Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
76 lines (67 loc) · 8.41 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

76 lines (67 loc) · 8.41 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for lmax-exchange/disruptor

Mitigation Strategy: Ring Buffer Size Considerations

  • Description:
    • Step 1: Analyze the application's expected event processing load and resource constraints (memory). Consider peak loads and potential burst scenarios.
    • Step 2: Choose a ring buffer size that is appropriately sized for the expected load. A size that is a power of 2 is recommended for Disruptor's optimal performance.
    • Step 3: Avoid excessively large ring buffer sizes that could lead to unnecessary memory consumption and potential resource exhaustion if an attacker can flood the system with events to fill the buffer.
    • Step 4: Monitor memory usage of the Disruptor and the application as a whole. Adjust the ring buffer size if needed based on observed resource utilization and performance.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Resource Exhaustion Denial of Service (DoS) - Severity: Medium
    • Memory Pressure and Performance Degradation - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • Resource Exhaustion DoS: Medium reduction - Limits the potential impact of attacks aiming to exhaust memory by filling an excessively large buffer.
    • Memory Pressure and Performance Degradation: Medium reduction - Prevents performance issues and instability due to inefficient memory usage by an oversized buffer.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • Ring buffer size is configured in the DisruptorConfig class during Disruptor initialization. The size is currently set to 65536 (2^16), based on initial performance testing.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Dynamic adjustment of ring buffer size based on runtime conditions or load is not implemented. No automated mechanism to detect and alert on excessive Disruptor memory usage.

Mitigation Strategy: Wait Strategy Selection

  • Description:
    • Step 1: Understand the different Disruptor WaitStrategy options (e.g., BlockingWaitStrategy, YieldingWaitStrategy, BusySpinWaitStrategy, SleepingWaitStrategy, PhasedBackoffWaitStrategy) and their performance and resource consumption trade-offs.
    • Step 2: Choose a WaitStrategy that is appropriate for the application's latency requirements and resource constraints. For most applications, BlockingWaitStrategy or SleepingWaitStrategy offer a good balance of performance and resource efficiency.
    • Step 3: Avoid using busy-spinning wait strategies (BusySpinWaitStrategy, YieldingWaitStrategy) if CPU resource exhaustion is a concern, especially in environments with potential untrusted event sources. These strategies consume more CPU even when idle.
    • Step 4: While timing attacks are generally a low risk with wait strategies in typical application scenarios, be aware of potential subtle timing differences if your application has extremely strict timing-sensitive security requirements related to event processing latency.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • CPU Exhaustion Denial of Service (DoS) (with busy-spinning strategies) - Severity: Low to Medium (depending on strategy and environment)
    • Timing Attacks (very low risk in most Disruptor use cases) - Severity: Very Low
  • Impact:
    • CPU Exhaustion DoS: Low to Medium reduction - Reduces the risk of CPU exhaustion, particularly when avoiding busy-spinning strategies in resource-sensitive contexts.
    • Timing Attacks: Very Low reduction - Minimally reduces the already very low risk of timing attacks related to wait strategy timing variations.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • BlockingWaitStrategy is currently configured as the default WaitStrategy in DisruptorConfig. This choice was made to minimize CPU usage when the Disruptor is idle.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • No dynamic switching of WaitStrategy based on load or other runtime conditions. No monitoring of CPU usage specifically attributed to the chosen WaitStrategy.

Mitigation Strategy: Producer Type Awareness

  • Description:
    • Step 1: Determine whether events will be published to the Disruptor from a single thread or multiple threads concurrently.
    • Step 2: Configure the Disruptor's ProducerType correctly during Disruptor initialization: ProducerType.SINGLE if only one thread will publish events, ProducerType.MULTI if multiple threads will publish events concurrently.
    • Step 3: Incorrectly configuring ProducerType can lead to race conditions and data corruption within the Disruptor's ring buffer, potentially leading to unpredictable application behavior or data integrity issues.
    • Step 4: If the producer type needs to be changed, thoroughly review and test the application's event publishing logic to ensure it aligns with the chosen ProducerType and maintains data integrity.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Race Conditions and Data Corruption within Disruptor Ring Buffer - Severity: Medium to High (depending on data sensitivity)
    • Application Logic Errors due to inconsistent event data - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • Race Conditions and Data Corruption: Medium to High reduction - Prevents data corruption and ensures data integrity within the Disruptor's core data structure by correct producer type configuration.
    • Application Logic Errors: Medium reduction - Improves application reliability by ensuring consistent and correct event data processing.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • ProducerType.MULTI is configured in DisruptorConfig as events are published to the Disruptor from multiple parts of the application, potentially from different threads.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • No runtime validation or checks to ensure that the actual event publishing behavior aligns with the configured ProducerType. No automated tests specifically targeting potential race conditions related to producer type misconfiguration.

Mitigation Strategy: ExceptionHandler Implementation

  • Description:
    • Step 1: Implement a custom ExceptionHandler class that is provided to the Disruptor during initialization. This handler will be invoked by the Disruptor framework when exceptions occur during event processing within the Disruptor itself (e.g., during event publishing or handler execution).
    • Step 2: Within the ExceptionHandler, implement secure logging of exception details, including the exception type, message, stack trace, and the event that was being processed when the exception occurred. Avoid logging sensitive data directly in exception messages.
    • Step 3: Define a strategy for handling Disruptor-level exceptions within the ExceptionHandler. This might include logging the error, potentially halting the Disruptor if the error is critical, attempting to recover, or routing error events to a dedicated error handling pipeline.
    • Step 4: Ensure the ExceptionHandler itself is robust and does not introduce new vulnerabilities or fail to handle exceptions properly.
  • List of Threats Mitigated:
    • Unnoticed Errors and Failures within Disruptor Framework - Severity: Medium
    • Information Leakage through verbose Disruptor error messages (if default handler is used) - Severity: Low
    • System Instability due to unhandled Disruptor exceptions - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • Unnoticed Errors and Failures: Medium reduction - Improves error detection and allows for controlled handling of errors occurring within the Disruptor framework itself.
    • Information Leakage: Low reduction - Prevents potential information disclosure through default, potentially verbose, error handling.
    • System Instability: Medium reduction - Enhances application stability by providing a mechanism to gracefully handle unexpected errors within the Disruptor.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • A custom LoggingExceptionHandler is implemented and configured in DisruptorConfig. This handler logs exceptions to a dedicated Disruptor error log file.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • The current ExceptionHandler only logs exceptions. More advanced error handling strategies like circuit breaking, error event routing, or automated recovery attempts are not implemented. No alerting mechanism is in place based on errors caught by the ExceptionHandler.