. Identify Event Sources: Determine which parts of the application or external inputs trigger event publishing to EventBus.
    2. Analyze Event Publishing Rate: Monitor the typical and peak event publishing rates to EventBus. Identify potential scenarios where excessive event publishing could occur (e.g., malicious input, system overload).
    3. Implement Rate Limiting Mechanism (around EventBus publishing): Introduce a mechanism to limit the rate at which events are published to EventBus from specific sources. This could be implemented:
      • Before Publishing: Implement rate limiting logic before the code that calls EventBus.getDefault().post().
      • Using a Queue: Use a queue to buffer events before publishing to EventBus and control the rate at which events are dequeued and published.
    4. Configure Rate Limits: Set appropriate rate limits based on the application's normal operation and resource capacity.
    5. Testing: Test the rate limiting mechanism to ensure it effectively prevents excessive event publishing to EventBus without impacting legitimate application functionality.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium to High Severity): Prevents malicious actors or system errors from flooding EventBus with excessive events, potentially overwhelming subscribers and leading to DoS.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Medium Severity): Reduces the risk of resource exhaustion (CPU, memory) in subscribers and the overall application due to excessive event processing triggered by EventBus.
  • Impact:
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium to High Risk Reduction): Moderately to significantly reduces the risk of DoS attacks targeting EventBus and its subscribers.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Medium Risk Reduction): Moderately reduces the risk of resource exhaustion caused by uncontrolled event processing via EventBus.
  • Currently Implemented: Not currently implemented. There are no rate limiting mechanisms in place for event publishing to EventBus.
  • Missing Implementation: Rate limiting is missing for event publishing from user input handlers and backend data synchronization processes that publish events to EventBus.

Mitigation Strategy: 3. Implement Subscriber Throttling or Backpressure Mechanisms (if needed)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Implement Subscriber Throttling or Backpressure Mechanisms
  • Description:
    1. Identify Resource-Intensive Subscribers: Identify EventBus subscribers that are resource-intensive (e.g., perform heavy computations, access slow external services) or prone to overload if they receive events too quickly.
    2. Analyze Subscriber Processing Rate: Monitor the event processing rate of these resource-intensive subscribers and identify potential bottlenecks or overload scenarios.
    3. Implement Throttling or Backpressure (within or around subscribers): Introduce mechanisms to control the rate at which these subscribers process events received from EventBus. This could involve:
      • Subscriber-Side Queues: Implement internal queues within subscribers to buffer incoming EventBus events and process them at a controlled rate.
      • Backpressure Signals (if feasible): If EventBus or the application architecture supports it, implement backpressure signals from subscribers to publishers to slow down event publishing when subscribers are overloaded. (Note: EventBus itself doesn't have built-in backpressure, this would need to be implemented at application level around EventBus).
      • Debouncing/Throttling Logic: Within the subscriber's event handling logic, implement debouncing or throttling techniques to limit the frequency of actual processing based on incoming EventBus events.
    4. Configure Throttling Limits: Set appropriate throttling limits for resource-intensive subscribers based on their processing capacity and resource constraints.
    5. Testing: Test the throttling mechanisms to ensure they effectively prevent subscriber overload without negatively impacting application responsiveness or functionality.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium Severity): Prevents resource-intensive subscribers from being overwhelmed by a flood of events from EventBus, which could lead to subscriber crashes or application-wide DoS.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Medium Severity): Reduces the risk of resource exhaustion within individual subscribers and the overall application due to uncontrolled event processing from EventBus.
  • Impact:
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Medium Risk Reduction): Moderately reduces the risk of DoS caused by overloading resource-intensive EventBus subscribers.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Medium Risk Reduction): Moderately reduces the risk of resource exhaustion within subscribers and the application due to uncontrolled EventBus event processing.
  • Currently Implemented: Not currently implemented. Subscribers process events as soon as they are delivered by EventBus without any throttling or backpressure mechanisms.
  • Missing Implementation: Throttling or backpressure mechanisms are missing for resource-intensive subscribers, particularly those interacting with external APIs or databases upon receiving EventBus events.

Mitigation Strategy: 4. Clearly Define Event Contracts and Data Schemas

  • Mitigation Strategy: Clearly Define Event Contracts and Data Schemas
  • Description:
    1. Event Catalog: Create a catalog or documentation of all EventBus event types used in the application.
    2. Contract Definition for Each Event: For each EventBus event type, define a clear contract that specifies:
      • Event Name/Type: A unique identifier for the event type within EventBus.
      • Purpose: A description of what the event represents and when it is published to EventBus.
      • Data Schema: A detailed schema defining the data payload of the event, including:
        • Data fields: Names and descriptions of each data field.
        • Data types: Expected data type for each field (string, integer, object, etc.).
        • Required/Optional: Indication of whether each field is required or optional.
        • Valid Ranges/Formats (if applicable): Constraints on data values (e.g., numerical ranges, string formats).
    3. Schema Enforcement (Ideally): Ideally, implement mechanisms to enforce the defined data schemas for EventBus events. This could involve:
      • Code Generation: Generate event classes from schemas to ensure type safety and data structure consistency when publishing and subscribing to EventBus events.
      • Validation Libraries: Use validation libraries to validate event data against the defined schema before publishing to EventBus and within subscribers upon receiving events.
    4. Documentation Accessibility: Make the event catalog and contract definitions easily accessible to all developers working with EventBus in the project.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Logic Bugs (Medium Severity): Reduces the risk of logic errors in subscribers caused by misunderstandings about event data structure or unexpected data types received through EventBus.
    • Integration Issues (Low Severity): Clear event contracts improve application maintainability and reduce integration issues between components communicating via EventBus.
  • Impact:
    • Logic Bugs (Medium Risk Reduction): Moderately reduces the risk of logic bugs by ensuring consistent understanding and handling of EventBus event data across publishers and subscribers.
    • Integration Issues (Low Risk Reduction): Slightly reduces integration risks and improves code maintainability related to EventBus usage.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. There is some informal understanding of event types, but no formal event catalog or documented data schemas for EventBus events exist.
  • Missing Implementation: Formal event catalog, documented data schemas for all EventBus event types, and schema enforcement mechanisms are missing.

Mitigation Strategy: 5. Use EventBus Features for Error Handling and Dead Events

  • Mitigation Strategy: Use EventBus Features for Error Handling and Dead Events
  • Description:
    1. Implement Dead Event Handling: Register a subscriber for DeadEvent in EventBus. This subscriber will receive events that were posted to EventBus but could not be delivered to any registered subscribers.
    2. Dead Event Logging and Monitoring: In the DeadEvent subscriber, log detailed information about dead events, including:
      • The event object itself.
      • Timestamp of the dead event.
      • Context information (if available) about where the event was published.
    3. Investigate Dead Events: Regularly monitor the dead event logs and investigate the causes of dead events. Dead events can indicate:
      • Configuration errors in EventBus subscriber registrations.
      • Logic errors in event publishing (publishing events of incorrect types).
      • Changes in event types or subscriber registrations that have broken event flows.
    4. Error Handling within Subscribers: Implement proper error handling within EventBus subscriber methods. Use try-catch blocks to handle exceptions that might occur during event processing.
    5. Logging Subscriber Errors: Within subscriber error handling, log detailed error messages, including:
      • The exception details.
      • The event object that caused the error.
      • Subscriber class and method where the error occurred.
    6. Avoid Crashing Subscribers: Ensure that exceptions in subscriber methods are caught and handled gracefully to prevent subscriber crashes from disrupting the application's event processing flow.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Logic Bugs (Medium Severity): Dead event handling helps detect configuration errors and logic flaws in event publishing and subscription within EventBus. Subscriber error handling prevents crashes and improves application robustness.
    • Operational Issues (Low Severity): Monitoring dead events can help identify and resolve operational issues related to EventBus configuration and event flow.
  • Impact:
    • Logic Bugs (Medium Risk Reduction): Moderately reduces the risk of logic bugs by providing mechanisms to detect and diagnose issues in EventBus event flow and subscriber errors.
    • Operational Issues (Low Risk Reduction): Slightly reduces operational risks by improving monitoring and error detection related to EventBus.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Dead event handling is registered and logs basic dead event information. Error handling within subscribers is inconsistent.
  • Missing Implementation: More detailed logging of dead events (including context), systematic error handling with logging in all subscribers, and proactive monitoring of dead event logs are missing.

Mitigation Strategy: 6. Restrict Event Publishing Permissions (if applicable and feasible)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Restrict Event Publishing Permissions
  • Description:
    1. Identify Authorized Event Publishers: Determine which components or modules within the application are legitimately authorized to publish specific types of events to EventBus.
    2. Implement Access Control (around EventBus publishing): If feasible within the application architecture, implement access control mechanisms to restrict event publishing to EventBus only from authorized components. This might involve:
      • Modular Design: Enforce a modular application design where only specific modules are allowed to publish certain event types.
      • Code-Level Restrictions: Use code-level access control (e.g., internal visibility, protected methods) to limit which classes or packages can directly call EventBus.getDefault().post().
      • Centralized Event Publisher Service: Create a centralized service or component responsible for publishing events to EventBus, and enforce access control on this service.
    3. Enforce Permissions: Ensure that the implemented access control mechanisms are effectively enforced and prevent unauthorized components from publishing events to EventBus.
    4. Auditing (if necessary): If strict control over event publishing is critical, implement auditing mechanisms to track event publishing attempts and detect any unauthorized publishing activities.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Event Spoofing/Manipulation (Low to Medium Severity - depending on application context): In scenarios where event origin is critical for security, restricting publishing permissions can prevent malicious or compromised components from publishing spoofed or manipulated events through EventBus.
    • Logic Bugs (Low Severity): Reduces the risk of unintended or erroneous event publishing from unauthorized components, which could lead to logic errors in subscribers.
  • Impact:
    • Event Spoofing/Manipulation (Low to Medium Risk Reduction): Reduces the risk of event spoofing or manipulation via EventBus, especially in more complex or security-sensitive applications.
    • Logic Bugs (Low Risk Reduction): Slightly reduces the risk of logic bugs caused by unintended event publishing.
  • Currently Implemented: Not currently implemented. Any component with access to the EventBus instance can publish any type of event.
  • Missing Implementation: Access control mechanisms to restrict event publishing to EventBus based on component authorization are missing. This would require architectural changes to enforce modularity and potentially a centralized event publishing service.