Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
165 lines (126 loc) · 13.8 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

165 lines (126 loc) · 13.8 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of Filament, based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the Filament rendering engine, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities and weaknesses in its key components. This includes assessing the risks associated with its design, implementation, and dependencies, and providing actionable mitigation strategies. The primary goal is to enhance the security posture of applications built using Filament.

  • Scope: The analysis will cover the core components of Filament as described in the design review, including:

    • Material System
    • Renderer
    • Scene Graph
    • Resource Manager
    • Interactions with the Graphics API (Vulkan, Metal, OpenGL ES)
    • Third-party dependencies
    • Build process
    • Input handling (model files, textures, shader code, API parameters)
    • Deployment models (statically linked, dynamically linked)

    The analysis will not cover the security of applications built using Filament, except where vulnerabilities in Filament could directly impact application security. We will not cover OS-level security or network security, except as they relate to Filament's operation.

  • Methodology:

    1. Architecture and Component Inference: Based on the provided C4 diagrams, documentation, and (hypothetically) the codebase, we will infer the architecture, data flow, and interactions between components.
    2. Threat Modeling: We will use a threat modeling approach, considering potential attackers, attack vectors, and the impact of successful attacks. We'll focus on threats relevant to a rendering engine.
    3. Vulnerability Analysis: We will analyze each component for potential vulnerabilities, drawing on common vulnerability classes (e.g., buffer overflows, injection flaws, denial-of-service) and considering the specific context of Filament.
    4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified vulnerability, we will propose specific and actionable mitigation strategies tailored to Filament's design and implementation.
    5. Dependency Analysis: We will examine the security implications of Filament's reliance on third-party libraries.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component:

  • Material System:

    • Threats:

      • Shader Injection: If Filament allows custom shaders, malicious actors could inject code that causes crashes, leaks information, or executes arbitrary code on the GPU. This is a high-severity threat.
      • Material Parameter Manipulation: Incorrectly validated material parameters could lead to rendering artifacts, denial-of-service (excessive resource consumption), or potentially exploitable vulnerabilities in the shader compilation process.
      • Resource Exhaustion: Complex or poorly designed materials could consume excessive GPU resources, leading to denial-of-service.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Shader Sandboxing: Implement a robust shader sandboxing mechanism. This could involve:
        • Using a safe subset of the shading language (e.g., restricting certain instructions or features).
        • Running shaders in a separate process with limited privileges.
        • Using GPU-based sandboxing techniques (if supported by the hardware and API).
        • SPIR-V validation and sanitization (for Vulkan).
        • Metal shader validation.
      • Strict Input Validation: Thoroughly validate all material parameters, including types, ranges, and combinations.
      • Resource Limits: Impose limits on shader complexity and resource usage (e.g., texture dimensions, number of instructions).
      • Fuzzing: Fuzz the shader compiler and material parsing logic.

  • Renderer:

    • Threats:

      • API Misuse: Incorrect use of the graphics API (Vulkan, Metal, OpenGL ES) could lead to crashes, undefined behavior, or potentially exploitable vulnerabilities in the graphics driver.
      • Buffer Overflows: Errors in handling rendering data (e.g., vertex buffers, index buffers) could lead to buffer overflows.
      • Denial-of-Service: Maliciously crafted rendering commands could cause excessive resource consumption or trigger driver bugs, leading to denial-of-service.
      • Race Conditions: Multithreaded rendering could introduce race conditions if not handled carefully, potentially leading to crashes or data corruption.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • API Validation Layer: Implement a wrapper layer around the graphics API calls to validate parameters and prevent common errors.
      • Memory Safety: Use modern C++ features (smart pointers, containers) to minimize the risk of buffer overflows and other memory management errors.
      • Fuzzing: Fuzz the rendering pipeline with various inputs and rendering states.
      • Thread Safety: Use appropriate synchronization primitives (mutexes, atomics) to prevent race conditions in multithreaded code.
      • Driver Updates: Recommend users keep their graphics drivers up-to-date to mitigate driver-level vulnerabilities.

  • Scene Graph:

    • Threats:

      • Malformed Scene Data: Invalid or maliciously crafted scene graph data (e.g., cyclic dependencies, invalid transformations) could lead to crashes or unexpected behavior.
      • Resource Exhaustion: Extremely large or complex scene graphs could consume excessive memory, leading to denial-of-service.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Strict Input Validation: Validate all scene graph data, including node relationships, transformations, and other properties.
      • Depth Limits: Impose limits on the depth and complexity of the scene graph.
      • Memory Limits: Enforce limits on the total memory used by the scene graph.

  • Resource Manager:

    • Threats:

      • Path Traversal: If Filament loads resources from external files, vulnerabilities in the resource loading code could allow attackers to read arbitrary files on the system (path traversal).
      • Malformed Resource Files: Processing malformed image files, model files, or other resource types could lead to crashes, buffer overflows, or other vulnerabilities. This is a high-severity threat.
      • Resource Exhaustion: Loading excessively large resources could lead to denial-of-service.
      • DLL/SO Hijacking: On systems with dynamic linking, attackers could potentially replace Filament's shared library or one of its dependencies with a malicious version.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Secure File Handling: Use secure file I/O practices to prevent path traversal vulnerabilities. Avoid using user-provided paths directly; instead, use a whitelist of allowed directories or a secure resource loading API.
      • Robust Parsers: Use robust and well-tested parsers for all resource formats (e.g., glTF, OBJ, image formats). These parsers should be fuzzed extensively.
      • Resource Limits: Impose limits on the size and complexity of loaded resources (e.g., texture dimensions, polygon count).
      • Code Signing: Digitally sign the Filament library and its dependencies (where applicable) to prevent tampering.
      • Dependency Management: Use a secure dependency management system to ensure that only trusted and up-to-date libraries are used.
      • Secure Loading Paths: Load shared libraries from trusted locations and use secure loading mechanisms (e.g., RPATH hardening on Linux, secure DLL search order on Windows).

  • Interactions with Graphics API:

    • Threats: (Covered under the "Renderer" section)

  • Third-Party Dependencies:

    • Threats: Vulnerabilities in third-party libraries (e.g., image loaders, math libraries) could be exploited to compromise applications using Filament. This is a high-severity threat, as it's often easier to find vulnerabilities in less-scrutinized dependencies.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Dependency Auditing: Regularly audit all third-party dependencies for known vulnerabilities. Use tools like OWASP Dependency-Check or Snyk.
      • Vulnerability Scanning: Integrate vulnerability scanning into the CI/CD pipeline to automatically detect vulnerable dependencies.
      • Minimal Dependencies: Minimize the number of third-party dependencies to reduce the attack surface.
      • Up-to-Date Dependencies: Keep all dependencies up-to-date with the latest security patches.
      • Forking and Patching: If a critical vulnerability is found in a dependency and a patch is not available, consider forking the dependency and applying the patch yourself (and contributing it back to the upstream project).
      • Static Linking (Consider Carefully): Statically linking dependencies can reduce the risk of DLL/SO hijacking, but it also makes it harder to update dependencies. This is a trade-off that should be carefully considered.

  • Build Process:

    • Threats:

      • Compromised Build Server: If the build server is compromised, attackers could inject malicious code into the Filament library.
      • Dependency Poisoning: Attackers could compromise a package repository or dependency management system to distribute malicious versions of Filament's dependencies.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Secure Build Environment: Harden the build server and protect it from unauthorized access.
      • Reproducible Builds: Strive for reproducible builds, where the same source code and build environment always produce the same binary output. This makes it easier to detect tampering.
      • Dependency Verification: Verify the integrity of downloaded dependencies (e.g., using checksums or digital signatures).
      • Two-Factor Authentication: Require two-factor authentication for access to the build server and code repository.

  • Input Handling:

    • Threats: (Covered under the specific component sections)

  • Deployment Models:

    • Threats:
      • DLL/SO Hijacking: (Covered under "Resource Manager")

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary and Prioritization)

Here's a prioritized summary of the most important mitigation strategies:

  • High Priority:

    • Shader Sandboxing: Implement a robust shader sandboxing mechanism.
    • Robust Parsers and Fuzzing: Use well-tested and fuzzed parsers for all input formats (models, textures, materials, scene data).
    • Dependency Management and Auditing: Implement a robust system for managing and auditing third-party dependencies.
    • Input Validation: Strictly validate all inputs to the Filament API and internal components.
    • Secure File Handling: Prevent path traversal vulnerabilities.

  • Medium Priority:

    • API Validation Layer: Wrap graphics API calls to prevent misuse.
    • Resource Limits: Impose limits on resource usage (memory, texture sizes, scene complexity, shader complexity).
    • Code Signing: Digitally sign the Filament library.
    • Secure Build Environment: Harden the build server and CI/CD pipeline.

  • Low Priority (But Still Important):

    • Thread Safety: Ensure thread safety in multithreaded rendering code.
    • Reproducible Builds: Strive for reproducible builds.
    • Driver Updates: Recommend users keep their graphics drivers up-to-date.

4. Addressing Questions and Assumptions

  • Questions (Answers would require access to Filament's internal documentation and processes):

    • Specific static analysis tools: We can recommend using Clang-Tidy, SonarQube, Coverity, or PVS-Studio.
    • Fuzzing strategy: We recommend fuzzing all input parsing components (glTF, OBJ, image formats, material definitions) and the shader compiler. Tools like libFuzzer, AFL++, and Honggfuzz are suitable.
    • Formal verification: While beneficial, formal verification is often resource-intensive. It might be considered for critical security-sensitive components.
    • Vulnerability handling process: A clear and publicly documented process for reporting and addressing security vulnerabilities is essential. This should include a security contact, a responsible disclosure policy, and a commitment to timely patching.
    • Security certifications: This depends on the target use cases of Filament. Certifications like Common Criteria or FIPS 140-2 might be relevant in specific contexts.
    • Shader sandboxing: This is critical and should be a high priority.
    • Dependency management: We recommend using a tool like vcpkg, Conan, or a custom solution that integrates with the build system and vulnerability scanning tools.

  • Assumptions (These are generally reasonable, but should be verified):

    • Google's security practices: We assume Google follows industry best practices for secure software development.
    • Code reviews: Code reviews are a standard practice for most Google projects and are highly recommended.
    • Static analysis and fuzzing: These are common practices for security-conscious projects, especially those written in C++.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for Filament. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, the Filament development team can significantly enhance the security posture of the engine and protect applications that rely on it. The highest priorities are robust input validation, shader sandboxing, and secure management of third-party dependencies.