Attack Surface: 1. Malicious Processor Execution
- Description: Arbitrary code execution within the build process via a compromised or malicious KSP processor. This is the most direct and severe threat.
- How KSP Contributes: KSP's fundamental purpose is to execute code (processors) during compilation. This is the direct mechanism of attack.
- Example: An attacker compromises a KSP processor library on a public repository. Projects using it unknowingly execute the attacker's code during builds.
- Impact:
- Complete compromise of the build environment.
- Injection of malicious code into the compiled application.
- Exfiltration of secrets, source code, etc.
- Lateral movement.
- Risk Severity: Critical
- Mitigation Strategies:
- Strict Dependency Management: Use dependency locking (e.g., Gradle's) to ensure only known, verified processor versions are used.
- Dependency Auditing: Regularly audit dependencies for vulnerabilities and updates.
- Private Repositories: Use a private repository with strict access controls for KSP processor dependencies.
- Build Environment Isolation: Run builds in isolated environments (containers, VMs).
- Least Privilege: Run build processes with minimal necessary privileges (never as root/admin).
- Code Review: Thoroughly review build configuration and dependency changes, especially new KSP processors.
Attack Surface: 2. Input-Driven Code Generation Vulnerabilities
- Description: Vulnerabilities in the generated code resulting from a KSP processor's handling of (potentially malicious) input. This is a direct consequence of KSP's code generation.
- How KSP Contributes: KSP processors directly generate code based on input. Flawed input handling directly creates vulnerabilities in the output.
- Example: A KSP processor generates SQL queries from class names. A malicious class name like
"; DROP TABLE Users; --"leads to SQL injection in the generated code. - Impact:
- Security vulnerabilities in the final application (SQL injection, XSS, command injection, etc.).
- Data breaches, data corruption, application compromise.
- Risk Severity: High
- Mitigation Strategies:
- Processor Author Responsibility: Processor authors must treat all input as untrusted and perform rigorous validation/sanitization.
- Review Generated Code: Developers must review the code generated by KSP processors, treating it as manually written.
- Static Analysis of Generated Code: Use static analysis tools on the generated code.
- Fuzzing of Processors: Consider fuzzing KSP processors to find vulnerabilities.
Attack Surface: 3. Logic Errors in Code Generation
- Description: Bugs in a KSP processor's logic lead to the generation of incorrect or subtly vulnerable code.
- How KSP Contributes: KSP processors are complex pieces of software. Bugs in their logic can translate directly into bugs in the generated code, which may not be immediately obvious.
- Example: A processor intended to generate secure password hashing code has a subtle flaw that weakens the hashing algorithm.
- Impact:
- Introduction of subtle security vulnerabilities in the application.
- Difficult-to-detect bugs that could be exploited later.
- Risk Severity: High
- Mitigation Strategies:
- Thorough Processor Testing: Processor authors should thoroughly test their processors, including unit tests, integration tests, and security tests.
- Code Review of Generated Code: Developers must review the generated code carefully, looking for potential logic errors.
- Static Analysis: Use static analysis tools on both the processor code and the generated code.