Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
77 lines (66 loc) · 7.35 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

77 lines (66 loc) · 7.35 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for dmlc/dgl

Attack Surface: Malicious Graph Data Loading

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities during the parsing and processing of graph data loaded into DGL from external sources.
  • DGL Contribution: DGL provides functionalities to load graph data from various file formats. Weaknesses in these loading and parsing routines can be directly exploited.
  • Example: An application uses DGL to load a graph from a user-uploaded JSON file. A malicious JSON file is crafted with deeply nested structures or excessively large numerical values, triggering a buffer overflow in DGL's JSON parsing logic.
  • Impact:
    • Memory corruption
    • Denial of Service (DoS)
    • Potentially Remote Code Execution (RCE) if memory corruption is exploitable.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Input Validation: Implement rigorous validation of graph data before loading it into DGL. This includes schema validation, size limits, and format checks.
    • Resource Limits during Loading: Enforce resource limits (memory, CPU time) during graph loading to prevent DoS attacks from overly large or complex graphs.
    • Secure Parsing Libraries: Ensure DGL utilizes secure and up-to-date parsing libraries for all supported graph data formats.

Attack Surface: Malicious Feature Data Handling

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities in how DGL processes node and edge feature data, particularly when loaded from external sources.
  • DGL Contribution: DGL manages feature data associated with graph elements. Improper handling of feature data types or shapes by DGL can be exploited.
  • Example: An application expects numerical node features for a DGL graph. A malicious user provides feature data with string values or extremely large numerical values that are not properly handled by DGL's feature processing, leading to a buffer overflow in a DGL operation that uses these features.
  • Impact:
    • Memory corruption
    • Application crashes
    • Potentially Remote Code Execution (RCE) if memory corruption is exploitable.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Feature Schema Enforcement: Define and strictly enforce a schema for feature data, including data types, shapes, and valid ranges, before data is used in DGL.
    • Input Sanitization: Sanitize feature data to remove or escape potentially harmful characters or values before passing it to DGL operations.
    • Type and Shape Checking within DGL Usage: Implement checks within the application to verify feature data types and shapes are as expected before using them in DGL functions.

Attack Surface: Native Code Vulnerabilities (C++/CUDA Backend)

  • Description: Exploiting memory safety vulnerabilities or other bugs directly within DGL's C++ and CUDA backend code, which handles performance-critical graph operations.
  • DGL Contribution: DGL's core graph processing logic is implemented in native code. Vulnerabilities in this code are directly attributable to DGL.
  • Example: A specific graph operation within DGL's C++ backend has a buffer overflow vulnerability. By crafting a graph and operation sequence that triggers this specific code path in DGL, an attacker can exploit the overflow.
  • Impact:
    • Memory corruption
    • Denial of Service (DoS)
    • Remote Code Execution (RCE)
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep DGL Updated: Immediately apply updates and patches released by the DGL development team, as these often address security vulnerabilities in the native backend.
    • Security Monitoring (Community Effort): Rely on the DGL community and security researchers to identify and report vulnerabilities in DGL's native code. Report any suspected vulnerabilities responsibly.

Attack Surface: Unsafe Serialization/Deserialization

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities during the process of saving and loading DGL graphs and models using DGL's serialization functionalities.
  • DGL Contribution: DGL provides functions to serialize and deserialize graphs and models. If these functions use insecure methods, they can be exploited.
  • Example: An application loads a serialized DGL graph from an untrusted source using a potentially unsafe deserialization method (if offered by DGL or used in conjunction with DGL). A malicious actor crafts a serialized graph file that, when loaded by DGL, executes arbitrary code on the application server.
  • Impact:
    • Remote Code Execution (RCE)
    • Data corruption
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid Unsafe Deserialization Methods: If DGL offers choices for serialization, avoid using inherently unsafe methods like Python's pickle for loading data from untrusted sources.
    • Use Secure Serialization Formats: Prefer secure and well-vetted serialization formats if available within DGL or when integrating DGL with external serialization libraries.
    • Data Integrity Verification: Implement mechanisms to verify the integrity and authenticity of serialized data before loading it into DGL (e.g., using digital signatures or checksums).
    • Restrict Deserialization Sources: Only load serialized DGL data from trusted and authenticated sources.

Attack Surface: Unsafe User-Defined Functions (UDFs) within DGL Context

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities introduced by user-provided custom functions (UDFs) that are executed within DGL's graph processing framework, if DGL doesn't provide sufficient sandboxing or security boundaries for UDF execution.
  • DGL Contribution: DGL allows users to define and execute custom functions for message passing and other graph operations. If DGL's UDF execution environment is not secure, malicious UDFs could be used to compromise the application.
  • Example: A developer creates a DGL application that allows users to upload custom message passing functions. A malicious user uploads a UDF that, when executed by DGL, contains code to read sensitive files from the server or execute system commands due to insufficient sandboxing by DGL.
  • Impact:
    • Remote Code Execution (RCE)
    • Data exfiltration
    • Privilege escalation
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Minimize UDF Usage from Untrusted Sources: Avoid or strictly limit the use of UDFs provided by untrusted sources.
    • UDF Sandboxing (If DGL Provides): If DGL offers any sandboxing or security mechanisms for UDF execution, ensure they are enabled and properly configured.
    • Code Review and Static Analysis of UDFs: If UDFs are necessary from potentially less trusted sources, perform thorough code reviews and static analysis to identify potential vulnerabilities before deploying them in a DGL application.
    • Principle of Least Privilege for UDF Execution: If possible, configure DGL or the application environment to execute UDFs with the minimum necessary privileges.