Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
164 lines (120 loc) · 15 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

164 lines (120 loc) · 15 KB

Deep Security Analysis of ethereum-lists/chains

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep security analysis is to thoroughly examine the ethereum-lists/chains repository and identify potential security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. The analysis focuses on the key components identified in the security design review, including the GitHub pull request process, community review, JSON schema validation, automated tests, and the overall data flow. The goal is to provide actionable recommendations to enhance the security posture of the project and mitigate the risk of data poisoning, inconsistency, and other threats.

Scope:

This analysis covers the following aspects of the ethereum-lists/chains project:

  • The repository's structure and organization.
  • The JSON schema definition (_schemas/chain.json).
  • The validation script (_validator/validate.js).
  • The GitHub Actions workflows.
  • The pull request and review process.
  • Data flow from contribution to publication.
  • Reliance on external services (GitHub, Ethereum Networks).

This analysis does not cover:

  • Security of individual Ethereum networks listed in the repository.
  • Security of applications consuming the data from the repository.
  • In-depth code review of every line of JavaScript in the validation script (although critical sections will be examined).

Methodology:

The analysis will be conducted using the following methodology:

  1. Static Analysis: Examining the codebase, configuration files, and documentation to understand the project's architecture, components, and data flow. This includes reviewing the JSON schema, validation script, and GitHub Actions workflows.
  2. Threat Modeling: Identifying potential threats and attack vectors based on the project's business risks and security posture. This involves considering various attack scenarios, such as malicious pull requests, compromised maintainer accounts, and vulnerabilities in the validation logic.
  3. Security Control Review: Evaluating the effectiveness of existing security controls, such as the pull request process, community review, JSON schema validation, and automated tests.
  4. Vulnerability Identification: Identifying potential vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the project's design and implementation.
  5. Recommendation Generation: Providing actionable and tailored mitigation strategies to address the identified vulnerabilities and improve the overall security posture.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

2.1 GitHub Pull Request Process:

  • Security Implications: This is the primary gatekeeper for changes. While it provides a review mechanism, it's susceptible to human error, social engineering, and compromised GitHub accounts. A single malicious or compromised reviewer could approve a harmful change. The breadth of review (number of reviewers) and depth of review (thoroughness) are critical, but not guaranteed.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Malicious Pull Request: An attacker submits a PR with subtly incorrect data (e.g., a slightly altered RPC URL pointing to a malicious node).
    • Compromised Reviewer Account: An attacker gains access to a reviewer's GitHub account and approves a malicious PR.
    • Social Engineering: An attacker convinces a reviewer to approve a malicious PR through deception or manipulation.
    • Reviewer Fatigue/Inattentiveness: Reviewers become overwhelmed or inattentive, leading to superficial reviews and missed vulnerabilities.

2.2 Community Review:

  • Security Implications: Relies on the "many eyes" principle, but participation is not guaranteed. The effectiveness depends on the size and expertise of the community. There's no formal requirement for security expertise among reviewers. Passive observation doesn't guarantee active security review.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Lack of Participation: Insufficient community members actively review PRs, reducing the effectiveness of this control.
    • Lack of Expertise: Reviewers may lack the necessary technical knowledge to identify subtle vulnerabilities or malicious modifications.
    • Collusion: Multiple malicious actors could collude to approve a malicious PR.

2.3 JSON Schema Validation:

  • Security Implications: Provides structural validation, ensuring data types and required fields are present. It does not validate the semantic correctness of the data (e.g., whether an RPC URL is valid or malicious). It's a crucial first line of defense, but insufficient on its own. The schema itself must be correct and comprehensive.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Schema Weaknesses: The schema may be incomplete or have loopholes that allow malicious data to pass validation. For example, it might not sufficiently restrict the format of URLs or other string fields.
    • Bypassing Validation: An attacker might find a way to submit data that bypasses the schema validation entirely (e.g., through a vulnerability in the validation script).
    • Incorrect Schema Implementation: Errors in the validation script (_validator/validate.js) could lead to false negatives (allowing invalid data) or false positives (rejecting valid data).

2.4 Automated Tests:

  • Security Implications: The current tests in _validator/validate.js primarily check for schema compliance and basic data consistency. They do not perform any security-specific checks (e.g., attempting to connect to RPC URLs, verifying chain IDs against known values). The effectiveness is limited by the scope and quality of the tests.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Insufficient Test Coverage: The tests may not cover all possible attack vectors or edge cases.
    • False Negatives: The tests may fail to detect malicious or invalid data.
    • Test Circumvention: An attacker might find a way to modify the data in a way that bypasses the existing tests.

2.5 EIP-155 Compliance:

  • Security Implications: Encouraging EIP-155 compliance is good, but it's not enforced. The repository could contain chains that don't follow EIP-155, potentially leading to replay attacks if users blindly trust the data. The project doesn't actively verify EIP-155 compliance.
  • Specific Threats:
    • Non-Compliant Chains: The repository could include data for chains that don't use EIP-155, exposing users to replay attacks.
    • Incorrect Chain IDs: Even if a chain claims to be EIP-155 compliant, the provided chain ID might be incorrect, leading to the same risks.

2.6 Read Only Access via API (GitHub Pages):

  • Security Implications: This is a good practice, as it prevents direct modification of the data by users. However, it doesn't protect against upstream attacks (e.g., compromising the repository itself). It relies entirely on GitHub's infrastructure security.
  • Specific Threats:
    • GitHub Compromise: If GitHub itself is compromised, the data served by GitHub Pages could be altered.
    • DNS Hijacking: An attacker could redirect users to a malicious server impersonating GitHub Pages.

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow (Inferred)

Architecture: Simple, static website hosted on GitHub Pages.

Components:

  • JSON Data Files: The core data, organized by chain.
  • JSON Schema: Defines the structure and data types for the JSON files.
  • Validation Script (_validator/validate.js): JavaScript code that validates the JSON data against the schema.
  • GitHub Actions: Automates the validation process on pull requests.
  • GitHub Pages: Serves the validated JSON data as a static website.

Data Flow:

  1. Contribution: A contributor creates or modifies a JSON file containing chain data.
  2. Pull Request: The contributor submits a pull request to the ethereum-lists/chains repository.
  3. GitHub Actions Trigger: The pull request triggers a GitHub Actions workflow.
  4. Validation: The workflow executes the _validator/validate.js script.
  5. Schema Check: The script validates the JSON data against the _schemas/chain.json schema.
  6. Test Execution: The script performs additional tests (currently limited to basic consistency checks).
  7. Review: Community members and maintainers review the pull request.
  8. Approval: If the pull request passes validation and review, a maintainer approves and merges it.
  9. Deployment: GitHub Pages automatically updates the live data with the merged changes.
  10. Consumption: Users and applications access the chain data via the GitHub Pages URL.

4. Specific Security Considerations (Tailored to the Project)

  • RPC URL Validation: The most critical vulnerability is the potential for malicious RPC URLs. The project must implement robust validation of these URLs. This is not something that can be adequately addressed by the JSON schema alone. The validation script needs to actively probe the URLs to ensure they are reachable and respond in an expected manner. This probing should be done with extreme caution to avoid causing harm or triggering security alerts on the target networks.
  • Chain ID Verification: The project should attempt to verify chain IDs against known, trusted sources. This could involve maintaining a list of known-good chain IDs or querying a trusted service to validate new chain IDs.
  • Explorer URL Validation: Similar to RPC URLs, explorer URLs should be validated to ensure they are legitimate and point to actual blockchain explorers.
  • Native Currency Symbol Validation: While seemingly minor, incorrect currency symbols could lead to confusion and potentially financial errors. The project should validate these symbols against a known list or standard.
  • Maintainer Compromise: A single compromised maintainer account could cause significant damage. The project needs a strong governance model to mitigate this risk.
  • GitHub Dependency: The project's reliance on GitHub is a significant single point of failure. While GitHub is generally secure, the project should consider mitigation strategies.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies

  1. Robust RPC URL Validation (High Priority):

    • Implement Active Probing: Modify _validator/validate.js to actively connect to each RPC URL using a safe and controlled method (e.g., using a library like ethers.js with appropriate timeouts and error handling). Do not simply check for a 200 OK response; verify that the response is a valid JSON-RPC response and that basic methods (e.g., eth_chainId, eth_blockNumber) return expected results.
    • Implement Rate Limiting: Limit the frequency of RPC probes to avoid overloading the target networks or triggering abuse detection mechanisms.
    • Implement Timeouts: Set strict timeouts for RPC requests to prevent the validation process from hanging indefinitely.
    • Use a Dedicated, Isolated Environment: Run the RPC probing in a sandboxed or containerized environment to prevent any potential harm to the validation server.
    • Maintain a Whitelist/Blacklist (Optional): Consider maintaining a whitelist of known-good RPC URLs or a blacklist of known-malicious URLs.
    • Regular Expression Enhancement: Improve the regular expression used to validate URLs in the JSON schema. The current regular expression (if any) is likely too permissive. Use a more strict regular expression that enforces specific URL formats and prevents common bypass techniques.

  2. Chain ID Verification (High Priority):

    • Cross-Reference with Trusted Sources: Compare the submitted chain ID against a list of known-good chain IDs from trusted sources (e.g., Chainlist, official network documentation).
    • Implement an API Lookup (Optional): If a reliable API exists for verifying chain IDs, integrate it into the validation process.

  3. Explorer URL Validation (Medium Priority):

    • Implement Basic HTTP Checks: Verify that the explorer URL responds with a 200 OK status code and that the content type is HTML or a related type.
    • Check for Common Explorer Patterns (Optional): Look for specific patterns or keywords in the HTML content to identify known blockchain explorers.

  4. Native Currency Symbol Validation (Medium Priority):

    • Maintain a List of Valid Symbols: Create a list of known-good native currency symbols and validate the submitted symbol against this list.

  5. Strengthen Governance Model (High Priority):

    • Require Multiple Reviewers: Enforce a policy requiring at least two maintainers to approve each pull request. Use GitHub's CODEOWNERS feature to assign specific reviewers to different parts of the repository.
    • Implement a Voting Mechanism (Optional): For significant changes (e.g., adding a new chain), consider using a voting mechanism among maintainers.
    • Establish Clear Roles and Responsibilities: Define clear roles and responsibilities for maintainers, including who is responsible for reviewing specific types of changes.

  6. Mitigate GitHub Dependency (Medium Priority):

    • Regular Backups: Regularly back up the repository data to a separate location (e.g., a different Git provider, a local server).
    • Mirror to IPFS (Optional): Consider mirroring the data to IPFS to provide a decentralized and censorship-resistant alternative to GitHub Pages.

  7. Improve Automated Tests (Medium Priority):

    • Add Security-Specific Tests: Create new tests that specifically target potential security vulnerabilities, such as invalid RPC URLs, incorrect chain IDs, and non-EIP-155 compliant chains.
    • Increase Test Coverage: Ensure that the tests cover all relevant fields and edge cases in the JSON schema.

  8. Implement Commit Signing (Medium Priority):

    • Sign Commits: Require maintainers to sign their commits using GPG or a similar mechanism. This provides a way to verify the authenticity of changes and prevent unauthorized modifications.

  9. Security Guidelines for Contributors (Low Priority):

    • Create a CONTRIBUTING.md file: Provide clear guidelines for contributors on how to submit secure and accurate chain data. This should include information on EIP-155 compliance, RPC URL selection, and other security best practices.

  10. Monitor for Suspicious Activity (Ongoing):

    • Regularly review pull requests: Pay close attention to changes that modify RPC URLs, chain IDs, or other critical data.
    • Monitor GitHub audit logs: Look for any unusual activity, such as unauthorized access attempts or changes to repository settings.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the ethereum-lists/chains project can significantly improve its security posture and reduce the risk of data poisoning and other threats. The most critical improvements are related to RPC URL validation and strengthening the governance model. These changes will help ensure the integrity and reliability of the data, protecting users and applications that rely on this important resource.