Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
67 lines (56 loc) · 5.87 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

67 lines (56 loc) · 5.87 KB

Threat Model Analysis for collectiveidea/delayed_job

Threat: Job Queue Database Data Loss

  • Description: An attacker, gaining unauthorized access to the database server or exploiting database vulnerabilities, could delete or corrupt job data within the Delayed Job queue. This results in the loss of scheduled tasks and disruption of application functionality reliant on background jobs.
  • Impact: Loss of scheduled tasks, application functionality disruption, potential data loss if jobs are critical for data processing.
  • Affected Delayed Job Component: Job Queue Database (data storage).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement robust database access controls and authentication.
    • Regularly back up the job queue database.
    • Use database replication and high-availability configurations.
    • Monitor database activity for suspicious access patterns.
    • Apply database security patches and updates promptly.

Threat: Job Queue Saturation and Denial of Service

  • Description: An attacker could flood the job queue with a massive number of jobs, either through automated scripts exploiting job creation endpoints or by directly inserting jobs into the database if access is compromised. This overwhelms the system, fills up database storage, and prevents legitimate jobs from being processed, leading to a denial of service for background tasks.
  • Impact: Denial of service for background tasks, potential application instability, database storage exhaustion, inability to process legitimate jobs.
  • Affected Delayed Job Component: Job Queue, Job Creation Endpoints (application level).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement rate limiting on job creation endpoints.
    • Monitor job queue size and worker processing rates.
    • Implement input validation and sanitization for job arguments during job creation.
    • Implement authentication and authorization for job creation endpoints.
    • Consider using separate queues with resource limits for different job types.

Threat: Worker Process Crash due to Malicious Job Code

  • Description: An attacker could inject malicious code into job arguments (if input validation is weak or deserialization is vulnerable) or exploit vulnerabilities in job handler code. When a worker processes such a job, the malicious code could cause the worker process to crash, leading to job processing interruptions and potentially wider system instability if crashes are frequent.
  • Impact: Worker process crashes, job processing interruptions, application instability, potential denial of service if crashes are widespread.
  • Affected Delayed Job Component: Job Handler execution within worker processes, potentially job deserialization if code injection happens during deserialization.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement robust input validation and sanitization for job arguments.
    • Avoid using Marshal with untrusted input due to deserialization vulnerabilities.
    • Use secure coding practices in job handlers to prevent unhandled exceptions and crashes.
    • Implement comprehensive error handling and logging in job handlers.
    • Use process monitoring and auto-restart mechanisms for worker processes.

Threat: Sensitive Data Exposure in Job Arguments and Logs

  • Description: Developers might inadvertently include sensitive information (API keys, passwords, PII) in job arguments. If these arguments are logged, stored in the database in plain text, or exposed in error messages, an attacker gaining access to logs, the database, or error reports could steal this sensitive data.
  • Impact: Confidentiality breach, exposure of sensitive data, potential account compromise, privacy violations.
  • Affected Delayed Job Component: Job Argument handling, Logging mechanisms, Database storage of jobs.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid passing sensitive data directly as job arguments. Use references to secure data stores instead.
    • Sanitize or redact sensitive data from job arguments before logging or storing.
    • Implement secure logging practices and restrict access to log files.
    • Encrypt sensitive data in the job queue database if necessary.
    • Regularly review job handlers and logging configurations for potential sensitive data exposure.

Threat: Remote Code Execution via Deserialization Vulnerabilities

  • Description: If Delayed Job uses Marshal for serialization and job arguments are not from trusted sources or properly validated, an attacker could craft malicious serialized data. When deserialized by worker processes, this data could exploit vulnerabilities in Marshal or the application code to execute arbitrary code on the worker machines.
  • Impact: Full system compromise of worker machines, data breach, denial of service, lateral movement within the infrastructure.
  • Affected Delayed Job Component: Job Deserialization using Marshal (if used), worker process execution environment.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strongly avoid using Marshal with untrusted input. Prefer safer serialization formats like JSON or YAML.
    • If Marshal is unavoidable, rigorously validate and sanitize job arguments before deserialization.
    • Run worker processes with least privilege.
    • Implement security sandboxing or containerization for worker processes.
    • Regularly update Delayed Job and its dependencies to patch known vulnerabilities.