Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
79 lines (66 loc) · 10.5 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

79 lines (66 loc) · 10.5 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for oracle/graal

Attack Surface: Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in Native Image Build

  • Description: Compromised build tools or dependencies used specifically during the GraalVM native image generation process can inject malicious code or vulnerabilities directly into the final native executable.
  • Graal Contribution: Native image generation is a complex, GraalVM-specific build process relying on numerous tools and libraries, increasing the attack surface compared to standard application builds.
  • Example: A compromised Maven plugin, used to build a GraalVM native image, injects a backdoor into the application binary.
  • Impact: Full compromise of the application, data breach, malicious operations.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Dependency Scanning: Regularly scan build dependencies used in the native image build process for known vulnerabilities.
    • Secure Build Environment: Utilize hardened and isolated build environments specifically for native image generation.
    • Dependency Pinning: Pin specific versions of build tools and dependencies used in the native image build to ensure build reproducibility and control.
    • Code Signing: Sign the generated native image to enable verification of its integrity and origin after build.
    • Regular Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the native image build process and its dependencies.

Attack Surface: Uncontrolled Reflection and JNI in Native Images

  • Description: Improperly configured or uncontrolled reflection and JNI (Java Native Interface) usage within GraalVM native images can bypass intended access controls and introduce vulnerabilities related to interactions with native code or internal application state.
  • Graal Contribution: While GraalVM aims to minimize reflection and JNI in native images for performance and security, their necessary usage, especially when not carefully managed in the native image context, can create significant security gaps.
  • Example: Unrestricted reflection configuration in a native image allows an attacker to access and manipulate internal application state or invoke privileged methods that were intended to be inaccessible in a native context. Unsecured JNI calls in a native image expose the application to vulnerabilities present in the linked native libraries.
  • Impact: Information disclosure, privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Minimize Reflection and JNI: Reduce reliance on reflection and JNI within native images as much as possible. Explore GraalVM-native alternatives where feasible.
    • Reflection Configuration: Carefully configure reflection usage using GraalVM reflection configuration files, strictly limiting access to only absolutely necessary classes and members required for native image functionality.
    • Secure JNI Libraries: Thoroughly vet and rigorously secure any JNI libraries used in native images, ensuring they are free from vulnerabilities and adhere to secure coding practices.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Apply the principle of least privilege to reflection and JNI access within native images, granting only the minimum necessary permissions.

Attack Surface: Insecure Deserialization in Native Images

  • Description: If GraalVM native images handle deserialization of untrusted data, vulnerabilities related to insecure deserialization can be exploited to achieve arbitrary code execution within the native image runtime.
  • Graal Contribution: Native images, while offering performance benefits, are still susceptible to common vulnerabilities like insecure deserialization if they process serialized data without proper security measures. The static nature of native images might make runtime patching more complex, increasing the impact of such vulnerabilities.
  • Example: A GraalVM native image deserializes user-provided data without sufficient validation, allowing an attacker to craft a malicious serialized object that, upon deserialization within the native image, executes arbitrary code.
  • Impact: Remote code execution, data corruption, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid Deserialization of Untrusted Data: The most effective mitigation is to avoid deserializing untrusted data within native images whenever architecturally possible.
    • Use Safe Serialization Formats: Prefer safer serialization formats like JSON or Protocol Buffers over formats known to be prone to deserialization vulnerabilities (like Java serialization) if deserialization is necessary.
    • Input Validation and Sanitization: Thoroughly validate and sanitize all deserialized data within native images before any further processing.
    • Object Stream Filtering (if using Java serialization): Implement object stream filtering to restrict the classes that can be deserialized within the native image runtime, limiting potential attack vectors.

Attack Surface: Code Injection through Polyglot APIs

  • Description: Improperly secured GraalVM polyglot APIs can be exploited to inject and execute arbitrary code within the GraalVM environment, potentially bypassing application security boundaries.
  • Graal Contribution: GraalVM's polyglot capabilities, while powerful, introduce a risk if the APIs for language interoperability and code execution are not used with extreme care, especially when handling user-provided input or external data.
  • Example: An application allows users to provide JavaScript code snippets to be executed via a GraalVM polyglot API without adequate sanitization or sandboxing, enabling an attacker to inject malicious JavaScript code that can compromise the application or the underlying system.
  • Impact: Remote code execution, full application compromise, potential system-level access.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Input Sanitization and Validation: Rigorously sanitize and validate any code or scripts provided by users or external sources before executing them through GraalVM polyglot APIs.
    • Sandboxing and Isolation: Execute polyglot code within strictly sandboxed or isolated environments with heavily restricted permissions to limit the impact of potential code injection.
    • Principle of Least Privilege for Polyglot Execution: Grant only the absolute minimum necessary permissions to the polyglot execution environment and the executed code.
    • Code Review of Polyglot API Usage: Conduct thorough security code reviews specifically focused on the usage of GraalVM polyglot APIs to identify and mitigate potential injection vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Substrate VM Runtime Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Vulnerabilities within the Substrate VM, the runtime environment specifically for GraalVM native images, can directly compromise the security and stability of applications running as native images.
  • Graal Contribution: Substrate VM is a core and essential component of GraalVM native images. Its security is paramount, and any vulnerabilities within Substrate VM directly translate to vulnerabilities in all native image applications built upon it.
  • Example: A vulnerability in Substrate VM's memory management or security isolation mechanisms allows an attacker to trigger a memory corruption issue, escape the intended sandbox, or gain unauthorized control over the native image application or the underlying system.
  • Impact: Remote code execution, denial of service, application instability, potential system compromise.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Regular GraalVM Updates: Maintain GraalVM installations and native image build environments meticulously updated to the latest versions to benefit from critical security patches and bug fixes within Substrate VM.
    • Resource Limits and Isolation Configuration: Carefully configure resource limits and isolation settings provided by Substrate VM to mitigate potential denial-of-service attacks or resource exhaustion vulnerabilities.
    • Security Monitoring and Logging: Implement robust security monitoring and logging for native image applications to detect and respond to any anomalous runtime behavior that might indicate exploitation of Substrate VM vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: JIT Compiler Bugs

  • Description: Bugs or vulnerabilities within the GraalVM Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler itself can lead to incorrect code generation, unexpected program behavior, or exploitable security flaws in code compiled by the JIT.
  • Graal Contribution: GraalVM's performance relies heavily on its advanced JIT compiler. Bugs in this complex component can have direct security implications for applications relying on JIT compilation for performance.
  • Example: A bug in the GraalVM JIT compiler causes incorrect optimization or code generation for a specific code path, leading to a buffer overflow or other memory corruption vulnerability that can be exploited by an attacker.
  • Impact: Code execution vulnerabilities, denial of service, unpredictable application behavior, potential data corruption.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Regular GraalVM Updates: Ensure GraalVM installations are consistently updated to the latest versions to incorporate bug fixes and security patches for the JIT compiler.
    • Thorough Testing and Fuzzing: Conduct rigorous testing, including fuzzing techniques, specifically targeting code paths that are heavily JIT-compiled to proactively identify potential JIT compiler-related issues.
    • Consider Disabling JIT for Critical Code (as a last resort): In extremely security-sensitive contexts, and if performance impact is acceptable, consider options to disable or limit JIT compilation for the most critical code paths to reduce exposure to potential JIT compiler bugs (though this is generally not recommended due to performance implications).