Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
51 lines (44 loc) · 4.77 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

51 lines (44 loc) · 4.77 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for faker-ruby/faker

Attack Surface: 1. Production Data Exposure

  • Description: Unintentional use of faker in a production environment, leading to the generation of fake data that is exposed to users or attackers.
  • How Faker Contributes: faker is designed to generate fake data; its presence in production directly creates this risk.
  • Example: A user registration form uses faker to pre-populate fields in production. An attacker notices the predictable patterns (e.g., repeated use of "John Doe" and common addresses) and realizes the site is using fake data.
  • Impact:
    • Information disclosure about the application's development/testing practices.
    • Loss of user trust.
    • Potential for further reconnaissance and exploitation.
    • Skewed analytics and business decisions if fake data is stored.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Environment Control: Ensure faker is only a development/test dependency. Use environment variables (e.g., RAILS_ENV, NODE_ENV) and build configurations to exclude it from production builds.
    • Code Reviews: Mandatory code reviews must explicitly check for faker calls outside of testing or seeding contexts.
    • Automated Dependency Checks: Integrate tools into the CI/CD pipeline (e.g., using bundler-audit or custom scripts) to scan for faker in production builds and fail the build if found.
    • Configuration Management: Use configuration management tools (e.g., Chef, Puppet, Ansible) to enforce environment-specific configurations and prevent accidental inclusion of development tools in production.

Attack Surface: 2. Predictable Data Generation

  • Description: Using a fixed seed for faker's random number generator, making the generated data predictable across multiple runs.
  • How Faker Contributes: faker allows setting a seed for its random number generator (Faker::Config.random = Random.new(seed)). If a fixed seed is used, the output becomes deterministic.
  • Example: A developer uses Faker::Config.random = Random.new(123) to generate "random" usernames for testing. An attacker, knowing or guessing the seed, can predict the generated usernames.
  • Impact:
    • Bypass of security controls if faker is (incorrectly) used for security-sensitive data generation (e.g., temporary passwords).
    • Weakened test coverage if tests inadvertently rely on the specific fake data generated.
  • Risk Severity: High (if used for security-related data, otherwise it would be Medium and excluded)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid Fixed Seeds: Never use a fixed seed in any environment that resembles production, including staging.
    • Dynamic Seeding in Tests: In test environments, use a dynamically generated seed (e.g., Random.new(Time.now.to_i)) to ensure different test runs produce different data.
    • Use SecureRandom: If generating fake data for security-related purposes (strongly discouraged), use Ruby's SecureRandom library instead of faker.

Attack Surface: 3. Insufficient Input Validation Testing

  • Description: Over-reliance on faker for generating test data for input validation, leading to incomplete test coverage and potential bypass of validation logic.
  • How Faker Contributes: faker generates plausible data, but it's not designed to test edge cases, boundary conditions, or malicious inputs.
  • Example: A developer uses faker to generate email addresses for testing an email validation function. The tests only cover valid-looking email formats. An attacker injects an email address with a malicious payload that bypasses the validation.
  • Impact:
    • Input validation bypass, leading to potential vulnerabilities like SQL injection, XSS, or other injection attacks.
    • False sense of security among developers.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Supplement with Targeted Tests: Use faker for a baseline of valid data, but always supplement with specific test cases that cover:
      • Edge cases (e.g., empty strings, very long strings).
      • Boundary conditions (e.g., maximum and minimum lengths).
      • Known attack vectors (e.g., SQL injection payloads, XSS payloads).
      • Invalid character sets.
    • Fuzz Testing: Use fuzzing tools to generate a wide range of unexpected inputs and identify vulnerabilities that faker-based tests might miss.
    • Regular Expression Review: If using regular expressions for validation, carefully review them for potential bypasses.