Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
83 lines (64 loc) · 7.61 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

83 lines (64 loc) · 7.61 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for mame/quine-relay

Mitigation Strategy: Extreme Input/Output Validation (Across All Languages)

  • Description:

    1. Define Expected Output: For each stage (language) in the relay, precisely define the expected output (which is the source code of the next stage). This definition should be character-for-character accurate. This is intrinsic to the quine-relay's operation.
    2. Generate Hashes: Create a cryptographic hash (e.g., SHA-256) of the expected output for each stage. These hashes become part of the quine-relay's design.
    3. Validation Function (Embedded): Implement a validation function within each stage of the relay. This function:
      • Receives the output from the previous stage (which is the current stage's source code).
      • Calculates the hash of the received source code.
      • Compares the calculated hash to the pre-calculated, stored hash (which is now embedded within the quine itself).
      • If the hashes match, the code proceeds to generate the next stage's source code (the normal quine behavior).
      • If the hashes do not match, the code enters a safe failure mode. This could involve:
        • Outputting a pre-defined, harmless string (instead of the next stage's code).
        • Terminating execution immediately.
        • Triggering an alert (if logging is somehow managed within the quine – a very advanced and unlikely scenario).
    4. Language-Specific Considerations (Embedded): After the hash check (but before generating the next stage), incorporate language-specific checks within the quine's code if there are known parsing quirks or potential vulnerabilities in specific interpreters. This is a secondary, embedded layer of defense.
    5. Formal Verification (of the validation logic): If feasible, use formal verification tools or symbolic execution to mathematically prove that the embedded validation function correctly enforces the expected input/output behavior. This would involve analyzing the quine's source code itself.

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Code Injection (Critical): Prevents attackers from injecting malicious code into any stage of the relay by altering the output of a previous stage. The validation is now part of the self-replicating code.
    • Interpreter Exploits (High): Reduces the likelihood of exploiting vulnerabilities in language interpreters by ensuring only well-formed, expected code is executed. The quine enforces this on itself.
    • Unexpected Behavior (Medium): Minimizes the chance of the relay entering an undefined or unpredictable state due to malformed input. The quine self-checks its integrity.

  • Impact:

    • Code Injection: Risk significantly reduced (close to eliminated if implemented correctly within the quine).
    • Interpreter Exploits: Risk reduced, but not eliminated (zero-days are still a threat, but the attack surface is drastically smaller).
    • Unexpected Behavior: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Highly unlikely to be implemented in a standard quine-relay. This requires significant modification of the quine's core logic.
    • Location: Within the source code of each stage of the quine-relay itself.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Embedded Hash-Based Validation: The core of this mitigation – the hash comparison logic – needs to be integrated into the quine's code for each stage.
    • Safe Failure Mode: A well-defined, safe behavior for when validation fails must be implemented within the quine.
    • Embedded Language-Specific Checks: These secondary checks, if deemed necessary, must be added to the quine's code.
    • Formal Verification (of the embedded logic): Almost certainly missing.

Mitigation Strategy: Code Immutability and Integrity Checks (Embedded)

  • Description:

    1. Golden Source Code (Conceptual): The concept of a "golden" source code still exists, but it's now used for design and verification, not runtime retrieval. The quine is the golden source code, in a sense.
    2. Hash Calculation (Design Time): Calculate a cryptographic hash (e.g., SHA-256) of the intended source code for each stage. This is done during the design of the quine-relay.
    3. Embedded Integrity Verification: The hash comparison, as described in the "Extreme Input/Output Validation" section, is the integrity check. It's performed by the quine itself at each stage. The quine verifies its own integrity before generating the next stage.
    4. Digital Signatures (Theoretically Possible, Extremely Complex): It's theoretically possible to embed digital signature verification within a quine, but this would be extraordinarily complex and is likely impractical. The hash comparison provides a sufficient level of integrity checking for most practical purposes (within the already impractical context of a quine-relay).

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Code Modification in Transit (Critical): Prevents attackers from modifying the quine's source code between stages because the quine checks its own code before proceeding.
    • Tampering with Expected Output (High): Ensures that the relay is executing the intended code. The quine self-validates.

  • Impact:

    • Code Modification in Transit: Risk significantly reduced (close to eliminated if the embedded validation is correct).
    • Tampering with Expected Output: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Almost certainly not implemented in a standard quine-relay. This requires fundamental changes to how the quine operates.
    • Location: Within the source code of each stage of the quine-relay.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Embedded Hash Comparison: The hash comparison logic (from the previous mitigation) is the key component and must be integrated into the quine.
    • Digital Signatures (Highly Unlikely): While theoretically possible, this is almost certainly not implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Avoidance

  • Description:

    1. Requirement Analysis: Re-evaluate the fundamental requirement that necessitates the use of a quine-relay. Explore alternative solutions that achieve the same goal without the inherent risks of self-replicating code.
    2. Alternative Design: If the requirement can be met through other means (which is almost always the case), redesign the application to use a standard, well-understood architecture.
    3. Justification: If a quine-relay is deemed absolutely unavoidable, document a clear and compelling justification, outlining the specific reasons why alternative approaches are not feasible. This justification should be reviewed and approved by security experts.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • All threats associated with quine-relays (Critical): By avoiding the use of a quine-relay, all the unique and complex threats it introduces are eliminated.

    • Impact:

      • All threats: Risk eliminated.

    • Currently Implemented:

      • Likely not implemented. The project is using a quine-relay.
      • Location: N/A

    • Missing Implementation:

      • A thorough analysis of alternatives and a strong justification for using a quine-relay are likely missing. The project should prioritize finding a different solution.