Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
58 lines (49 loc) · 6.77 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

58 lines (49 loc) · 6.77 KB

Threat Model Analysis for caolan/async

Threat: Resource Exhaustion via Uncontrolled Parallelism

  • Threat: Parallel Execution Overload
  • Description: An attacker sends a large number of requests or provides a large input that triggers the application to use async.parallel or async.each (or their *Limit counterparts with an excessively high limit) without proper bounds. The attacker aims to spawn a massive number of concurrent operations, exhausting server resources. For example, if the application processes image uploads in parallel, the attacker could upload thousands of images simultaneously.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS). The application becomes unresponsive, crashes, or is unable to serve legitimate users. Database connections, file handles, memory, and CPU can all be exhausted.
  • Affected Async Component: async.parallel, async.parallelLimit, async.each, async.eachLimit, async.map, async.mapLimit, and any other functions that execute tasks concurrently.
  • Risk Severity: High (potentially Critical if easily exploitable and no other DoS protections are in place).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Input Validation: Validate the size and number of inputs before passing them to async functions. Reject excessively large or numerous inputs.
    • Use *Limit Variants: Always prefer async.parallelLimit, async.eachLimit, async.mapLimit, etc., over their unbounded counterparts.
    • Dynamic Concurrency Limits: Instead of hardcoding limits, consider adjusting them dynamically based on current server load and resource availability.
    • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting at the application or API gateway level to restrict the number of requests a user can make within a given time period.
    • Queueing System: Use a robust queueing system (e.g., Bull, Bee-Queue, or a message broker like RabbitMQ) to manage asynchronous tasks. This provides better control over concurrency and resource utilization than async alone.
    • Circuit Breakers: Implement circuit breakers to prevent cascading failures if a dependent service (e.g., a database) becomes overloaded.

Threat: Resource Exhaustion via Unbounded Queue

  • Threat: Queue Overflow Attack
  • Description: An attacker sends a flood of requests that add tasks to an async.queue. The attacker sends requests faster than the queue workers can process them, causing the queue to grow without bound.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS). The application runs out of memory and crashes.
  • Affected Async Component: async.queue
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Queue Length Monitoring: Continuously monitor the queue length and set alerts for unusual growth.
    • Backpressure: Implement backpressure mechanisms. When the queue reaches a certain size, the application should slow down or stop accepting new tasks until the queue size decreases. This requires coordination between the task producer and the async.queue.
    • Persistent Queue: Use a persistent queue (e.g., Redis-backed) to prevent data loss in case of a crash and to allow for more sophisticated queue management.
    • Maximum Queue Size (Custom Implementation): async.queue doesn't have a built-in maximum size. You'll need to wrap it with custom logic to reject new tasks when a limit is reached. This might involve checking queue.length() before pushing.
    • Rate Limiting: Limit the rate at which tasks can be added to the queue.

Threat: Event Loop Blockage via Long-Running Synchronous Tasks

  • Threat: Synchronous Blocking Operation
  • Description: An attacker crafts input that triggers a long-running synchronous operation within an async callback (e.g., a computationally expensive calculation, a blocking I/O operation without proper asynchronous handling). The attacker aims to block the Node.js event loop.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS). The application becomes unresponsive to all requests while the blocking operation is running.
  • Affected Async Component: Any async function that uses callbacks containing synchronous blocking code (e.g., async.queue worker, async.each iterator, etc.). The issue isn't async itself, but how it's used.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Asynchronous I/O: Use asynchronous versions of I/O operations (e.g., fs.readFile instead of fs.readFileSync, asynchronous database drivers).
    • Worker Threads: Offload CPU-bound tasks to worker threads (using the worker_threads module in Node.js) to prevent blocking the main event loop.
    • Process Pool: For very heavy computations, consider using a process pool to distribute the work across multiple processes.
    • Code Profiling: Use profiling tools to identify and eliminate synchronous blocking operations within async callbacks.
    • Input Validation (Indirect Mitigation): Validate input to prevent triggering computationally expensive operations maliciously.

Threat: Data Corruption via Race Conditions

  • Threat: Concurrent Resource Modification
  • Description: An attacker exploits timing vulnerabilities by sending multiple requests that trigger concurrent asynchronous operations (e.g., using async.parallel) that access and modify the same shared resource (e.g., a global variable, a database record) without proper synchronization.
  • Impact: Data corruption, inconsistent application state, unpredictable behavior, potentially leading to security vulnerabilities (e.g., privilege escalation if user roles are corrupted).
  • Affected Async Component: async.parallel, async.each, and any other functions that execute tasks concurrently, if those tasks access shared mutable state.
  • Risk Severity: High (potentially Critical depending on the nature of the shared resource).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Minimize Shared State: Design the application to minimize shared mutable state. Favor immutable data structures.
    • Synchronization Primitives: Use appropriate synchronization mechanisms (e.g., mutexes, semaphores, atomic operations) to protect access to shared resources. Libraries like async-mutex can help.
    • Database Transactions: If using a database, use transactions to ensure atomicity and consistency of operations that modify shared data.
    • Careful Code Review: Thoroughly review code that uses async.parallel or async.each to identify and eliminate potential race conditions.