Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
73 lines (62 loc) · 8.31 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

73 lines (62 loc) · 8.31 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for oracle/graal

Attack Surface: Language Boundary Exploits

  • Description: Vulnerabilities arising from the interaction between different languages within the GraalVM polyglot environment.
  • How GraalVM Contributes: GraalVM's core feature is enabling interoperability between multiple languages (Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, R, LLVM bitcode, etc.). This creates complex interaction boundaries managed by GraalVM itself.
  • Example: A crafted JavaScript input to a GraalJS context, exposed to a Java application, could exploit a vulnerability in the GraalJS-to-Java bridge (a GraalVM component) to call arbitrary Java methods with malicious parameters, bypassing intended security checks.
  • Impact: Code execution in the host JVM, data breaches, privilege escalation, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Input Validation: Validate all data crossing language boundaries. Treat data from guest languages as untrusted.
    • Least Privilege: Restrict the permissions of guest language contexts. Limit access to Java APIs and resources. Use the Value API for safe data exchange.
    • Sandboxing: Utilize GraalVM's sandboxing features (e.g., --sandbox option where available) to isolate guest languages. This directly leverages GraalVM's isolation mechanisms.
    • Regular Updates: Keep GraalVM and all language implementations up-to-date to patch known vulnerabilities within GraalVM and its components.
    • Context Separation: Use separate Context instances (a GraalVM concept) for untrusted code and carefully manage their interactions.
    • Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits of the code that handles language interoperability, focusing on the GraalVM-specific interaction points.

Attack Surface: Native Image - Reflection/Dynamic Loading Misconfiguration

  • Description: Incorrect or incomplete configuration of reflection and dynamic class loading in Native Image applications, leading to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities.
  • How GraalVM Contributes: Native Image's ahead-of-time compilation requires explicit configuration for reflection and dynamic class loading, unlike the traditional JVM. This configuration is specific to GraalVM's Native Image.
  • Example: An application uses reflection to load a class based on user input. If the Native Image configuration (a GraalVM-specific file) is missing the necessary entries, the application might fail. An attacker could provide a class name that is present in the configuration but performs malicious actions.
  • Impact: Application crashes, unexpected behavior, potential for code execution if an attacker-controlled class is loaded.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Minimize Dynamic Features: Reduce reliance on reflection and dynamic class loading in Native Image applications.
    • Configuration Generation: Use the native-image-agent (a GraalVM tool) to automatically generate the necessary configuration files.
    • Thorough Testing: Extensively test the Native Image application to ensure all required classes and resources are correctly included and loaded. This testing is crucial due to Native Image's unique behavior.
    • Explicit Configuration: Manually review and refine the generated configuration files to ensure accuracy and completeness. Use --initialize-at-build-time and --initialize-at-run-time (GraalVM Native Image options) judiciously.
    • Input Validation: If dynamic loading is unavoidable, strictly validate any user-provided input that influences class loading.

Attack Surface: Native Image - Static Analysis Bypass

  • Description: The difficulty of performing dynamic analysis and runtime security monitoring on Native Image applications, potentially allowing vulnerabilities to bypass traditional security tools.
  • How GraalVM Contributes: Native Image compiles Java code to a standalone executable, removing the JVM bytecode that many security tools rely on for instrumentation. This is a direct consequence of using GraalVM Native Image.
  • Example: A runtime security tool that detects SQL injection by monitoring JDBC calls might not function correctly with a Native Image, as the JDBC calls are compiled directly into native code.
  • Impact: Undetected vulnerabilities, increased difficulty in identifying and responding to security incidents.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Static Analysis Emphasis: Prioritize static analysis techniques during development.
    • Native Image-Specific Tools: Utilize security tools specifically designed for analyzing Native Images (tools that understand the output of GraalVM's compilation).
    • Hybrid Approach: Consider a hybrid deployment where some components run in a traditional JVM for monitoring, while performance-critical parts are compiled to Native Image.
    • Enhanced Logging: Implement comprehensive logging and auditing to capture security-relevant events.
    • Code Reviews: Conduct thorough code reviews, focusing on potential security vulnerabilities that might be missed by dynamic analysis.

Attack Surface: Foreign Function Interface (FFI) Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Security flaws in native code (e.g., C/C++) accessed via GraalVM's FFI mechanisms (Sulong, or custom bindings).
  • How GraalVM Contributes: GraalVM provides mechanisms within GraalVM itself (like Sulong) to interact with native code, inheriting the security risks associated with native code execution, but also providing potential mitigation strategies.
  • Example: A buffer overflow in a C library called from a GraalVM-hosted Python script (via GraalPy's FFI, a GraalVM-provided feature) could overwrite memory within the GraalVM process, leading to arbitrary code execution.
  • Impact: Code execution in the GraalVM process, data breaches, privilege escalation, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Memory-Safe Languages: Prefer memory-safe languages (like Rust) for native interactions whenever possible.
    • Native Code Auditing: Thoroughly audit and vet any native code used.
    • Sandboxing: Employ sandboxing techniques (e.g., seccomp, AppArmor) to restrict the capabilities of native code.
    • Sulong Sandboxing: If using Sulong (GraalVM's LLVM bitcode interpreter), leverage its built-in sandboxing features, which are part of GraalVM.
    • Input Validation: Carefully validate any data passed to native code.
    • Regular Updates: Keep native libraries and GraalVM's FFI components up-to-date.

Attack Surface: GraalVM Updater (gu) Compromise

  • Description: An attacker compromises the gu tool or its update mechanism to install malicious GraalVM components.
    • How GraalVM Contributes: gu is the official GraalVM tool for managing GraalVM components, making it a direct target for attacks against GraalVM installations.
    • Example: An attacker intercepts the network traffic between gu and the update server, injecting a trojanized version of a language implementation (e.g., a backdoored GraalJS). This directly compromises the GraalVM installation.
    • Impact: Installation of malicious code, complete system compromise.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Trusted Source: Obtain gu and GraalVM distributions only from official, trusted sources (e.g., the official GraalVM website).
      • Checksum Verification: Verify the integrity of downloaded components using checksums (SHA-256, etc.) provided by the official source.
      • Secure Network: Use a secure, trusted network connection when updating GraalVM. Avoid public Wi-Fi for updates.
      • Code Signing (Future): Ideally, GraalVM components would be digitally signed, allowing gu to verify their authenticity. (This is a desirable future improvement for GraalVM.)