Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
115 lines (102 loc) · 22.2 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

115 lines (102 loc) · 22.2 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for square/workflow-kotlin

Mitigation Strategy: Use Secure Workflow State Serialization Library

  • Description:
    1. Identify Workflow State Serialization: Pinpoint where your Workflow-Kotlin application serializes and deserializes workflow state. This is critical for persistence and potentially communication between workflow instances.
    2. Replace Default Java Serialization for Workflow State: If workflows are using default Java serialization for state persistence, replace it immediately. This is a known vulnerability vector, especially in stateful applications like those built with Workflow-Kotlin.
    3. Select a Secure Serialization Library: Choose a robust and secure serialization library specifically for workflow state. Recommended options include Protocol Buffers, kotlinx.serialization (using formats like Protobuf or JSON securely configured), or Kryo (with extreme caution and security hardening).
    4. Configure Serialization for Security: Configure the chosen library with security in mind. For kotlinx.serialization, avoid default polymorphic serialization without careful type registration and validation. For Kryo, disable unsafe features and class registration.
    5. Workflow State Compatibility Testing: Thoroughly test serialization and deserialization of workflow state across different workflow versions and application updates to ensure compatibility and prevent data corruption or deserialization errors.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Workflow State Deserialization Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Exploiting insecure deserialization of workflow state to achieve remote code execution, gain unauthorized access to workflow data, or manipulate workflow execution flow.
    • Workflow State Tampering (High Severity): Maliciously crafting serialized workflow state to inject data, modify workflow logic, or bypass security checks when the state is deserialized and workflows resume.
    • Workflow State Information Disclosure (Medium Severity): Leaking sensitive data contained within workflow state through insecure serialization formats or verbose error messages during deserialization failures.
  • Impact:
    • Workflow State Deserialization Vulnerabilities: Significantly Reduces - Using secure serialization libraries drastically minimizes the risk of deserialization exploits targeting workflow state.
    • Workflow State Tampering: Significantly Reduces - Secure serialization and input validation (see next point) make it much harder to tamper with workflow state effectively.
    • Workflow State Information Disclosure: Moderately Reduces - Secure libraries and careful configuration can limit information leakage compared to default Java serialization.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially - We are using kotlinx.serialization for some data within workflows, but the primary workflow state persistence mechanism might still rely on less secure serialization in certain areas or older workflows.
  • Missing Implementation: A comprehensive audit is needed to ensure all workflow state serialization points are using a secure library like kotlinx.serialization or Protocol Buffers, and that default Java serialization is completely eliminated from workflow state management.

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Input Validation During Workflow State Deserialization

  • Description:
    1. Define Workflow State Schemas: For each workflow's state, define a strict schema or data structure outlining expected data types, formats, ranges, and constraints. This schema acts as the blueprint for valid workflow state.
    2. Validate Workflow State Post-Deserialization: Immediately after deserializing workflow state, implement robust validation logic to verify that the deserialized data strictly adheres to the defined schema. This validation must occur before the workflow resumes execution.
    3. Utilize Validation Libraries for Workflow State: Employ validation libraries or the validation features of your chosen serialization library to streamline the workflow state validation process. Consider libraries specifically designed for data validation in Kotlin.
    4. Handle Workflow State Validation Failures Securely: Define clear error handling for workflow state validation failures. This should include logging the validation error, rejecting the invalid state, preventing workflow resumption, and potentially triggering alerts or error workflows to investigate the issue. Crucially, do not proceed with workflow execution if state validation fails.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Workflow State Injection Attacks (High Severity): Preventing malicious actors from injecting crafted, invalid, or unexpected data into workflow state through manipulated serialized payloads, leading to workflow logic bypasses, data corruption, or security breaches when workflows resume.
    • Workflow Denial of Service (Medium Severity): Protecting against denial-of-service attacks where invalid or malformed workflow state is deliberately introduced to cause workflow crashes, errors, or performance degradation due to unexpected data processing.
    • Workflow Logic Exploitation (Medium Severity): Mitigating risks where invalid workflow state could lead to unintended workflow behavior, bypassing intended logic flows, or triggering vulnerable code paths within workflows.
  • Impact:
    • Workflow State Injection Attacks: Significantly Reduces - Input validation acts as a critical barrier, preventing workflows from processing malicious or unexpected state data, effectively mitigating injection attacks targeting workflow state.
    • Workflow Denial of Service: Moderately Reduces - Validation helps prevent workflow crashes and errors caused by malformed state, improving workflow stability and resilience against DoS attempts.
    • Workflow Logic Exploitation: Moderately Reduces - By enforcing valid state, validation reduces the likelihood of workflows entering unintended or vulnerable execution paths due to manipulated state data.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Basic validation might exist for some data inputs within workflow activities, but consistent and comprehensive validation of deserialized workflow state itself is likely missing across all workflows.
  • Missing Implementation: A project-wide initiative is needed to implement mandatory input validation for all deserialized workflow state in every workflow. This requires defining schemas for each workflow's state and integrating validation logic into the workflow resumption process.

Mitigation Strategy: Version Workflow State Schemas

  • Description:
    1. Introduce Workflow State Versioning: Add a version identifier (e.g., integer, semantic version string) to your serialized workflow state. This version should represent the schema of the state data.
    2. Increment Version on Workflow State Schema Changes: Whenever the structure or schema of a workflow's state changes (fields added, removed, types modified), increment the workflow state version. This signals incompatibility with older state versions.
    3. Workflow Deserialization with Version Handling: Modify workflow deserialization logic to first check the version of the serialized state.
    4. Implement Workflow State Migration Strategies: For each workflow state version change, develop and implement migration strategies to handle older versions of the state. This might involve data transformations, default value population, or triggering workflow upgrade processes to bring state to the current version.
    5. Secure Handling of Unknown Workflow State Versions: Define a secure and robust approach for handling cases where the deserialized workflow state version is unknown or unsupported. This should involve logging an error, rejecting the state, preventing workflow resumption, and potentially triggering an alert or workflow migration process. Avoid attempting to process state with an unknown version.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Workflow Deserialization Errors due to Schema Incompatibility (Medium Severity): Preventing application crashes, workflow failures, or unexpected behavior when attempting to deserialize workflow state serialized with an older, incompatible workflow definition after application or workflow updates.
    • Workflow Rollback Vulnerabilities (Medium Severity): Reducing risks and complications during application or workflow rollbacks by ensuring compatibility between different application versions and persisted workflow state. Without versioning, rollbacks can lead to state deserialization failures or data corruption.
    • Workflow State Data Corruption (Low to Medium Severity): Mitigating potential data corruption or misinterpretation of workflow state when schema changes are introduced without proper versioning, leading to workflows operating on incorrectly interpreted data.
  • Impact:
    • Workflow Deserialization Errors due to Schema Incompatibility: Significantly Reduces - Workflow state versioning ensures compatibility between different versions of workflow definitions and persisted state, preventing deserialization errors and workflow failures during updates.
    • Workflow Rollback Vulnerabilities: Moderately Reduces - Versioning facilitates safer and more predictable rollbacks by providing mechanisms to manage state compatibility across application versions.
    • Workflow State Data Corruption: Moderately Reduces - By enforcing schema awareness through versioning, the risk of workflows misinterpreting or corrupting state data due to schema mismatches is reduced.
  • Currently Implemented: No - Workflow state versioning is not currently implemented. Workflow state schema changes are managed manually, increasing the risk of compatibility issues and errors during updates and rollbacks.
  • Missing Implementation: Implementing workflow state versioning is crucial. This requires modifying workflow state classes to include version information, updating deserialization logic to handle version checks and migrations, and establishing a clear process for managing and incrementing workflow state versions during development.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Workflow Definition Loading and Integrity Verification

  • Description:
    1. Centralized and Secure Workflow Definition Storage: Store workflow definitions in a secure, controlled, and auditable location. This could be a dedicated configuration repository, a secure database, or within the application codebase itself if access is strictly controlled. Avoid loading workflow definitions from untrusted or external sources like user-provided files or public URLs.
    2. Strict Access Control for Workflow Definitions: Implement rigorous access control mechanisms to the storage location of workflow definitions. Restrict write access (modification and creation) to only authorized personnel and systems. Use role-based access control (RBAC) if possible.
    3. Workflow Definition Integrity Checks: Implement integrity verification mechanisms to ensure the authenticity and integrity of workflow definitions before they are loaded and executed. Use cryptographic checksums (e.g., SHA-256 hashes) or digital signatures to verify that definitions have not been tampered with since they were authorized.
    4. Secure Transport for Workflow Definitions (if applicable): If workflow definitions are loaded over a network (e.g., from a remote configuration server), use secure transport protocols like HTTPS or SSH to protect them from interception and modification during transit.
    5. Workflow Definition Audit Logging: Maintain audit logs of all access to and modifications of workflow definitions, including who accessed or modified them, when, and what changes were made. This provides an audit trail for security and compliance purposes.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Malicious Workflow Definition Injection (High Severity): Preventing attackers from injecting malicious or unauthorized workflow definitions into the application, which could lead to remote code execution, data breaches, denial of service, or complete application compromise.
    • Workflow Definition Tampering (High Severity): Mitigating the risk of unauthorized modification of legitimate workflow definitions to alter application behavior, bypass security controls, or introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Unauthorized Workflow Execution (Medium Severity): Preventing the execution of unauthorized or malicious workflows by ensuring only trusted and verified workflow definitions are loaded and processed by the application.
  • Impact:
    • Malicious Workflow Definition Injection: Significantly Reduces - Secure loading and integrity checks are crucial in preventing the injection of malicious workflow definitions, a potentially catastrophic attack vector.
    • Workflow Definition Tampering: Significantly Reduces - Access control and integrity verification mechanisms effectively protect workflow definitions from unauthorized modification.
    • Unauthorized Workflow Execution: Moderately Reduces - By controlling the source and verifying the integrity of workflow definitions, the risk of executing unauthorized workflows is significantly lowered.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Workflow definitions are currently stored within the application codebase, offering some level of implicit access control through code repository permissions. However, explicit integrity checks and runtime verification of workflow definitions are likely missing.
  • Missing Implementation: Implementing robust workflow definition integrity checks (e.g., checksums or digital signatures) during application startup or workflow definition loading is essential. Consider moving workflow definitions to a more centralized and auditable configuration management system with stricter access controls and dedicated audit logging.

Mitigation Strategy: Static Analysis and Security Code Reviews of Workflow Definitions

  • Description:
    1. Integrate Static Analysis Tools for Workflows: Integrate static analysis tools specifically designed (or configured) to analyze Workflow-Kotlin definitions. If dedicated tools are unavailable, adapt general Kotlin static analysis tools to include rules relevant to workflow security and best practices.
    2. Define Workflow Security Rules and Checks: Configure static analysis tools with a set of security-focused rules and checks tailored to Workflow-Kotlin. These rules should identify potential vulnerabilities, logic flaws, and deviations from secure coding practices within workflow definitions. Examples include checks for insecure activity implementations, overly broad permissions, or potential state manipulation vulnerabilities.
    3. Automated Workflow Security Scans: Automate static analysis scans of workflow definitions as part of the development pipeline (e.g., during build processes, code commits, or pull requests). This ensures regular and consistent security checks.
    4. Mandatory Security Code Reviews for Workflows: Mandate security-focused code reviews for all new workflow definitions and modifications to existing workflows. Code reviews should be performed by developers with security awareness and expertise in Workflow-Kotlin. Reviews should specifically examine workflow logic for potential security vulnerabilities, adherence to secure coding guidelines, and proper handling of sensitive data.
    5. Address Workflow Security Findings: Establish a process for reviewing and addressing findings from both static analysis and security code reviews. Prioritize security-related issues and ensure they are remediated before deploying workflows to production. Track and document all security findings and remediation efforts.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Workflow Logic Vulnerabilities (Medium to High Severity): Identifying and mitigating logic flaws, design weaknesses, and security oversights within workflow definitions that could be exploited to compromise application security or functionality.
    • Workflow Coding Errors Leading to Security Issues (Low to Medium Severity): Catching standard coding errors in workflow definitions that, while not directly intended as malicious, could create vulnerabilities or lead to unexpected and potentially insecure workflow behavior.
    • Workflow Design Flaws (Medium Severity): Detecting architectural or design flaws in workflows that could introduce security weaknesses, such as overly complex workflows, improper state management, or insecure external system interactions.
  • Impact:
    • Workflow Logic Vulnerabilities: Moderately Reduces - Static analysis and security code reviews are effective in identifying and mitigating logic-level vulnerabilities and security weaknesses embedded within workflow definitions.
    • Workflow Coding Errors Leading to Security Issues: Moderately Reduces - These practices help catch common coding errors that could inadvertently introduce security problems or instability in workflows.
    • Workflow Design Flaws: Moderately Reduces - Security reviews can identify and address design-level flaws that might not be apparent through testing alone, improving the overall security architecture of workflows.
  • Currently Implemented: No - Static analysis specifically targeting Workflow-Kotlin definitions and dedicated security code reviews for workflows are not currently implemented. General code analysis and reviews might exist, but they likely do not focus on workflow-specific security concerns.
  • Missing Implementation: Implementing static analysis tools and establishing mandatory security code review processes specifically for Workflow-Kotlin definitions are crucial steps to proactively identify and mitigate security risks within workflows. This requires investment in tooling, training, and process changes.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Error Handling and Information Leakage Prevention in Workflows

  • Description:
    1. Implement Secure Error Handling in Workflow Activities: Design workflow activities to handle errors gracefully and securely. Avoid exposing sensitive information in error messages, logs, or exceptions propagated from activities. Implement robust error handling logic within activities to catch exceptions, log relevant details securely (without sensitive data), and return generic error responses to workflows.
    2. Generic Workflow Error Responses: Ensure that workflows, when encountering errors from activities or internal operations, return generic error responses to external systems or users. Avoid propagating detailed technical error messages that could reveal internal application workings or sensitive data.
    3. Secure Workflow Error Logging: Log workflow errors and exceptions in a secure and controlled manner. Ensure that error logs do not contain sensitive information, such as user credentials, API keys, or internal data structures. Sanitize or redact sensitive data before logging error details.
    4. Centralized Error Monitoring and Alerting: Implement centralized error monitoring and alerting for workflow errors. Monitor error rates and patterns to detect potential security issues, denial-of-service attempts, or application malfunctions. Set up alerts for unusual error conditions that might require investigation.
    5. Regular Review of Workflow Error Logs: Regularly review workflow error logs for security-related anomalies, patterns of errors that might indicate vulnerabilities, or attempts to exploit error handling mechanisms.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Information Disclosure through Workflow Errors (Medium Severity): Preventing the leakage of sensitive information (e.g., internal paths, data structures, configuration details, user data) through verbose or poorly handled workflow error messages, logs, or exceptions.
    • Exploitation of Error Handling Mechanisms (Medium Severity): Mitigating risks where attackers might attempt to trigger specific workflow errors to gain insights into application behavior, bypass security checks, or cause denial of service by exploiting error handling logic.
    • Debugging Information Leakage in Production (Medium Severity): Preventing accidental exposure of debugging information or overly detailed error messages in production environments, which could aid attackers in understanding application internals and identifying vulnerabilities.
  • Impact:
    • Information Disclosure through Workflow Errors: Moderately Reduces - Secure error handling and generic error responses significantly reduce the risk of leaking sensitive information through workflow errors.
    • Exploitation of Error Handling Mechanisms: Moderately Reduces - By implementing robust and secure error handling, the likelihood of attackers exploiting error handling logic for malicious purposes is reduced.
    • Debugging Information Leakage in Production: Moderately Reduces - Controlled error reporting and logging prevent accidental exposure of debugging details in production, hardening the application against information gathering attacks.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Basic error handling is likely implemented in some workflow activities, but consistent secure error handling practices, generic error responses, and comprehensive error logging with sensitive data redaction might be missing across all workflows.
  • Missing Implementation: A project-wide effort is needed to standardize and enforce secure error handling practices in all workflow activities and workflow logic. This includes implementing generic error responses, secure error logging with data sanitization, and centralized error monitoring and alerting for workflows.