Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
214 lines (197 loc) · 27.5 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

214 lines (197 loc) · 27.5 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for commaai/openpilot

Mitigation Strategy: Data Anonymization and Pseudonymization for Openpilot Data

  • Mitigation Strategy: Data Anonymization and Pseudonymization for Openpilot Data
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Identify all Personally Identifiable Information (PII) fields within the data collected by openpilot (e.g., VIN extracted from vehicle signals, GPS coordinates logged by openpilot, timestamps associated with driving events, user IDs if integrated into openpilot's logging, route names if stored by openpilot).
    • Step 2: Implement anonymization techniques within openpilot's data processing pipeline for sensitive data before storage or transmission:
      • Hashing: Use one-way hash functions with salts to replace direct identifiers like VIN or user IDs with pseudonyms before data is logged or transmitted by openpilot.
      • Generalization: Reduce the precision of location data (e.g., round GPS coordinates to a less specific area) within openpilot's data logging configuration.
      • Suppression: Remove or redact highly sensitive fields that are not strictly necessary for the application's core functionality directly within openpilot's data collection settings or processing scripts.
      • Date Shifting: Offset timestamps by a random but consistent amount to preserve temporal relationships without revealing exact times during openpilot's data logging process.
    • Step 3: If pseudonymization is used, ensure a secure key management system is in place to protect the pseudonymization key and prevent re-identification by unauthorized parties outside of openpilot, but relevant to how data derived from openpilot is handled.
    • Step 4: Regularly review and update anonymization/pseudonymization techniques applied to openpilot data to adapt to evolving privacy threats and re-identification risks.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Privacy Breach (High Severity): Unauthorized access and disclosure of personal driving data collected and potentially logged by openpilot, leading to privacy violations and potential harm to users.
    • Data Misuse (Medium Severity): Use of identifiable driving data originating from openpilot for purposes beyond the user's consent or the application's intended functionality, such as targeted advertising or profiling.
    • Compliance Violations (Medium Severity): Failure to comply with data privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA) due to insufficient anonymization of personal data processed or logged by systems using openpilot data.
  • Impact:
    • Privacy Breach: High Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk of direct identification and misuse of personal data collected by openpilot.
    • Data Misuse: Medium Reduction - Limits the ability to use data from openpilot for purposes requiring individual identification.
    • Compliance Violations: Medium Reduction - Helps in meeting data privacy requirements by reducing identifiability of data originating from openpilot.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Openpilot has data logging configurations that allow for reduced data collection, but comprehensive anonymization/pseudonymization across all data streams and storage within openpilot itself is not fully realized.
  • Missing Implementation: Comprehensive and configurable anonymization/pseudonymization pipeline for all data collected and potentially logged by openpilot, especially for data transmitted to backend services or used for research purposes. User-configurable levels of anonymization within openpilot's settings would be beneficial.

Mitigation Strategy: Model Integrity Verification using Cryptographic Hashing for Openpilot Models

  • Mitigation Strategy: Model Integrity Verification using Cryptographic Hashing for Openpilot Models
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Generate a cryptographic hash (e.g., SHA-256) of each machine learning model file used by openpilot during the model building or release process.
    • Step 2: Securely store these model hashes in a trusted location, separate from the model files themselves. This could be within a secure configuration file within the openpilot system, a trusted execution environment, or a secure backend service.
    • Step 3: Before loading a model into openpilot's runtime environment, recalculate the cryptographic hash of the model file.
    • Step 4: Compare the recalculated hash with the securely stored hash within openpilot's model loading process.
    • Step 5: Only load and use the model if the hashes match, indicating that the model file has not been tampered with since its hash was generated. If hashes do not match, log an error within openpilot, prevent model loading, and potentially trigger a system alert.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Model Tampering (High Severity): Malicious modification of the machine learning models used by openpilot, potentially leading to unpredictable, unsafe, or compromised driving behavior.
    • Supply Chain Attack (Medium Severity): Compromise of model files during distribution or storage intended for use by openpilot, where attackers could inject malicious models to control vehicle behavior.
    • Accidental Model Corruption (Low Severity): Unintentional corruption of model files during storage or transfer intended for openpilot, leading to system instability or malfunction.
  • Impact:
    • Model Tampering: High Reduction - Effectively prevents the use of modified models by openpilot if the hash verification is robustly implemented.
    • Supply Chain Attack: Medium Reduction - Detects model compromise during distribution to openpilot if the secure hash storage is not also compromised.
    • Accidental Model Corruption: Medium Reduction - Prevents openpilot from using corrupted models, improving system reliability.
  • Currently Implemented: Not explicitly implemented for model loading in openpilot core components. Model updates might have some integrity checks, but not a consistent cryptographic hash verification for every model load within openpilot.
  • Missing Implementation: Implementation of cryptographic hash verification for all machine learning models loaded by openpilot, including the driving model, perception models, and any other models used in the system. This should be integrated into the model loading process within the openpilot codebase.

Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization for Openpilot CAN Bus Messages

  • Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization for Openpilot CAN Bus Messages
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Define a strict specification for all expected CAN bus messages that openpilot processes. This specification should include:
      • CAN message IDs relevant to openpilot's functionality.
      • Expected data lengths for CAN messages processed by openpilot.
      • Valid data ranges for each byte or field within the CAN message as interpreted by openpilot.
      • Expected data types and formats for CAN data used by openpilot.
    • Step 2: Implement input validation routines within openpilot's CAN bus interface layer. For each incoming CAN message:
      • Verify the CAN message ID against the expected IDs defined for openpilot.
      • Check the data length against the expected length for openpilot's CAN message processing.
      • Validate each byte or field within the data payload against the defined valid ranges and data types according to openpilot's specifications.
    • Step 3: Implement sanitization or safe handling for invalid CAN messages within openpilot:
      • Discard invalid messages and prevent them from being processed further by openpilot's control algorithms.
      • Log invalid messages with detailed information (timestamp, CAN ID, raw data, validation errors) within openpilot's logging system for debugging and security monitoring.
      • Consider implementing rate limiting or anomaly detection within openpilot's CAN bus handling for excessive invalid CAN messages, which could indicate an attack or system malfunction.
    • Step 4: Regularly review and update the CAN bus message specification and validation rules used by openpilot as openpilot evolves and new CAN messages are introduced or modified.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • CAN Bus Injection (High Severity): Malicious injection of crafted CAN messages onto the vehicle's CAN bus to manipulate vehicle functions, potentially leading to dangerous or unintended behavior if openpilot is vulnerable to such injections.
    • Sensor Spoofing via CAN Bus (Medium Severity): Falsification of sensor data by injecting manipulated CAN messages that mimic sensor readings, misleading openpilot's perception and control systems.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) via CAN Bus Flooding (Medium Severity): Overwhelming the CAN bus with a large volume of invalid or malicious CAN messages, disrupting communication and potentially causing system instability in openpilot's operation.
  • Impact:
    • CAN Bus Injection: High Reduction - Significantly reduces the effectiveness of CAN bus injection attacks targeting openpilot by filtering out invalid or out-of-specification messages.
    • Sensor Spoofing via CAN Bus: Medium Reduction - Makes sensor spoofing more difficult against openpilot by requiring attackers to craft valid CAN messages within expected ranges.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) via CAN Bus Flooding: Low to Medium Reduction - Can help mitigate DoS affecting openpilot's CAN bus processing by discarding invalid messages, but may not fully prevent resource exhaustion if the flooding is severe. Rate limiting and anomaly detection are needed for better DoS mitigation.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Openpilot has some basic CAN message filtering and parsing, but comprehensive input validation and sanitization for all critical CAN messages used by openpilot is not fully implemented.
  • Missing Implementation: Development and implementation of a comprehensive CAN bus message specification and robust input validation routines for all relevant CAN messages used by openpilot. This should be a core security enhancement in the openpilot CAN bus interface layer.

Mitigation Strategy: Firmware Integrity Checks for Openpilot Firmware

  • Mitigation Strategy: Firmware Integrity Checks for Openpilot Firmware
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Generate cryptographic hashes of the openpilot application firmware and configuration files.
    • Step 2: Store these hashes securely within the openpilot system or a trusted environment.
    • Step 3: Periodically or at startup, verify the integrity of the openpilot firmware and configuration files by recalculating their hashes and comparing them to the stored hashes within the openpilot boot or startup process.
    • Step 4: Implement a secure recovery mechanism within openpilot in case of integrity check failure. This could involve:
      • Falling back to a known-good openpilot firmware image.
      • Initiating a secure openpilot firmware update process.
      • Entering a safe mode within openpilot for diagnostics and recovery.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Firmware Tampering (High Severity): Malicious modification of the openpilot firmware, allowing attackers to gain persistent control over the system and potentially compromise vehicle safety.
    • Rootkit Installation (High Severity): Installation of rootkits or persistent malware in the openpilot firmware, enabling long-term unauthorized access and control.
    • Accidental Firmware Corruption (Low Severity): Unintentional corruption of the openpilot firmware, leading to system instability or malfunction.
  • Impact:
    • Firmware Tampering: High Reduction - Firmware integrity checks make it significantly harder to persistently compromise the openpilot system through firmware modification.
    • Rootkit Installation: High Reduction - Reduces the risk of persistent malware within openpilot firmware by ensuring only verified firmware is loaded.
    • Accidental Firmware Corruption: Medium Reduction - Prevents openpilot from running corrupted firmware, improving system reliability.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely partially implemented at the operating system level, but explicit firmware integrity checks specifically for the openpilot application firmware might be missing or not fully integrated.
  • Missing Implementation: Full integration of firmware integrity checks specifically for the openpilot application and its components. This would require incorporating integrity check practices into the openpilot build and deployment process.

Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization for Openpilot User Inputs and Configurations

  • Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization for Openpilot User Inputs and Configurations
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Identify all user inputs and configuration parameters that can affect openpilot's behavior. This includes:
      • User settings in the openpilot application UI.
      • Configuration files (e.g., JSON, YAML) that users can modify for openpilot.
      • Command-line arguments or environment variables used to configure openpilot.
      • Data received from external sources (e.g., cloud services, user-uploaded routes) that are processed by openpilot.
    • Step 2: Define strict validation rules for each user input and configuration parameter relevant to openpilot. These rules should specify:
      • Expected data types (e.g., integer, string, boolean).
      • Valid ranges or allowed values.
      • Format constraints (e.g., regular expressions for strings).
    • Step 3: Implement input validation routines to check all user inputs and configurations against the defined rules before they are processed or applied by openpilot.
    • Step 4: Implement sanitization techniques to neutralize potentially harmful characters or code within user inputs processed by openpilot. This could include:
      • Encoding or escaping special characters.
      • Removing or replacing invalid characters.
    • Step 5: Handle invalid inputs and configurations securely within openpilot:
      • Reject invalid inputs and display informative error messages to the user through the openpilot interface.
      • Log invalid input attempts within openpilot's logging for security monitoring and debugging.
      • Default to safe or known-good configurations within openpilot if invalid configurations are detected.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Injection Attacks (High Severity): Vulnerabilities like command injection, if user inputs to openpilot are not properly validated and sanitized, potentially allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code or access sensitive data.
    • Configuration Tampering (Medium Severity): Malicious modification of configuration files for openpilot by users or attackers to alter openpilot's behavior in unintended or unsafe ways.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) via Malformed Inputs (Medium Severity): Providing malformed or excessively large inputs to openpilot that can crash the application or consume excessive resources.
  • Impact:
    • Injection Attacks: High Reduction - Input validation and sanitization are crucial for preventing injection vulnerabilities in openpilot.
    • Configuration Tampering: Medium Reduction - Validation can prevent some forms of configuration tampering within openpilot by enforcing valid parameter ranges and formats.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) via Malformed Inputs: Medium Reduction - Input validation can limit the impact of malformed inputs to openpilot by rejecting them before they cause system instability.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Openpilot likely has some basic input validation in certain areas, but comprehensive validation and sanitization for all user inputs and configurations within openpilot might be lacking.
  • Missing Implementation: Systematic implementation of input validation and sanitization across all user input points and configuration interfaces in openpilot. This should be a standard secure coding practice applied throughout the openpilot codebase.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Update Mechanisms with Code Signing for Openpilot

  • Mitigation Strategy: Secure Update Mechanisms with Code Signing for Openpilot
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Implement a secure update delivery mechanism for openpilot. This should involve:
      • Using HTTPS for all update downloads to ensure confidentiality and integrity during transmission of openpilot updates.
      • Downloading updates from trusted and authenticated update servers managed for openpilot.
      • Verifying the authenticity and integrity of update packages before installation on openpilot systems.
    • Step 2: Implement code signing for all openpilot software updates. This involves:
      • Digitally signing update packages (openpilot firmware, application binaries, models, configurations) using a private key held securely by the openpilot software vendor.
      • Including the corresponding public key in the openpilot system.
      • Verifying the digital signature of update packages using the public key before installation on openpilot systems.
    • Step 3: Implement integrity checks for update packages beyond signature verification for openpilot updates. This could include:
      • Using cryptographic hashes (e.g., SHA-256) of individual files within the update package and verifying them against a manifest file signed by the vendor for openpilot updates.
      • Checking for unexpected file modifications or additions in the update package for openpilot updates.
    • Step 4: Implement a secure update installation process within openpilot. This should:
      • Minimize the attack surface during the update process for openpilot.
      • Ensure atomicity of updates to prevent partial or corrupted installations of openpilot components.
      • Include rollback mechanisms to revert to a previous version of openpilot in case of update failures or issues.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Malicious Update Injection (High Severity): Attackers injecting malicious software updates to compromise openpilot systems, potentially gaining control of vehicles or stealing data.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks on Updates (Medium Severity): Attackers intercepting update downloads and replacing legitimate openpilot updates with malicious ones.
    • Update Corruption (Low Severity): Accidental corruption of openpilot update packages during transmission or storage, leading to system instability or failure.
  • Impact:
    • Malicious Update Injection: High Reduction - Code signing and secure update mechanisms are essential for preventing malicious openpilot updates from being installed.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks on Updates: High Reduction - HTTPS and signature verification protect against MitM attacks during openpilot update delivery.
    • Update Corruption: Medium Reduction - Integrity checks help detect and prevent installation of corrupted openpilot updates.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely partially implemented. Openpilot update mechanisms probably use HTTPS, but the extent of code signing and robust integrity checks for all update components needs verification.
  • Missing Implementation: Full implementation of code signing for all openpilot software updates (application, firmware, models, configurations). Clear documentation and processes for secure key management and update verification are needed for openpilot updates.

Mitigation Strategy: Least Privilege Principle for Openpilot System Components and Processes

  • Mitigation Strategy: Least Privilege Principle for Openpilot System Components and Processes
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Analyze the architecture of openpilot and identify all system components, processes, and services within openpilot.
    • Step 2: Determine the minimum set of privileges (permissions, access rights) required for each openpilot component or process to perform its intended function.
    • Step 3: Configure the operating system and system settings to enforce the principle of least privilege for openpilot components. This involves:
      • Running openpilot processes with the lowest possible user or group privileges.
      • Restricting file system access for openpilot processes to only necessary directories and files.
      • Limiting network access for openpilot components to only required ports and services.
      • Using access control lists (ACLs) or similar mechanisms to fine-tune permissions for openpilot resources.
    • Step 4: Regularly review and audit system privileges of openpilot components to ensure they remain aligned with the principle of least privilege and that no unnecessary permissions are granted.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Privilege Escalation (High Severity): Attackers exploiting vulnerabilities within openpilot to gain higher privileges than intended, allowing them to bypass security controls and perform unauthorized actions.
    • Lateral Movement (Medium Severity): If one openpilot component is compromised, limiting its privileges restricts the attacker's ability to move laterally to other parts of the system and expand their access.
    • Impact of Vulnerability Exploitation (Medium Severity): Reducing the potential damage from exploiting a vulnerability in a openpilot component by limiting the privileges of that component.
  • Impact:
    • Privilege Escalation: High Reduction - Least privilege makes privilege escalation attacks within openpilot significantly harder by limiting the initial privileges available to an attacker.
    • Lateral Movement: Medium Reduction - Restricts lateral movement within openpilot by limiting the access rights of compromised components.
    • Impact of Vulnerability Exploitation: Medium Reduction - Reduces the potential damage by limiting what a compromised openpilot component can do.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely partially implemented at the operating system level. Openpilot processes might be running with user-level privileges, but a systematic application of least privilege across all components and services within openpilot needs verification.
  • Missing Implementation: A comprehensive review and enforcement of the least privilege principle across all openpilot components and processes. This requires careful configuration of operating system permissions, process user IDs, and potentially using security mechanisms like sandboxing or containers to further isolate openpilot components.

Mitigation Strategy: Regular Security Audits and Penetration Testing for Openpilot

  • Mitigation Strategy: Regular Security Audits and Penetration Testing for Openpilot
  • Description:
    • Step 1: Conduct regular security audits of the openpilot codebase, system configurations, and deployment infrastructure. Audits should include:
      • Code reviews to identify potential security vulnerabilities in the openpilot source code.
      • Configuration reviews to check for misconfigurations and insecure settings within openpilot.
      • Vulnerability scanning to identify known vulnerabilities in openpilot's dependencies and system components.
    • Step 2: Perform penetration testing (pentesting) to simulate real-world attacks and identify exploitable vulnerabilities in openpilot. Pentesting should cover:
      • Application-level vulnerabilities within openpilot (e.g., injection flaws, authentication bypasses).
      • System-level vulnerabilities related to openpilot (e.g., privilege escalation, buffer overflows).
      • Network security vulnerabilities in openpilot's network interactions (e.g., open ports, insecure protocols).
      • CAN bus security testing specifically targeting openpilot's CAN bus interface (e.g., injection attacks, fuzzing).
    • Step 3: Establish a process for vulnerability management for openpilot. This includes:
      • Tracking identified vulnerabilities in openpilot.
      • Prioritizing vulnerabilities based on severity and exploitability within openpilot.
      • Developing and implementing remediation plans for openpilot vulnerabilities.
      • Verifying the effectiveness of remediations in openpilot.
    • Step 4: Engage external security experts to conduct independent security audits and penetration testing of openpilot to provide an unbiased assessment of openpilot's security posture.
    • Step 5: Integrate security testing into the openpilot development lifecycle (DevSecOps) to proactively identify and address vulnerabilities early in the development process.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Undiscovered Vulnerabilities (High Severity): Identifying and mitigating unknown security vulnerabilities within openpilot before they can be exploited by attackers.
    • Zero-Day Exploits (Medium Severity): Reducing the risk of zero-day exploits in openpilot by proactively searching for and fixing vulnerabilities.
    • Configuration Errors (Medium Severity): Detecting and correcting insecure configurations within openpilot that could introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Compliance Violations (Medium Severity): Ensuring compliance with security standards and regulations relevant to openpilot through regular security assessments.
  • Impact:
    • Undiscovered Vulnerabilities: High Reduction - Regular security audits and pentesting are crucial for finding and fixing vulnerabilities in openpilot before they are exploited.
    • Zero-Day Exploits: Medium Reduction - Proactive security testing can help discover and mitigate vulnerabilities in openpilot before they become zero-day exploits.
    • Configuration Errors: Medium Reduction - Audits help identify and correct configuration errors within openpilot that could introduce security risks.
    • Compliance Violations: Medium Reduction - Security assessments help ensure compliance with security standards relevant to openpilot.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely some level of internal testing and code review within the openpilot development process. However, the extent of regular, comprehensive security audits and professional penetration testing specifically for openpilot needs verification.
  • Missing Implementation: Establishment of a formal and regular security audit and penetration testing program for openpilot. This should include engaging external security experts, defining the scope and frequency of testing, and implementing a robust vulnerability management process for openpilot vulnerabilities.