Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
121 lines (93 loc) · 13.8 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

121 lines (93 loc) · 13.8 KB

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

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the Dingo API's key components, identify potential vulnerabilities, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. This analysis focuses on the API's design, inferred architecture, data flow, and build process, as described in the security design review. The goal is to ensure the API is secure by design and resistant to common web application attacks.
  • Scope: The analysis covers the Dingo API project, including its inferred architecture, components (as described in the C4 diagrams), data flow, build process, and deployment strategy (Kubernetes). It considers the business priorities, risks, and security requirements outlined in the review. External services are considered only in terms of their interaction with the API. The analysis is limited by the information provided in the security design review and the assumptions made therein.
  • Methodology:
    1. Component Breakdown: Analyze each key component identified in the security design review (C4 diagrams, build process, deployment).
    2. Threat Identification: Identify potential threats and vulnerabilities specific to each component and its interactions, leveraging common attack patterns (e.g., OWASP Top 10, MITRE ATT&CK).
    3. Risk Assessment: Evaluate the likelihood and impact of each identified threat, considering the business context and data sensitivity.
    4. Mitigation Strategies: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to the Dingo API and its technology stack (Go, Kubernetes).
    5. Prioritization: Prioritize mitigation strategies based on their impact on reducing risk.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

We'll analyze the components based on the C4 diagrams, build process, and deployment strategy.

2.1. C4 Context Diagram Components

  • User/Client Application:

    • Threats: Compromised client, malicious client, man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks (if HTTPS is not enforced), replay attacks, credential stuffing, brute-force attacks.
    • Security Implications: A compromised client could be used to send malicious requests to the API, potentially exploiting vulnerabilities or gaining unauthorized access. Lack of HTTPS allows attackers to intercept and modify traffic.
    • Mitigation: MUST enforce HTTPS. Implement strong authentication (API keys, JWT, OAuth 2.0) with robust credential management. Consider client-side input validation (defense in depth). Implement rate limiting and account lockout policies to mitigate brute-force and credential stuffing. Use short-lived, rotating tokens.

  • API (System):

    • Threats: OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities (injection, broken authentication, sensitive data exposure, XML external entities (XXE), broken access control, security misconfiguration, cross-site scripting (XSS), insecure deserialization, using components with known vulnerabilities, insufficient logging & monitoring), denial-of-service (DoS), data breaches, unauthorized access, privilege escalation.
    • Security Implications: This is the central point of attack. Vulnerabilities here can lead to complete system compromise. Lack of authentication/authorization is a critical vulnerability.
    • Mitigation: Address all "Recommended Security Controls (High Priority)" from the design review. Specifically:
      • Authentication & Authorization: Implement robust authentication and authorization before any other functionality. Use a well-vetted library or framework for this. Consider using short-lived JWTs with appropriate claims (e.g., user ID, roles, permissions).
      • Input Validation & Output Encoding: Strictly validate all input data against a predefined schema. Use a whitelist approach (allow only known good input). Encode all output to prevent XSS. Sanitize data before using it in database queries or external service calls.
      • Error Handling: Implement robust error handling that does not reveal sensitive information to the client. Log detailed error information internally for debugging and security analysis.
      • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting to prevent DoS attacks. Consider different rate limits for different API endpoints and user roles.
      • Dependency Management: Regularly update dependencies and use tools like Snyk or Dependabot to identify and fix vulnerabilities in third-party libraries.
      • Secure Configuration: Follow secure coding practices and configuration guidelines for Go and any used frameworks. Disable unnecessary features and services.

  • External Service:

    • Threats: Compromised external service, data breaches at the external service, insecure communication with the external service, injection attacks through data from the external service.
    • Security Implications: The API's security is dependent on the security of the external services it interacts with.
    • Mitigation:
      • Secure Communication: Use HTTPS for all communication with external services. Validate certificates.
      • Authentication: Authenticate with external services using secure mechanisms (e.g., API keys, mutual TLS). Store credentials securely (e.g., Kubernetes Secrets, HashiCorp Vault).
      • Input Validation: Treat data received from external services as untrusted. Validate and sanitize this data before using it.
      • Least Privilege: Grant the API only the minimum necessary permissions to access external services.
      • Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Establish SLAs with external service providers that include security requirements.

2.2. C4 Container Diagram Components

The Container diagram largely mirrors the Context diagram, but with the API now specifically identified as a "Go Web Server" running within a container. The security implications and mitigations are the same as above, with the following additions:

  • API Container (Go Web Server):
    • Threats: Container-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., vulnerabilities in the base image, insecure container configuration), container escape, privilege escalation within the container.
    • Security Implications: Vulnerabilities in the container environment can lead to compromise of the API and potentially the host system.
    • Mitigation:
      • Minimal Base Image: Use a minimal, secure base image for the container (e.g., scratch, distroless). Avoid images with unnecessary tools or libraries.
      • Regular Image Updates: Regularly update the base image to patch vulnerabilities.
      • Secure Container Configuration: Follow container security best practices. Run the container as a non-root user. Use read-only file systems where possible. Limit container capabilities.
      • Vulnerability Scanning: Use container image scanning tools (e.g., Trivy, Clair) to identify vulnerabilities in the container image.
      • Resource Limits: Set resource limits (CPU, memory) for the container to prevent resource exhaustion attacks.

2.3. Deployment (Kubernetes)

  • Ingress:

    • Threats: TLS misconfiguration, WAF bypass, DDoS attacks targeting the Ingress controller.
    • Mitigation: Use a properly configured Ingress controller (e.g., Nginx Ingress Controller) with TLS termination. Configure a WAF (e.g., ModSecurity, AWS WAF) to protect against common web attacks. Implement rate limiting at the Ingress level. Use valid, trusted TLS certificates.

  • API Service:

    • Threats: Network-based attacks targeting the service.
    • Mitigation: Use Kubernetes Network Policies to restrict access to the API Service. Only allow traffic from the Ingress controller and authorized internal services.

  • API Pods:

    • Threats: Same threats as the API Container, plus threats related to pod-to-pod communication.
    • Mitigation: Implement all container-level mitigations. Use Kubernetes Network Policies to restrict pod-to-pod communication. Use Pod Security Policies (or a successor like Kyverno or Gatekeeper) to enforce security constraints on pods (e.g., prevent running as root, limit capabilities). Use resource quotas to limit the resources that pods can consume.

  • External Service (Managed Database):

    • Threats: Database-specific vulnerabilities, unauthorized access to the database.
    • Mitigation: Use a managed database service with strong security controls (e.g., encryption at rest, encryption in transit, access control). Use strong passwords and rotate them regularly. Monitor database logs for suspicious activity. Apply the principle of least privilege.

2.4. Build Process

  • Developer -> Git Repository:

    • Threats: Commit of malicious code, accidental commit of secrets.
    • Mitigation: Mandatory code reviews. Use pre-commit hooks to scan for secrets (e.g., git-secrets, trufflehog). Enforce strong authentication and access control for the Git repository.

  • CI/CD Pipeline:

    • Threats: Compromise of the CI/CD pipeline, injection of malicious code during the build process, use of vulnerable build tools.
    • Mitigation: Secure the CI/CD pipeline itself. Use a trusted CI/CD platform (e.g., GitHub Actions, GitLab CI). Run the pipeline with the minimum necessary privileges. Regularly update build tools and dependencies. Sign build artifacts.

  • SAST & SCA:

    • Threats: False negatives (missed vulnerabilities), false positives (incorrectly flagged vulnerabilities).
    • Mitigation: Use reputable SAST and SCA tools (e.g., gosec, Snyk, Dependabot). Regularly update the tools and their vulnerability databases. Manually review the results of the scans. Integrate SAST and SCA into the CI/CD pipeline to automatically block builds that contain high-severity vulnerabilities.

  • Build (go build) & Docker Build:

    • Threats: Use of compromised build tools, injection of malicious code during the build process.
    • Mitigation: Use trusted build tools. Verify the integrity of build tools and dependencies. Use a secure build environment.

  • Image Registry:

    • Threats: Unauthorized access to the image registry, pushing of malicious images.
    • Mitigation: Use a secure image registry (e.g., Docker Hub, ECR, GCR) with strong authentication and access control. Use image signing to verify the integrity of images. Scan images for vulnerabilities before pushing them to the registry.

  • Deploy to Kubernetes:

    • Threats: Deployment of vulnerable images, misconfiguration of Kubernetes resources.
    • Mitigation: Use a secure deployment process. Automate deployments using the CI/CD pipeline. Use Kubernetes manifests to define and manage resources. Use Kubernetes RBAC to control access to Kubernetes resources. Regularly audit Kubernetes configurations.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Prioritized)

The following are prioritized mitigation strategies, addressing the most critical vulnerabilities:

  1. Implement Authentication and Authorization (Highest Priority): This is the most critical vulnerability. Without authentication and authorization, anyone can access the API and potentially exploit other vulnerabilities. Use a well-established library or framework (e.g., a JWT library for Go) and follow best practices for secure authentication and authorization. Prioritize API keys or JWTs.
  2. Enforce HTTPS (Highest Priority): This is essential to protect data in transit and prevent MITM attacks. Obtain a valid TLS certificate and configure the API server (and Ingress controller) to use HTTPS.
  3. Input Validation and Output Encoding (High Priority): Implement strict input validation on all API endpoints, using a whitelist approach. Encode all output to prevent XSS. This is crucial to prevent injection attacks.
  4. Secure Containerization (High Priority): Use a minimal base image, run the container as a non-root user, limit container capabilities, and regularly scan the container image for vulnerabilities.
  5. Secure Kubernetes Deployment (High Priority): Use Network Policies, Pod Security Policies (or alternatives), and RBAC to secure the Kubernetes deployment. Configure the Ingress controller securely with TLS termination and a WAF.
  6. Rate Limiting (High Priority): Implement rate limiting to prevent DoS attacks.
  7. Dependency Management (Medium Priority): Regularly update dependencies and use tools like Snyk or Dependabot to identify and fix vulnerabilities in third-party libraries.
  8. Secure Build Process (Medium Priority): Implement code reviews, SAST, SCA, and secret scanning in the CI/CD pipeline.
  9. Logging and Monitoring (Medium Priority): Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring to detect and investigate security incidents. Include audit logs to track all API requests and actions.
  10. Secure External Service Interactions (Medium Priority): Use HTTPS, authenticate securely, and validate data received from external services.

4. Conclusion

The Dingo API, as described, has significant security vulnerabilities, primarily due to the lack of authentication, authorization, and HTTPS. Addressing these critical vulnerabilities is paramount. The prioritized mitigation strategies outlined above provide a roadmap for securing the API. Regular security assessments (penetration testing, code reviews) and ongoing monitoring are essential to maintain a strong security posture. The questions raised in the original document are crucial to get answered to refine the security posture. The assumptions made should be validated.