Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
105 lines (79 loc) · 7.66 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

105 lines (79 loc) · 7.66 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for spockframework/spock

Mitigation Strategy: Controlled Mocking/Stubbing with Balanced Testing

  • 1. Mitigation Strategy: Controlled Mocking/Stubbing with Balanced Testing

    • Description:

      1. Strategic Mocking: Within Spock specifications, consciously decide when to use Mock(), Stub(), or Spy(). Prioritize mocking only truly external dependencies (external APIs, databases).
      2. Integration Test Complement: For every Spock unit test heavily using mocks, ensure there's a corresponding integration test (potentially also using Spock, but with fewer mocks or more realistic test doubles) that verifies the interaction between components.
      3. Code Review Focus: During code reviews of Spock specifications, reviewers should specifically question:
        • Is this mock necessary? Could an integration test be more appropriate?
        • Are all relevant interaction paths (including error conditions) tested, even with the mock?
        • Is the mock overly simplistic, potentially hiding real-world complexities?
      4. Coverage Analysis (Spock-Aware): While code coverage tools don't directly understand Spock's mocking, use them to identify areas where mocked code has low overall coverage (considering both unit and integration tests). This highlights potential gaps.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Untested Code Paths due to Over-Mocking (High Severity): Spock's powerful mocking can lead to critical code paths remaining untested if real dependencies are always replaced with simplistic mocks.
      • False Confidence from Mock-Heavy Tests (Medium Severity): Developers might be misled by high unit test coverage achieved through excessive mocking, overlooking integration issues.

    • Impact:

      • Untested Code Paths: Significantly reduces the risk by ensuring a balance between unit tests with mocks and integration tests with real (or more realistic) dependencies. (Risk reduction: High)
      • False Confidence: Improves the reliability of the test suite by providing a more accurate assessment of code quality and integration. (Risk reduction: Medium)

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Spock is used for unit tests, with widespread use of mocking.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • No formal guidelines for when to use mocks vs. integration tests within the Spock context.
      • Code reviews don't consistently challenge the necessity of mocks.
      • No systematic analysis of coverage gaps related to mocked code.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Data-Driven Testing with Spock (Data Providers)

  • 2. Mitigation Strategy: Secure Data-Driven Testing with Spock (Data Providers)

    • Description:

      1. No Hardcoded Secrets in where: Blocks: Enforce a strict rule: never include sensitive data (passwords, API keys, PII) directly within Spock's where: blocks.
      2. Environment Variables in where:: Train developers to use environment variables within where: blocks to provide sensitive test data. Example: 
        where:
username | password             | expectedResult
"test"   | System.getenv("TEST_PASSWORD") | true
      3. Secrets Management Integration (Spock Context): If using a secrets management solution, provide Spock-specific examples of how to retrieve secrets and use them within data providers (e.g., using a helper method that fetches the secret).
      4. Data Generation in where:: Encourage the use of test data generation libraries (e.g., Faker) within the where: block to create realistic but non-sensitive data, especially for PII. Example: 
        where:
firstName | lastName | email
Faker.instance().name().firstName() | Faker.instance().name().lastName() | Faker.instance().internet().emailAddress()
      5. Code Review for where: Blocks: Code reviews must specifically scrutinize where: blocks for any hardcoded sensitive data.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Exposure of Secrets in Spock Data Providers (High Severity): Hardcoding secrets in where: blocks creates a major risk if the test code is compromised or accidentally committed.
      • Accidental Leakage of PII in Tests (Medium Severity): Using real PII in data providers can lead to privacy violations.

    • Impact:

      • Exposure of Secrets: Eliminates the risk of hardcoded secrets within Spock's data-driven tests. (Risk reduction: High)
      • Leakage of PII: Reduces the risk of using real PII by promoting the use of data generators. (Risk reduction: Medium)

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Some tests use environment variables.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • No strict policy against hardcoding secrets in where: blocks.
      • No consistent use of environment variables or secrets management within where: blocks.
      • No use of data generation libraries within where: blocks.
      • Code reviews don't always catch hardcoded data in where: blocks.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Interaction Verification (interaction {})

  • **3. Mitigation Strategy: Secure Interaction Verification (interaction {})

    • Description:

      1. Minimize Sensitive Data in Interactions: Refactor code or tests, if possible, to avoid passing sensitive data directly to mocked methods that are verified using interaction {}.
      2. Strategic Argument Matchers: Within interaction {} blocks, use argument matchers judiciously:
        • Prefer type-safe matchers (e.g., String, Integer) over _ (any argument) when dealing with potentially sensitive data.
        • Create custom argument matchers that verify only the necessary aspects of the data (e.g., length, format) without exposing the actual value.
      3. Custom Failure Messages (Spock-Specific): If sensitive data must be part of an interaction, use Spock's features to customize failure messages:
        • Use thrown() with a custom message that redacts or obfuscates the sensitive data.
        • Create custom assertion methods that provide more controlled failure messages.
      4. Code Review of interaction {}: Code reviews should specifically check interaction {} blocks for potential exposure of sensitive data in failure messages.

    • Threats Mitigated:

      • Exposure of Sensitive Data in Spock Test Failures (Low Severity): Failed tests using interaction {} might include sensitive arguments in the failure message, potentially exposing them.

    • Impact:

      • Exposure of Sensitive Data: Reduces the risk of exposing sensitive data in test failure messages by promoting careful argument matcher use and custom failure messages within Spock. (Risk reduction: Low)

    • Currently Implemented:

      • interaction {} blocks are used for verifying mock interactions.

    • Missing Implementation:

      • No specific guidelines for secure use of interaction {} with sensitive data.
      • No use of custom argument matchers to protect sensitive data.
      • No use of custom failure messages to redact sensitive information.
      • Code reviews don't consistently focus on this specific Spock feature.