Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
47 lines (37 loc) · 6.04 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

47 lines (37 loc) · 6.04 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for arrow-kt/arrow

Attack Surface: Dependency Vulnerabilities (in Arrow-kt Context)

1. Dependency Vulnerabilities (in Arrow-kt Context)

  • Description: Exploitation of known security flaws in third-party libraries that Arrow-kt directly depends on, creating vulnerabilities within the application using Arrow-kt.
  • How Arrow Contributes: Arrow-kt's dependency on external libraries means vulnerabilities in those dependencies become part of the attack surface for applications using Arrow-kt. While not a flaw in Arrow-kt code itself, it's a direct consequence of including Arrow-kt.
  • Example: A critical vulnerability in a JSON parsing library used by Arrow-kt for some internal functionality could be exploited if an attacker can control input that triggers this parsing, even if the application code doesn't directly use that parsing library.
  • Impact: Application compromise, data breach, denial of service, remote code execution.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Dependency Scanning: Regularly use dependency scanning tools to identify known vulnerabilities in Arrow-kt's direct dependencies.
    • Dependency Updates: Keep Arrow-kt and its direct dependencies updated to the latest stable versions to patch known vulnerabilities.
    • Vulnerability Monitoring: Subscribe to security advisories for Arrow-kt and its ecosystem to be informed of new vulnerabilities in its dependencies.

Attack Surface: Logic Errors due to Functional Programming Misuse (Critical Logic Flaws)

2. Logic Errors due to Functional Programming Misuse (Critical Logic Flaws)

  • Description: Introduction of critical logic flaws leading to security vulnerabilities due to incorrect application of functional programming principles and Arrow-kt's abstractions, specifically those with high security impact.
  • How Arrow Contributes: Arrow-kt promotes functional programming paradigms. Deeply flawed logic arising from misusing concepts like type classes, monads, or immutable data structures, when dealing with security-sensitive operations, can create critical vulnerabilities.
  • Example: Incorrectly using Arrow's Either monad in an authentication flow, where a logic error in function composition leads to bypassing authentication checks and granting unauthorized access. For instance, a flawed flatMap chain on an Either<AuthError, User> might incorrectly propagate a successful authentication result even when an error occurred.
  • Impact: Security bypass, unauthorized access to sensitive data or functionality, complete application compromise.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Advanced Functional Programming Training: Provide developers with advanced training focusing on secure functional programming patterns and common pitfalls within Arrow-kt, especially related to security-sensitive logic.
    • Security-Focused Code Reviews: Conduct rigorous code reviews specifically targeting security aspects of functional code and Arrow-kt usage, looking for subtle logic errors that could have security implications.
    • Formal Verification (for critical paths): For highly critical security paths, consider exploring formal verification techniques to mathematically prove the correctness of functional logic implemented using Arrow-kt.
    • Extensive Integration Testing (Security Focused): Implement comprehensive integration tests that specifically target security-critical functional logic and ensure correct behavior under various attack scenarios.

Attack Surface: Insecure Deserialization of Arrow Types

3. Insecure Deserialization of Arrow Types

  • Description: Security risks associated with insecure deserialization vulnerabilities when converting Arrow-kt data types (like Either, Option, custom data types) from a serialized format, potentially leading to remote code execution or other critical impacts.
  • How Arrow Contributes: If Arrow-kt types are used in data that is serialized and then deserialized, and this process is not handled with extreme care, it can open the door to classic insecure deserialization attacks, especially if custom serialization/deserialization is implemented.
  • Example: An application serializes a custom data type built with Arrow's data classes and uses a vulnerable deserialization library or custom logic. An attacker crafts a malicious serialized payload that, when deserialized, executes arbitrary code on the server or client.
  • Impact: Remote code execution, complete server or client compromise, data corruption, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid Custom Deserialization (if possible): Rely on well-established, secure serialization libraries and their default mechanisms for handling Kotlin/Arrow types.
    • Secure Serialization Libraries Only: Strictly use only well-vetted and actively maintained serialization libraries known for their security posture (e.g., kotlinx.serialization with careful configuration, Jackson with security best practices).
    • Input Validation and Sanitization (Post-Deserialization): Even with secure libraries, always perform thorough input validation and sanitization on all data after deserialization, especially if it originates from untrusted sources. Treat deserialized data as potentially malicious until proven otherwise.
    • Principle of Least Privilege (Deserialization Context): Run deserialization processes with the minimum necessary privileges to limit the potential damage from a successful exploit.
    • Regular Security Audits of Serialization/Deserialization Code: Conduct regular security audits specifically focused on the code paths that handle serialization and deserialization of Arrow-kt types.