Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
78 lines (69 loc) · 12.9 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

78 lines (69 loc) · 12.9 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for oracle/graal

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Build Pipeline for Native Images

  • Description:
    1. Native Image Dependency Scanning: Integrate dependency scanning tools into the CI/CD pipeline, specifically configured to analyze build-time dependencies used during native image generation. This includes tools that can understand the GraalVM native-image builder environment and its specific dependencies.
    2. SBOM Generation for Native Images: Implement automated generation of a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) specifically for the native image. This SBOM should detail all components included in the final executable, including GraalVM runtime libraries and build-time dependencies. Store and regularly review this SBOM.
    3. GraalVM Component Verification: Verify the integrity and authenticity of downloaded GraalVM distributions and components. Use checksums and signatures provided by Oracle to ensure that the GraalVM installation itself is not compromised.
    4. Isolated Native Image Build Environment: Utilize isolated and hardened build environments specifically for native image generation. This minimizes the risk of build-time environment compromise affecting the final native image. Consider using containerized build environments.
    5. Regular GraalVM Updates: Establish a process for regularly updating GraalVM to the latest stable version. This is crucial to patch vulnerabilities within the GraalVM runtime and native-image builder itself.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Supply Chain Attacks Targeting Native Image Build (High Severity): Compromised build-time dependencies or a compromised GraalVM distribution leading to malicious code embedded in the native image.
    • Vulnerabilities in GraalVM Runtime or Native Image Builder (High Severity): Exploiting known vulnerabilities in the GraalVM components used for native image generation.
    • Backdoor Injection during Native Image Build (High Severity): Malicious actors tampering with the native image build process to inject backdoors directly into the executable.
  • Impact:
    • Supply Chain Attacks Targeting Native Image Build: Significant Risk Reduction - Makes it significantly harder to inject malicious components during the native image build process.
    • Vulnerabilities in GraalVM Runtime or Native Image Builder: Significant Risk Reduction - Regular updates and verification ensure timely patching of GraalVM specific vulnerabilities.
    • Backdoor Injection during Native Image Build: Moderate Risk Reduction - Isolated build environments and component verification reduce the attack surface, but continuous monitoring is still needed.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, dependency scanning is integrated, and SBOM generation is in place. GraalVM distribution checksum verification is performed manually.
  • Missing Implementation: Automated GraalVM component verification in the build pipeline. Formalized and enforced schedule for regular GraalVM updates. Further hardening of the native image build environment with stricter isolation.

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Reflection Configuration Management

  • Description:
    1. Minimize Reflection Usage in Native Images: Actively refactor code to reduce reliance on reflection, especially in code paths that will be part of the native image. Explore native-image friendly alternatives.
    2. Precise Reflection Configuration: When reflection is necessary, meticulously configure reflect-config.json. Avoid broad wildcard configurations. Specify exact classes, methods, and fields requiring reflection access. Use tools provided by GraalVM to help generate accurate configurations.
    3. Reflection Configuration Review Process: Implement a mandatory review process for all changes to reflect-config.json. Ensure that each reflection configuration is justified and necessary.
    4. Native Image Compatibility Testing: Thoroughly test all functionalities relying on reflection after native image compilation. Verify that reflection behaves as expected in the native image context and that configurations are sufficient and not overly permissive.
    5. Dynamic Reflection Monitoring (Advanced): In production, consider implementing monitoring to detect unexpected or unauthorized reflection attempts at runtime (if feasible and performant).
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Unexpected Native Image Behavior due to Reflection Misconfiguration (Medium Severity): Incorrect or incomplete reflect-config.json leading to runtime errors or crashes in the native image.
    • Information Disclosure via Overly Permissive Reflection (Medium Severity): Broad reflection configurations potentially exposing internal application details or sensitive data through unintended reflection access.
    • Potential Exploitation of Reflection Handling in Native Image (Medium Severity): While less common, vulnerabilities in native image reflection handling could be exploited if configurations are overly permissive or incorrect.
  • Impact:
    • Unexpected Native Image Behavior due to Reflection Misconfiguration: Significant Risk Reduction - Precise configuration and testing drastically reduce runtime errors related to reflection in native images.
    • Information Disclosure via Overly Permissive Reflection: Moderate Risk Reduction - Limiting reflection access minimizes the potential for information leaks through reflection.
    • Potential Exploitation of Reflection Handling in Native Image: Minor Risk Reduction - While less likely, careful configuration reduces potential attack vectors related to reflection handling.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, reflect-config.json is used and maintained. Reflection usage is considered during development. Basic testing after native image compilation is performed.
  • Missing Implementation: Formalized review process for reflect-config.json changes. More comprehensive native image compatibility testing, specifically focused on reflection paths. Dynamic reflection monitoring is not implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Deserialization Practices in Native Image Context

  • Description:
    1. Prefer Native Image Friendly Serialization: Prioritize serialization libraries and formats that are well-supported and secure within the native image environment. Consider formats like Protocol Buffers or FlatBuffers which often have better native image compatibility and security characteristics compared to traditional Java serialization.
    2. Input Validation Before Deserialization (Native Image Context): Implement rigorous input validation before deserialization, specifically considering the native image environment. Ensure validation logic is also compiled into the native image and behaves as expected.
    3. Minimize Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Native Images: Reduce or eliminate the need to deserialize untrusted data within the native image application. If possible, handle deserialization in a separate, less critical component or service outside the native image.
    4. Library Configuration for Native Image Compatibility: When using serialization libraries, configure them to be compatible with native images. Some libraries might require specific configurations or native image hints to function correctly and securely in a native image.
    5. Native Image Specific Deserialization Testing: Thoroughly test deserialization processes within the native image environment. Verify that deserialization behaves as expected and is not vulnerable to exploits in the native image context.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Deserialization of Untrusted Data Vulnerabilities in Native Image (High Severity): Exploiting deserialization vulnerabilities within the native image, potentially leading to code execution or denial of service. Native images might have different library versions or behaviors compared to standard JVM, potentially affecting vulnerability profiles.
    • Information Disclosure via Deserialization in Native Image (Medium Severity): Deserialization flaws in the native image potentially leading to the leakage of sensitive information.
    • Denial of Service via Deserialization in Native Image (Medium Severity): Malicious serialized data causing resource exhaustion or crashes specifically within the native image runtime.
  • Impact:
    • Deserialization of Untrusted Data Vulnerabilities in Native Image: Significant Risk Reduction - Avoiding vulnerable serialization methods and implementing input validation significantly reduces this risk, especially within the potentially different context of a native image.
    • Information Disclosure via Deserialization in Native Image: Moderate Risk Reduction - Secure deserialization practices minimize data leaks through deserialization flaws in the native image.
    • Denial of Service via Deserialization in Native Image: Moderate Risk Reduction - Input validation and resource management within the native image context can mitigate DoS attacks related to deserialization.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, Java serialization is avoided where possible. JSON is preferred. Input validation is implemented.
  • Missing Implementation: Formal policy to minimize deserialization of untrusted data in native images. Native image specific deserialization testing is not consistently performed. Investigation and adoption of more native-image friendly serialization libraries is needed.

Mitigation Strategy: Regular Security Audits and Penetration Testing with Native Image Focus

  • Description:
    1. Native Image Specific Security Audits: Conduct security audits specifically focusing on the unique aspects of native images. This includes reviewing reflect-config.json, JNI configurations (if used), build process security, and resource management within the native image.
    2. Penetration Testing of Native Image Executables: Perform penetration testing directly on the compiled native image executables. This should include testing for vulnerabilities that might be specific to the native image environment or introduced during the ahead-of-time compilation process.
    3. GraalVM Security Expertise: Engage security experts with specific knowledge of GraalVM and native image security for audits and penetration testing. Ensure testers understand the nuances of native image compilation and runtime behavior.
    4. Focus on Native Image Attack Surface: During security assessments, prioritize testing areas that are part of the native image's attack surface, such as input handling, external interfaces, and functionalities exposed through reflection or JNI.
    5. Automated Native Image Vulnerability Scanning (Emerging): Explore and adopt emerging automated vulnerability scanning tools that are specifically designed or adapted to analyze native image executables for potential vulnerabilities.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • All Types of Native Image Specific Vulnerabilities (High, Medium, Low Severity): Proactive assessments help identify vulnerabilities unique to native images or amplified by the native image environment.
    • Configuration Errors in Native Image Deployment (Variable Severity): Audits can identify misconfigurations in native image deployment or runtime environment that could introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Zero-Day Exploits Targeting Native Images (Variable Severity): While not directly preventing zero-days, specialized audits and testing can improve defenses against even unknown vulnerabilities in the native image context.
  • Impact:
    • All Types of Native Image Specific Vulnerabilities: Significant Risk Reduction - Specialized audits and testing are crucial for identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities unique to native images.
    • Configuration Errors in Native Image Deployment: Significant Risk Reduction - Audits specifically target configuration issues in the native image context.
    • Zero-Day Exploits Targeting Native Images: Moderate Risk Reduction - Improves overall native image security posture and makes exploitation harder, even for unknown vulnerabilities.
  • Currently Implemented: Yes, internal security audits are conducted, but native image specific focus is limited. Vulnerability scanning is automated but not specifically tailored for native images.
  • Missing Implementation: External penetration testing with native image expertise. Dedicated native image security audits as a regular practice. Exploration and adoption of native image specific vulnerability scanning tools. Security training for developers on native image specific security vulnerabilities and testing techniques.