Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
110 lines (85 loc) · 11.3 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

110 lines (85 loc) · 11.3 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for addaleax/natives

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Code Reviews Focused on Native Code Interaction

Description:

  1. Establish a Review Process: Define a formal code review process specifically for any code interacting with the natives package. This process should be separate from standard code reviews.
  2. Mandatory Reviewers: Require at least two developers with expertise in both C++ and Node.js internals to review every change to code using natives.
  3. Checklist: Create a detailed checklist of items to be verified during the review, specifically focusing on native code risks. This checklist should include (but not be limited to):
    • Memory management: Leaks, overflows, use-after-free, double-frees – all critical in native code.
    • Type safety and consistency: Between JavaScript and C++, crucial due to the natives bridge.
    • Null pointer checks: Essential in C++.
    • Integer overflow/underflow checks: Specific to native code arithmetic.
    • Error handling and propagation: How native errors are handled and passed back to JavaScript.
    • Race condition analysis: If the native code is multi-threaded, this is paramount.
    • Justification for using natives: Explicitly require a reason why the natives approach is necessary over safer alternatives.
  4. Documentation: Require clear documentation within the code explaining the purpose of each natives interaction and the reasoning behind the chosen implementation, especially regarding memory management and data handling.
  5. Tooling: Encourage the use of static analysis tools (e.g., linters for C++) that can help identify potential issues during development, before code review.
  6. Audit Trail: Maintain a record of all code reviews, including reviewers, findings, and resolutions, specifically for code touching natives.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Memory Corruption (Critical): Directly addresses the core risk of natives – memory safety issues in the C++ code.
  • Type Confusion (High): Focuses on the type mismatches that can occur when bridging JavaScript and C++ via natives.
  • Null Pointer Dereferences (High): A common C++ issue, directly mitigated by explicit checks.
  • Integer Overflows/Underflows (High): Addresses potential arithmetic errors in the native code.
  • Logic Errors (Variable): Helps catch general logic errors within the native code that could lead to security vulnerabilities.
  • Race Conditions (High): If multi-threading is used within the native code accessed via natives, this is crucial.

Impact:

  • Memory Corruption: Significantly reduces the risk (e.g., 70-90% reduction).
  • Type Confusion: High reduction (e.g., 80-90%).
  • Null Pointer Dereferences: Very high reduction (e.g., 90-95%).
  • Integer Overflows/Underflows: High reduction (e.g., 80-90%).
  • Logic Errors: Moderate to high reduction (e.g., 50-80%).
  • Race Conditions: Moderate to high reduction (e.g., 60-80%, if applicable).

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Code reviews are mandatory, but the specialized checklist for natives interactions is not consistently used. The src/native/moduleA.cc file has been thoroughly reviewed, but src/native/moduleB.cc has only undergone a standard code review.

Missing Implementation: The specialized checklist needs to be fully enforced for all natives code. src/native/moduleB.cc requires a dedicated natives-focused review. The audit trail for natives code reviews is incomplete.

Mitigation Strategy: Isolate Native Code Interactions

Description:

  1. Dedicated Module: Create a single, well-defined module (e.g., nativeInterface.js) that acts as the sole point of contact between the JavaScript application and the native code accessed via natives. This is the only place natives should be used.
  2. Minimal API: Expose only the absolutely necessary functions and data from the native code to the JavaScript side. Avoid exposing any raw native objects or pointers. This minimizes the attack surface.
  3. Data Validation: Thoroughly validate all data passed between JavaScript and C++ at the interface layer. This includes type checking, range checking, and sanitization. This is critical because natives bypasses Node.js's usual safety checks.
  4. Error Handling: Implement robust error handling at the interface. Translate native errors into meaningful JavaScript errors. Ensure no native error states can destabilize the JavaScript side.
  5. Consider Separate Process (Optional but Highly Recommended): If feasible, run the native code (accessed via natives) in a separate process and communicate with it using IPC (e.g., using Node.js's child_process module or a message queue). This provides strong isolation.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Memory Corruption (Critical): Limits the scope of potential memory corruption to the isolated module. If using a separate process, a crash in the native code won't crash the main application. This is a direct consequence of using natives.
  • Type Confusion (High): Reduces the risk by centralizing type conversions and validation at the single interface point where natives is used.
  • Privilege Escalation (High): If the native code (accessed via natives) requires elevated privileges, running it in a separate process with limited permissions is crucial.
  • Denial of Service (High): A crash in the native code (if in a separate process) won't bring down the entire application. This is a direct mitigation for the instability natives can introduce.

Impact:

  • Memory Corruption: Moderate reduction if isolated within the same process (e.g., 40-60%), very high reduction if in a separate process (e.g., 90-95%).
  • Type Confusion: High reduction (e.g., 70-80%).
  • Privilege Escalation: High reduction if using a separate process (e.g., 80-90%).
  • Denial of Service: Very high reduction if using a separate process (e.g., 90-95%).

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. A dedicated module (nativeInterface.js) exists, but it exposes more functionality than strictly necessary. Separate process isolation is not implemented.

Missing Implementation: The API of nativeInterface.js needs to be minimized to reduce the natives attack surface. Separate process isolation should be strongly considered and implemented if feasible, given the inherent risks of natives.

Mitigation Strategy: Extensive and Targeted Testing (Specifically for Native Interactions)

Description:

  1. Unit Tests: Create unit tests specifically for the nativeInterface.js module (the isolation layer), covering all exposed functions and edge cases. These tests should focus on the interaction with the native code.
  2. Fuzz Testing: Implement fuzz testing to automatically generate a wide variety of inputs to the native code through the nativeInterface.js layer. This is crucial for uncovering vulnerabilities in the native code that natives exposes. Requires a fuzzing harness (e.g., libFuzzer, AFL++).
  3. Memory Leak Detection: Run tests with memory leak detection tools (e.g., Valgrind, AddressSanitizer) enabled. This is essential for finding memory errors in the native code accessed via natives. Requires a suitable testing environment.
  4. Crash Reproduction: Establish a process for reliably reproducing any crashes encountered during testing, especially those originating in the native code.
  5. Regression Testing: After fixing any bugs (especially in the native code), run a comprehensive suite of regression tests to ensure that the fixes don't introduce new issues.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Memory Corruption (Critical): Fuzz testing and memory leak detection are essential for identifying memory-related vulnerabilities in the native code, which is the primary risk of using natives.
  • Type Confusion (High): Unit tests and fuzz testing can help uncover type-related errors at the JavaScript/C++ boundary exposed by natives.
  • Null Pointer Dereferences (High): Unit tests and fuzz testing can trigger these in the native code.
  • Integer Overflows/Underflows (High): Fuzz testing can be designed to specifically target these in the native code.
  • Logic Errors (Variable): Comprehensive testing helps uncover general logic errors within the native code.
  • Denial of Service (High): Testing can identify crashes and hangs in the native code that could lead to DoS.

Impact:

  • Memory Corruption: High reduction with fuzz testing and memory leak detection (e.g., 70-90%).
  • Type Confusion: Moderate to high reduction (e.g., 60-80%).
  • Null Pointer Dereferences: High reduction (e.g., 80-90%).
  • Integer Overflows/Underflows: High reduction with targeted fuzzing (e.g., 70-80%).
  • Logic Errors: Moderate reduction (e.g., 40-60%).
  • Denial of Service: Moderate to high reduction (e.g., 50-70%).

Currently Implemented: Basic unit tests exist for nativeInterface.js, but they are not comprehensive and don't focus specifically on the natives interaction. Fuzz testing and memory leak detection are not implemented.

Missing Implementation: Comprehensive unit tests focused on the natives interaction are needed. Fuzz testing and memory leak detection are critical missing components and should be prioritized, given the inherent risks of using natives. A robust crash reproduction process is essential.

Mitigation Strategy: Limit and Justify natives Usage

Description:

  1. Principle of Least Privilege: Only use natives when absolutely necessary. Always explore safer alternatives first (standard Node.js APIs, well-vetted npm packages). This directly addresses the core issue: minimizing the use of a dangerous tool.
  2. Justification: For each use of natives, require a written justification explaining why a safer alternative is not feasible. This justification should be reviewed and approved. This forces developers to consciously consider the risks.
  3. Regular Audits: Periodically (e.g., every 3-6 months) review all uses of natives to determine if any can be replaced with safer alternatives. This ensures ongoing minimization of natives usage.

Threats Mitigated:

  • All Threats (Variable): By reducing the overall amount of code that uses natives, the attack surface is reduced, and the likelihood of any vulnerability related to natives is decreased.

Impact:

  • All Threats: The impact depends on how much natives usage can be reduced. Even a small reduction can significantly impact overall risk, given the inherent dangers of natives. (e.g., 10-50% reduction).

Currently Implemented: Not implemented. There is no formal process for justifying or reviewing natives usage.

Missing Implementation: A formal policy needs to be established and enforced, requiring justification and regular audits of all natives usage. This is a fundamental step in mitigating the risks.