Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
159 lines (121 loc) · 17.4 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

159 lines (121 loc) · 17.4 KB

Okay, here's a deep dive security analysis of the Le Wagon setup scripts, based on the provided security design review and the context of the repository (https://github.com/lewagon/setup).

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: The primary objective is to conduct a thorough security analysis of the Le Wagon setup scripts, focusing on identifying potential vulnerabilities and weaknesses that could be exploited to compromise student machines or disrupt the learning environment. This includes analyzing the scripts' interaction with external systems, the software they install, and the overall security posture of the resulting development environment. We aim to provide actionable recommendations to improve the security of the setup process.

  • Scope: The scope of this analysis encompasses:

    • All shell scripts within the setup repository intended for execution on student machines (macOS, Ubuntu, Windows).
    • The interaction of these scripts with external package managers and software repositories (Homebrew, APT, Chocolatey, winget, RubyGems, npm, etc.).
    • The configuration changes made by the scripts to the student's operating system and development tools.
    • The one-line installer mechanism used to initiate the setup process.
    • The security implications of the "accepted risks" outlined in the security design review.

  • Methodology:

    1. Code Review: We will manually examine the shell scripts in the repository, looking for common coding errors, insecure practices, and potential vulnerabilities.
    2. Dependency Analysis: We will identify all external dependencies (software packages, libraries, tools) installed by the scripts and assess their security implications.
    3. Threat Modeling: We will consider various attack scenarios and how they might impact the setup process or the resulting development environment. This will be informed by the C4 diagrams and the identified business risks.
    4. Inference: Based on the code and documentation, we will infer the architecture, data flow, and component interactions.
    5. Risk Assessment: We will evaluate the identified vulnerabilities based on their likelihood and potential impact, prioritizing them for mitigation.
    6. Recommendation Generation: We will provide specific, actionable recommendations to address the identified security concerns, tailored to the Le Wagon context.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of the key components identified in the design review and C4 diagrams:

  • Setup Scripts (macOS, Ubuntu, Windows, Common):

    • Implication: These are the core of the system and the primary attack surface. Any vulnerability here can be directly exploited. Since they run with user privileges, a compromised script could modify system settings, install malware, or steal data. The use of shell scripts, while convenient, introduces inherent risks due to the potential for command injection and other shell-specific vulnerabilities.
    • Specific Concerns:
      • Command Injection: If any user-supplied input (even indirectly) is used to construct commands, there's a risk of command injection. While the design review states limited input, we need to verify this very carefully in the code. Even environment variables could be a source of injection.
      • Error Handling: Insufficient error handling can lead to unexpected behavior and potentially leave the system in an insecure state. For example, if a package installation fails, does the script continue running?
      • Race Conditions: If the scripts create temporary files or directories, there might be race conditions that could be exploited.
      • Hardcoded Credentials/Secrets: The scripts should never contain hardcoded credentials. We need to check for this.
      • Insecure Defaults: The scripts might configure software with insecure default settings.

  • External Package Managers (Homebrew, APT, Chocolatey, winget):

    • Implication: The security of the entire setup process relies heavily on the security of these package managers and their repositories. While they generally have security mechanisms (package signing, checksums), they are not foolproof. A compromised repository or a successful man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack could lead to the installation of malicious software.
    • Specific Concerns:
      • Repository Compromise: If an attacker gains control of a repository, they can distribute malicious packages.
      • MITM Attacks: If the connection to the repository is not secure (e.g., using HTTP instead of HTTPS), an attacker could intercept the traffic and replace packages with malicious versions.
      • Package Signing Weaknesses: Even with package signing, there might be vulnerabilities in the signing process or the key management.
      • Dependency Confusion: This is a specific type of attack where an attacker uploads a malicious package with the same name as a legitimate internal package to a public repository. We need to check if the scripts use any custom or internal package names.

  • RubyGems, npm:

    • Implication: Similar to the package managers, these are sources of potential vulnerabilities. Malicious gems or npm packages could contain arbitrary code that executes when installed or used.
    • Specific Concerns: The same concerns as with the package managers (repository compromise, MITM, package signing weaknesses, dependency confusion) apply here. Additionally, the sheer number of packages available in these ecosystems increases the risk of inadvertently installing a malicious or vulnerable package.

  • VS Code Extensions Marketplace:

    • Implication: VS Code extensions can have extensive access to the development environment and the user's files. A malicious extension could steal code, modify files, or even execute arbitrary commands.
    • Specific Concerns:
      • Malicious Extensions: While the marketplace has some vetting, it's not perfect. An attacker could publish a malicious extension disguised as a legitimate one.
      • Vulnerable Extensions: Even legitimate extensions can have vulnerabilities that could be exploited.
      • Overly Permissive Extensions: Extensions might request more permissions than they need, increasing the potential impact of a compromise.

  • GitHub (as a distribution mechanism):

    • Implication: The scripts are downloaded from GitHub. While GitHub itself is generally secure, the use of a one-line installer (curl/wget) introduces risks.
    • Specific Concerns:
      • MITM Attacks: If the one-line installer uses HTTP instead of HTTPS, an attacker could intercept the download and replace the script with a malicious version. Even with HTTPS, there's a (smaller) risk of certificate issues or compromised certificate authorities.
      • Lack of Script Integrity Verification: The one-line installer, as described, doesn't verify the integrity of the downloaded script. This means an attacker who compromises the GitHub repository (or successfully performs a MITM attack) can modify the script without detection.

  • One-Line Installer (curl/wget):

    • Implication: This is a major security concern. Piping the output of curl or wget directly to a shell (bash or sh) is inherently risky. It's equivalent to downloading a file and executing it without any verification.
    • Specific Concerns: All the concerns related to GitHub distribution are amplified here. There's no opportunity for the user to inspect the script before execution.

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow (Inferred)

Based on the provided information and the nature of the project, we can infer the following:

  • Architecture: The architecture is a simple client-server model. The student's machine is the client, and the various software repositories (GitHub, package manager repositories, etc.) are the servers. The setup scripts act as the client-side logic, orchestrating the download and installation of software.

  • Components: The key components are the setup scripts themselves, the package managers, the software repositories, and the installed software.

  • Data Flow:

    1. The student executes the one-line installer.
    2. curl or wget downloads the setup script from GitHub.
    3. The downloaded script is piped to a shell (bash or sh) for execution.
    4. The script uses package managers (Homebrew, APT, Chocolatey, winget) to download and install software from their respective repositories.
    5. The script may also download and install Ruby gems and npm packages.
    6. The script configures the installed software and the development environment.
    7. The student now has a configured development environment.

4. Specific Security Considerations (Tailored to Le Wagon)

Given the project's context, here are specific security considerations:

  • Target Audience: The target audience is coding bootcamp students, who may have limited security expertise. This means the setup process needs to be as secure as possible by default, without requiring significant user intervention.
  • Trust Model: Le Wagon is implicitly trusting the security of the package managers and repositories they use. They are also trusting that students will not intentionally modify the scripts or run them in an insecure environment.
  • Maintenance: The scripts need to be regularly updated to address vulnerabilities in the installed software. This is a significant ongoing effort.
  • One-Line Installer: The convenience of the one-line installer comes at a significant security cost. This is a major area of concern.
  • Lack of Input Validation: While the design review mentions this as an accepted risk, the code must be reviewed to confirm that there are absolutely no places where user input (even environment variables) could influence command execution.
  • Windows environment: Windows is known for being more vulnerable, and the setup should take this into account.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies

Here are specific, actionable mitigation strategies, prioritized based on their impact and feasibility:

  • High Priority:

    • Replace One-Line Installer with a Safer Alternative:

      • Option 1 (Recommended): Provide a Downloadable Script with Instructions: Provide a link to download the script directly. Include clear instructions on how to verify the script's integrity (using SHA-256 checksums, as suggested in the design review) before executing it. This gives the user a chance to inspect the script and verify its authenticity.
      • Option 2 (Less Ideal): Use a Signed Installer: If a one-line installer is absolutely required, explore using a signed installer (e.g., using a code signing certificate). This would provide some assurance that the script hasn't been tampered with. However, this requires more infrastructure and key management.
      • Provide clear instructions: Provide very clear instructions, with screenshots if possible, on how to download, verify, and execute the script. Assume the user has minimal technical experience.

    • Implement Script Integrity Checks (SHA-256 Checksums):

      • Generate SHA-256 checksums for each setup script and publish them on the Le Wagon website or in the GitHub repository (in a separate, trusted location).
      • Modify the scripts to download the checksum file, calculate the checksum of the downloaded script, and compare it to the expected checksum. If the checksums don't match, the script should abort with a clear error message.
      • This is crucial for mitigating MITM attacks and detecting unauthorized modifications to the scripts.

    • Review and Harden Shell Scripts:

      • Use ShellCheck: Integrate ShellCheck (https://www.shellcheck.net/) into the development workflow to automatically identify and fix potential shell script vulnerabilities.
      • Minimize External Commands: Reduce the reliance on external commands, especially those that could be influenced by user input or environment variables.
      • Robust Error Handling: Implement thorough error handling to ensure that the scripts fail gracefully and don't leave the system in an insecure state. Check the return codes of all commands.
      • Avoid eval: Do not use the eval command, as it can be a major source of security vulnerabilities.
      • Secure Temporary File Handling: Use secure methods for creating temporary files and directories (e.g., mktemp with appropriate options).
      • Quote Variables: Always quote variables to prevent word splitting and globbing issues.

    • Dependency Management and Review:

      • Regularly Review Dependencies: Establish a process for regularly reviewing the software dependencies (including packages installed by package managers, Ruby gems, and npm packages) and updating them to address known vulnerabilities.
      • Use Dependency Management Tools: Consider using dependency management tools (e.g., bundler for Ruby, npm or yarn for Node.js) to track and update dependencies more easily.
      • Vulnerability Scanning: Explore using vulnerability scanning tools to automatically identify known vulnerabilities in the installed software.

  • Medium Priority:

    • Provide Security Guidance to Students:

      • Create a dedicated section in the setup documentation that covers basic security best practices for students. This should include:
        • Keeping their operating system and software up to date.
        • Using strong, unique passwords.
        • Enabling two-factor authentication for all accounts (especially GitHub).
        • Being cautious about running untrusted code or opening suspicious files.
        • Using a firewall.
        • Considering using a password manager.
        • Reporting any security concerns to Le Wagon.

    • Harden VS Code Configuration:

      • Recommend or enforce secure VS Code settings, such as disabling telemetry or restricting extension permissions.
      • Provide a list of recommended extensions and warn against installing untrusted extensions.

    • Consider Containerization (Long-Term):

      • Explore using containerization technologies (e.g., Docker) to create a more isolated and reproducible development environment. This would significantly reduce the risk of vulnerabilities in the host operating system affecting the development environment, and vice-versa. This is a more significant undertaking but would offer substantial security benefits.

  • Low Priority:

    • Automated Testing: While currently relying on manual testing, implementing automated tests (using virtual machines or containers) would improve the reliability and security of the setup process. This would help catch regressions and ensure that the scripts work as expected on different operating systems and configurations.

Addressing Accepted Risks:

  • Reliance on Third-Party Software: This is unavoidable, but the mitigation strategies above (dependency review, vulnerability scanning) help reduce the risk.
  • User Execution Context: The mitigation strategies related to script hardening and integrity checks are crucial here. Containerization would also significantly reduce this risk.
  • No Input Validation: The code review must confirm that there is no user input that could lead to command injection. If any input is found, it must be properly validated and sanitized.
  • No Code Signing: While code signing is a good practice, the higher-priority mitigation strategies (especially replacing the one-line installer and implementing checksums) provide a more immediate and significant improvement in security.

Answers to Questions:

  • Compliance Requirements: Even if the setup scripts don't directly handle personal data, Le Wagon should still be aware of compliance requirements like GDPR and CCPA. These regulations may apply to other aspects of their operations, and students should be informed about their rights.
  • Vulnerability Reporting: Le Wagon should have a clear process for reporting and addressing security vulnerabilities. This should include a designated contact point (e.g., a security email address) and a defined response plan.
  • Student Support: Adequate support should be provided to students who encounter issues with the setup process. This could include a dedicated help channel, FAQs, and troubleshooting guides.
  • Automated Testing: Automated testing should be a high priority for future development.
  • Update Communication: Updates to the setup scripts should be communicated to students clearly and promptly. This could be done through email, announcements on the learning platform, or updates to the GitHub repository.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the Le Wagon setup scripts. By implementing the recommended mitigation strategies, Le Wagon can significantly improve the security of the setup process and protect their students from potential threats. The most critical change is replacing the one-line installer with a safer alternative and implementing script integrity checks.