Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
258 lines (204 loc) · 20.8 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

258 lines (204 loc) · 20.8 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Carbon Project

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective: The objective of this deep security analysis is to perform a thorough security assessment of the Carbon project's key components, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities, architectural weaknesses, and data flow risks. The analysis will consider the project's reliance on external APIs, user-provided credentials, and the open-source nature of the project. The ultimate goal is to provide actionable recommendations to improve the security posture of the Carbon application. This includes a specific focus on:

  • Credential Handling: How credentials for cloud providers are handled, passed, and potentially stored (even temporarily).
  • Data Validation: How user inputs and data from external APIs are validated and sanitized.
  • Dependency Security: The security of third-party libraries and APIs used by Carbon.
  • API Interaction Security: The security of communications with external cloud provider APIs and carbon data APIs.
  • Deployment Security: Security considerations related to the chosen Docker-based deployment.

Scope: This analysis covers the Carbon project as described in the provided security design review and inferred from the project's likely structure based on its stated purpose and use of the https://github.com/briannesbitt/carbon library (although the library itself is not the primary focus; the application using it is). The analysis includes the following components:

  • Web UI
  • CLI
  • Carbon Calculator
  • AWS Connector
  • Data Store (if applicable)
  • Build Process
  • Deployment Environment (Docker)

The analysis excludes the internal security of external services (AWS, Cloud Carbon Footprint API, Electricity Maps API), except for how Carbon interacts with them.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Data Flow Inference: Based on the provided design review, C4 diagrams, and typical patterns for similar applications, we will infer the likely architecture, components, and data flow. This is necessary as we don't have direct access to the codebase.
  2. Component-Specific Threat Modeling: Each identified component will be analyzed for potential threats based on its function, inputs, outputs, and interactions. We will use a threat modeling approach that considers STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) where applicable.
  3. Security Control Review: We will assess the existing and recommended security controls outlined in the design review, identifying any gaps or weaknesses.
  4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified threat, we will provide specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to the Carbon project and its technology stack (Go, Docker, AWS).
  5. Codebase Assumptions: We will make reasonable assumptions about the codebase based on standard Go practices and the project's description.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

We'll break down the security implications of each component, focusing on inferred threats and vulnerabilities.

  • Web UI:

    • Threats:

      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): If user inputs (e.g., cloud provider regions, service names) are not properly sanitized before being displayed in the UI, an attacker could inject malicious scripts.
      • Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF): If the application doesn't implement CSRF protection, an attacker could trick a user into performing unintended actions (e.g., changing settings, initiating calculations with malicious parameters).
      • Session Management Vulnerabilities: Weak session management (e.g., predictable session IDs, lack of proper timeouts) could allow attackers to hijack user sessions.
      • Injection Attacks (Indirect): If user-supplied data is used to construct API calls to the backend without proper validation, it could lead to injection attacks against the backend components.
      • Sensitive Data Exposure: Displaying sensitive information (even temporarily) in the UI, such as parts of API keys or detailed error messages, could expose it to shoulder surfing or browser extensions.

    • Security Considerations: The Web UI acts as a primary entry point for user interaction and must be hardened against common web application vulnerabilities.

  • CLI:

    • Threats:

      • Command Injection: If user-supplied arguments are directly used to construct shell commands (e.g., to interact with the AWS CLI), an attacker could inject malicious commands.
      • Argument Injection: Similar to command injection, but specifically targeting the arguments passed to the Carbon application itself. An attacker might manipulate arguments to access unauthorized data or trigger unintended behavior.
      • Sensitive Data Exposure (Local): Displaying sensitive information (API keys, detailed error messages) on the console could expose it to other users on the same machine or to logging mechanisms.
      • Insecure Credential Handling: If the CLI prompts for credentials and handles them insecurely (e.g., storing them in plain text in a configuration file), they could be compromised.

    • Security Considerations: The CLI needs robust input validation and secure handling of credentials, even if they are only used temporarily.

  • Carbon Calculator:

    • Threats:

      • Logic Errors: Errors in the calculation logic could lead to inaccurate results, which, while not a direct security vulnerability, could damage the project's credibility and potentially mislead users.
      • Integer Overflow/Underflow: If large numbers are involved in calculations, integer overflows or underflows could lead to incorrect results or potentially exploitable vulnerabilities.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Extremely large or complex input data could potentially cause the calculator to consume excessive resources, leading to a denial of service.
      • Data Validation Issues (from Connectors): If the data received from the AWS Connector (or other cloud connectors) is not properly validated, it could lead to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities within the calculator.

    • Security Considerations: The Carbon Calculator's core logic must be thoroughly tested and validated to ensure accuracy and resilience.

  • AWS Connector:

    • Threats:

      • Credential Exposure: The AWS Connector handles highly sensitive AWS credentials. Any vulnerability that exposes these credentials could have severe consequences.
      • Insufficient IAM Permissions: If the connector uses credentials with overly broad permissions, an attacker who compromises the connector could gain extensive access to the user's AWS account.
      • API Rate Limiting Issues: Failure to handle AWS API rate limits properly could lead to denial of service or unexpected behavior.
      • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks: If communication with the AWS API is not properly secured (e.g., using HTTPS with certificate validation), an attacker could intercept and modify the data.
      • Data Tampering: If the connector doesn't validate the integrity of the data received from the AWS API, an attacker could potentially modify the data to influence the carbon footprint calculations.

    • Security Considerations: The AWS Connector is a critical component from a security perspective, as it handles sensitive credentials and interacts with an external API.

  • Data Store (if applicable):

    • Threats:

      • Data Breach: If the data store contains sensitive data (e.g., cached credentials, user settings), a data breach could expose this information.
      • Unauthorized Access: Weak access controls could allow unauthorized users or processes to access or modify the data.
      • Data Corruption: If the data store is not properly protected against corruption, data loss or integrity issues could occur.
      • Injection Attacks: If user-supplied data is used to construct queries to the data store without proper sanitization, it could be vulnerable to injection attacks (e.g., SQL injection if a relational database is used).

    • Security Considerations: The data store should only be used if absolutely necessary, and if used, it must be secured appropriately, with encryption at rest and strong access controls. The design review suggests minimal use, which is good.

  • Build Process:

    • Threats:

      • Compromised Build Server: If the build server is compromised, an attacker could inject malicious code into the build artifacts.
      • Dependency Vulnerabilities: Using vulnerable third-party dependencies could introduce security vulnerabilities into the application.
      • Insecure Build Configuration: Incorrect build settings (e.g., disabling security checks) could weaken the security of the resulting application.
      • Supply Chain Attacks: If the build process relies on external resources (e.g., downloading dependencies from a compromised repository), it could be vulnerable to supply chain attacks.

    • Security Considerations: The build process should be automated, reproducible, and include security checks (SAST, SCA) to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.

  • Deployment Environment (Docker):

    • Threats:

      • Vulnerable Base Image: Using a vulnerable base Docker image could introduce security vulnerabilities into the container.
      • Insecure Container Configuration: Running the container with excessive privileges (e.g., as root) or exposing unnecessary ports could increase the attack surface.
      • Container Escape: Vulnerabilities in the Docker runtime or the application itself could potentially allow an attacker to escape the container and gain access to the host system.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Resource exhaustion attacks against the container could impact the availability of the application.
      • Data Leakage: Sensitive data exposed in the container's environment variables or filesystem could be leaked.

    • Security Considerations: The Docker container should be built and configured following security best practices, including using a minimal base image, running as a non-root user, and limiting container resources.

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

Based on the C4 diagrams and the project description, we can infer the following:

  • Architecture: The application likely follows a layered architecture, with the Web UI and CLI acting as presentation layers, the Carbon Calculator as the core business logic layer, and the AWS Connector as a data access layer.

  • Components: The key components are as described in the C4 Container diagram.

  • Data Flow:

    1. User Input: The user provides input through the Web UI or CLI (e.g., AWS credentials, region, service selection).
    2. Credential Handling: The CLI likely passes credentials directly to the AWS Connector (or uses environment variables/config files). The Web UI likely sends credentials to a backend component (potentially the Carbon Calculator or a separate authentication component) which then passes them to the AWS Connector.
    3. AWS API Interaction: The AWS Connector uses the AWS SDK for Go to interact with the AWS Cost Explorer API and potentially other AWS APIs to retrieve cost and usage data.
    4. Carbon Footprint Calculation: The Carbon Calculator receives the data from the AWS Connector, applies emission factors (likely obtained from the Cloud Carbon Footprint API and/or Electricity Maps API), and calculates the carbon footprint.
    5. Result Display: The calculated results are displayed to the user through the Web UI or CLI.
    6. Data Storage (Limited): The application might store some data locally (e.g., cached API responses, user settings), but the design emphasizes minimizing persistent storage of sensitive data.

4. Tailored Mitigation Strategies

Here are specific, actionable mitigation strategies for the identified threats, tailored to the Carbon project:

  • Web UI:

    • XSS Prevention:
      • Use a robust templating engine (like Go's html/template package) that automatically escapes output.
      • Implement a Content Security Policy (CSP) to restrict the sources from which scripts can be loaded.
      • Sanitize all user inputs using a whitelist approach, allowing only specific characters and formats.
    • CSRF Protection:
      • Use a CSRF protection library (like gorilla/csrf) to generate and validate CSRF tokens for all state-changing requests.
    • Session Management:
      • Use a secure session management library (like gorilla/sessions).
      • Generate strong, random session IDs.
      • Set appropriate session timeouts.
      • Use HTTPS to protect session cookies.
      • Set the HttpOnly and Secure flags on session cookies.
    • Indirect Injection Attacks:
      • Strictly validate all user inputs before using them to construct API calls to the backend.
      • Use parameterized queries or prepared statements if interacting with a database.
    • Sensitive Data Exposure:
      • Avoid displaying sensitive information in the UI.
      • Use HTTPS to protect data in transit.
      • Log sensitive data carefully, avoiding unnecessary details.

  • CLI:

    • Command Injection:
      • Never use user-supplied arguments directly in shell commands.
      • Use the os/exec package in Go to execute commands with clearly defined arguments, avoiding string concatenation.
    • Argument Injection:
      • Use a robust command-line argument parsing library (like cobra or flag) to define expected arguments and their types.
      • Validate all arguments against expected formats and ranges.
    • Sensitive Data Exposure (Local):
      • Avoid displaying sensitive information on the console.
      • If credentials must be displayed (e.g., during initial setup), provide clear warnings and instructions.
    • Insecure Credential Handling:
      • Follow AWS best practices for credential handling:
        • Use environment variables.
        • Use configuration files (e.g., ~/.aws/credentials).
        • Use IAM roles for EC2 instances or other AWS services.
      • Never store credentials directly in the code.

  • Carbon Calculator:

    • Logic Errors:
      • Implement thorough unit and integration tests to verify the calculation logic.
      • Use well-established emission factors and calculation methodologies.
      • Regularly review and update the calculation logic.
    • Integer Overflow/Underflow:
      • Use appropriate data types (e.g., int64, float64) to handle large numbers.
      • Check for potential overflows/underflows before performing calculations.
    • Denial of Service (DoS):
      • Implement input validation to limit the size and complexity of input data.
      • Consider using resource limits (e.g., memory limits, timeouts) to prevent excessive resource consumption.
    • Data Validation (from Connectors):
      • Validate the data received from the AWS Connector (and other cloud connectors) to ensure it conforms to expected formats and ranges.

  • AWS Connector:

    • Credential Exposure:
      • Use the AWS SDK for Go, which handles credential management securely.
      • Follow AWS best practices for credential handling (as mentioned above).
      • Never store credentials directly in the code or configuration files.
      • Consider using a secrets management solution (e.g., AWS Secrets Manager) if credentials need to be stored.
    • Insufficient IAM Permissions:
      • Create IAM roles with the principle of least privilege, granting only the necessary permissions to access cost and usage data (e.g., ce:GetCostAndUsage, ce:GetDimensionValues).
    • API Rate Limiting Issues:
      • Use the AWS SDK for Go, which automatically handles retries and exponential backoff for rate-limited requests.
      • Implement appropriate error handling to gracefully handle rate limit errors.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks:
      • Use HTTPS for all communication with the AWS API.
      • The AWS SDK for Go automatically validates TLS certificates.
    • Data Tampering:
      • Rely on HTTPS for data integrity. The AWS SDK and underlying TLS libraries handle this.
      • Validate data types and ranges received from the API.

  • Data Store (if applicable):

    • Data Breach/Unauthorized Access/Data Corruption:
      • If a data store is necessary, use a secure database (e.g., PostgreSQL, MySQL) with appropriate access controls.
      • Encrypt sensitive data at rest using strong encryption algorithms (e.g., AES-256).
      • Implement regular backups and disaster recovery procedures.
    • Injection Attacks:
      • Use parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection.
      • Use an ORM (Object-Relational Mapper) to abstract database interactions and reduce the risk of injection vulnerabilities.

  • Build Process:

    • Compromised Build Server:
      • Use a trusted build server (e.g., GitHub Actions, a self-hosted CI/CD system with appropriate security controls).
      • Implement strong access controls and monitoring for the build server.
    • Dependency Vulnerabilities:
      • Use go mod tidy to manage dependencies.
      • Use SCA tools (e.g., Trivy, Snyk) to scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities.
      • Regularly update dependencies to the latest secure versions.
    • Insecure Build Configuration:
      • Review and harden the build configuration to ensure security checks are enabled.
    • Supply Chain Attacks:
      • Use Go modules with checksum verification (go.sum) to ensure the integrity of downloaded dependencies.
      • Consider using a private Go module proxy to control the source of dependencies.

  • Deployment Environment (Docker):

    • Vulnerable Base Image:
      • Use an official, minimal base image (e.g., alpine, distroless).
      • Regularly update the base image to the latest version.
      • Scan the base image for vulnerabilities using a container image scanner (e.g., Trivy, Clair).
    • Insecure Container Configuration:
      • Run the application as a non-root user inside the container. Create a dedicated user and group within the Dockerfile.
      • Limit container resources (CPU, memory) using Docker resource limits.
      • Do not expose unnecessary ports.
      • Use a read-only root filesystem if possible.
      • Set appropriate security options (e.g., seccomp profiles, AppArmor profiles) to restrict container capabilities.
    • Container Escape:
      • Keep the Docker runtime and the host operating system up-to-date with security patches.
      • Avoid using privileged containers.
    • Denial of Service (DoS):
      • Implement resource limits (CPU, memory) for the container.
      • Monitor container resource usage and set up alerts for unusual activity.
    • Data Leakage:
      • Avoid storing sensitive data in environment variables or the container's filesystem.
      • Use Docker secrets or a secrets management solution to manage sensitive data.

5. Conclusion

The Carbon project, as described, has a good foundation for security, with an emphasis on minimizing data storage and leveraging existing security controls. However, several areas require careful attention to mitigate potential threats. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, the Carbon project can significantly improve its security posture and protect user data and the integrity of its calculations. The most critical areas to focus on are:

  1. Secure Credential Handling: Strictly adhering to AWS best practices for credential management is paramount.
  2. Input Validation: Thorough input validation and sanitization are essential to prevent injection attacks in both the Web UI and CLI.
  3. Dependency Management: Regularly scanning and updating dependencies is crucial to mitigate vulnerabilities in third-party libraries.
  4. Secure Docker Configuration: Following Docker security best practices is vital for securing the deployment environment.
  5. Continuous Security Testing: Integrating SAST and SCA tools into the build process, along with regular security audits and penetration testing, will help identify and address vulnerabilities proactively.