Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
156 lines (118 loc) · 13.6 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

156 lines (118 loc) · 13.6 KB

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

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the Draper smart contract template, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities, architectural weaknesses, and areas for security improvement. The analysis will cover key components like the LIGO code, build process, deployment mechanism, and interaction with the Tezos blockchain. The goal is to provide actionable recommendations to enhance the security posture of Draper and the dApps built upon it.

  • Scope: The analysis will encompass the following:

    • The provided LIGO smart contract template code (from the GitHub repository).
    • The described build and deployment processes.
    • The interaction between the Draper contract and the Tezos blockchain.
    • The security controls mentioned in the design review.
    • The identified business risks and security requirements.
    • The C4 diagrams and deployment diagrams.

    The analysis will not cover:

    • The internal security mechanisms of the Tezos blockchain itself (this is assumed to be secure).
    • Specific dApps built using Draper (this is the responsibility of the dApp developers).
    • External tools or services used in conjunction with Draper (e.g., specific wallets), except as they relate to the deployment process.

  • Methodology:

    1. Code Review: Examine the LIGO smart contract code for common smart contract vulnerabilities, coding errors, and adherence to best practices.
    2. Architecture Review: Analyze the C4 diagrams and deployment diagrams to understand the system's architecture, data flow, and potential attack surfaces.
    3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats based on the business risks, security requirements, and identified vulnerabilities. We'll use a combination of STRIDE and other relevant threat modeling techniques.
    4. Security Control Assessment: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing and recommended security controls.
    5. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies to address the identified threats and vulnerabilities.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of the key components identified in the design review and inferred from the project:

  • LIGO Smart Contract Code (.mligo):

    • Implication: This is the core of the system. Any vulnerability here directly translates to a vulnerability in deployed dApps. LIGO's strong typing helps, but it's not a panacea.
    • Threats:
      • Integer Overflow/Underflow: Although less common in LIGO than in Solidity, incorrect arithmetic operations could still lead to unexpected behavior.
      • Reentrancy: While LIGO's design mitigates some reentrancy risks, complex interactions with other contracts could still introduce vulnerabilities. Draper itself doesn't call external contracts, but dApps built on it might.
      • Logic Errors: Incorrect implementation of business logic, access control, or state management.
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Operations that consume excessive gas or storage could make the contract unusable.
      • Unhandled Exceptions: Failing to properly handle errors could lead to unexpected state changes or contract failure.
      • Improper Access Control: If the owner pattern or other authorization mechanisms are implemented incorrectly, unauthorized users might be able to perform privileged actions.
      • Input Validation Failures: Insufficient validation of input parameters could allow attackers to inject malicious data or bypass intended restrictions.
    • Specific to Draper: The owner pattern is a single point of failure. If the owner's key is compromised, the entire contract is compromised.

  • Michelson Compiled Code (.tz):

    • Implication: This is the code executed on the Tezos blockchain. While it's derived from the LIGO code, the compilation process itself could introduce vulnerabilities (though this is less likely with a mature compiler).
    • Threats: Primarily inherited from the LIGO code. The main additional threat is a vulnerability in the LIGO compiler itself, which is outside the direct control of the Draper project but should be monitored.

  • Build Process (Currently Manual, Recommended GitHub Actions):

    • Implication: A robust build process is crucial for ensuring code quality and preventing the deployment of vulnerable code. The current manual process is error-prone.
    • Threats (Current Manual Process):
      • Inconsistent Builds: Different developers might use different compiler versions or settings, leading to different Michelson code.
      • Lack of Automated Testing: Manual testing is insufficient to catch all potential vulnerabilities.
      • Deployment of Untested Code: Developers might accidentally deploy code that hasn't been thoroughly tested.
    • Threats (Recommended GitHub Actions - if not implemented correctly):
      • Compromised Build Environment: If the GitHub Actions environment is compromised, attackers could inject malicious code into the build process.
      • Misconfigured Workflow: Incorrectly configured workflows could skip security checks or deploy vulnerable code.
      • Dependency Vulnerabilities: Vulnerabilities in build tools or dependencies could be exploited.

  • Deployment Process (Manual using Temple Wallet):

    • Implication: The deployment process is a critical security checkpoint. It's the last line of defense before the contract is live on the blockchain.
    • Threats:
      • Deployment of Incorrect Contract: The developer might accidentally deploy the wrong Michelson file.
      • Key Compromise: The developer's private key could be compromised, allowing an attacker to deploy a malicious contract.
      • Front-running: An attacker could observe the deployment transaction and deploy their own contract first, potentially exploiting a race condition.

  • Tezos Blockchain Interaction:

    • Implication: Draper relies on the security of the Tezos blockchain. While Tezos is generally considered secure, vulnerabilities in the blockchain itself could impact Draper-based contracts.
    • Threats:
      • Blockchain-Level Attacks: 51% attacks, consensus bugs, or other vulnerabilities in the Tezos protocol. These are outside the control of Draper but could have severe consequences.
      • Oracle Manipulation: If Draper-based contracts rely on external oracles for data, the oracles could be manipulated. (This is more relevant to dApps built on Draper).

  • User/dApp Interaction:

    • Implication: Users interact with Draper-based contracts through dApps. The security of these dApps is crucial for protecting user funds and data.
    • Threats:
      • Phishing Attacks: Users could be tricked into interacting with malicious contracts that impersonate legitimate Draper-based dApps.
      • dApp Vulnerabilities: Vulnerabilities in the dApp itself (e.g., front-end vulnerabilities, insecure handling of user data) could be exploited.

3. Inferred Architecture, Components, and Data Flow

Based on the provided information, we can infer the following:

  • Architecture: A single smart contract (Draper template) deployed on the Tezos blockchain. dApps built using Draper will likely consist of this contract (possibly modified) and a front-end interface.

  • Components:

    • LIGO source code.
    • Compiled Michelson code.
    • Tezos blockchain.
    • Developer's wallet (e.g., Temple).
    • (Potentially) GitHub Actions for CI/CD.
    • dApp front-end (not part of Draper itself, but relevant to the overall system).

  • Data Flow:

    1. Developer writes LIGO code.
    2. LIGO code is compiled to Michelson.
    3. Developer uses a wallet to deploy the Michelson code to the Tezos blockchain.
    4. Users interact with the deployed contract through a dApp.
    5. The contract interacts with the Tezos blockchain to store state and execute transactions.

4. Tailored Security Considerations

Here are specific security considerations for the Draper project, going beyond general recommendations:

  • owner Pattern Analysis: The owner pattern, while common, presents a single point of failure. Consider alternatives or mitigations:

    • Multi-signature Ownership: Require multiple signatures to perform critical operations. This distributes trust and reduces the risk of a single key compromise.
    • Time-Locked Operations: Introduce a delay for certain sensitive operations (e.g., changing the owner), allowing time to detect and respond to unauthorized changes.
    • Emergency Stop Mechanism: Implement a mechanism to pause the contract in case of a detected exploit, potentially controlled by a multi-signature group.

  • LIGO-Specific Checks:

    • Gas Optimization: Analyze the gas consumption of each entry point to identify potential DoS vulnerabilities. LIGO provides tools for gas analysis.
    • Storage Optimization: Minimize the amount of data stored on-chain to reduce costs and potential attack surface.
    • Use of assert: Use assert statements to enforce critical invariants and prevent unexpected state changes. These checks are enforced at runtime.

  • Build Process Hardening:

    • Pin LIGO Compiler Version: Specify the exact LIGO compiler version in the build process (e.g., in the GitHub Actions workflow) to ensure reproducible builds.
    • Integrate SAST Tools: Use tools like SmartPy Analyzer or other LIGO-specific static analysis tools to automatically detect vulnerabilities during the build.
    • Generate and Verify Checksums: Generate checksums of the compiled Michelson code and verify them before deployment to ensure integrity.

  • Deployment Scripting:

    • Automated Deployment Script: Provide a well-documented deployment script (e.g., using tezos-client) to reduce the risk of manual errors.
    • Testnet Deployment: Encourage developers to deploy to a testnet first and thoroughly test their contracts before deploying to mainnet.

  • Documentation and Guidelines:

    • Security Best Practices Guide: Create a comprehensive guide for developers using Draper, covering common smart contract vulnerabilities, LIGO-specific considerations, and secure coding practices.
    • Threat Model Documentation: Document the threat model for Draper and provide guidance on how developers can extend it for their specific dApps.
    • Example Vulnerable Code: Include examples of insecure code and how to fix them, to educate developers about common pitfalls.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies

Here are specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to Draper:

  1. Implement Multi-signature Ownership: Modify the owner pattern to require multiple signatures for critical operations. Provide clear instructions and example code for developers.

  2. Integrate Static Analysis: Add a step to the GitHub Actions workflow to run a LIGO-specific static analysis tool (e.g., SmartPy Analyzer) on every commit. Configure the tool to fail the build if any high-severity vulnerabilities are detected.

  3. Comprehensive Unit and Integration Tests: Create a comprehensive test suite using testing.mligo that covers all entry points, edge cases, and potential error conditions. Aim for 100% code coverage. Include tests specifically designed to trigger potential integer overflows/underflows and other common vulnerabilities.

  4. Gas Consumption Analysis: Use LIGO's gas analysis tools to profile the gas consumption of each entry point. Identify and optimize any functions that consume excessive gas. Set gas limits for each entry point to prevent DoS attacks.

  5. Formal Verification (Long-Term Goal): Explore the possibility of formally verifying critical parts of the contract logic using tools like Coq or other formal verification frameworks compatible with LIGO.

  6. Vulnerability Disclosure Program: Establish a clear process for security researchers to report vulnerabilities. This could be a simple email address or a more formal bug bounty program.

  7. Security Audits: Commission regular security audits by reputable third-party firms specializing in smart contract security. Publish the audit reports publicly.

  8. Deployment Script with Checksum Verification: Provide a deployment script that automatically generates a checksum of the compiled Michelson code and verifies it before deployment.

  9. Detailed Security Guidelines: Create a dedicated section in the documentation that provides comprehensive security guidelines for developers using Draper. This should include:

    • Common smart contract vulnerabilities and how to avoid them.
    • LIGO-specific security considerations.
    • Secure coding practices for Tezos.
    • Guidance on input validation and access control.
    • Examples of vulnerable code and how to fix them.
    • A threat model for Draper and guidance on how to extend it for specific dApps.

  10. Community Review: Encourage community members to review the code and report any potential issues.

By implementing these mitigation strategies, the Draper project can significantly improve its security posture and provide a more secure foundation for dApp development on Tezos. Remember that security is an ongoing process, and continuous monitoring, testing, and improvement are essential.