Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
354 lines (269 loc) · 37.7 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

354 lines (269 loc) · 37.7 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for puppetlabs/puppet

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Rigorous Code Review for Puppet Manifests and Modules

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Establish a formal code review process for all Puppet code changes (manifests, modules, Hiera data). This process should be documented and communicated to the development team.
    • Step 2: Select code reviewers with sufficient Puppet knowledge and security awareness. Ideally, include security-focused personnel or developers trained in secure coding practices for Puppet.
    • Step 3: Utilize a version control system (like Git) and branching strategy (e.g., Gitflow) to manage Puppet code changes. Code reviews should occur on feature branches before merging into the main branch.
    • Step 4: Define a code review checklist or guidelines focusing on security aspects specific to Puppet, such as:
      • Principle of least privilege for file permissions and user/group management.
      • Secure configuration of services (e.g., disabling unnecessary features, strong passwords where applicable).
      • Avoidance of hardcoded secrets.
      • Input validation and sanitization where user input is processed (though less common in standard Puppet).
      • Logic flaws that could lead to unintended security misconfigurations.
    • Step 5: Use code review tools (e.g., pull requests in Git platforms like GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket) to facilitate the review process and track feedback.
    • Step 6: Ensure reviewers provide constructive feedback and that developers address all identified security concerns before code is approved and merged.
    • Step 7: Periodically review and update the code review checklist and process to adapt to new threats and best practices.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Security Misconfigurations due to Coding Errors: Severity: High - Incorrectly configured permissions, services, or firewall rules can create vulnerabilities exploitable by attackers.
    • Unintended Access Permissions: Severity: Medium - Overly permissive file permissions or user/group assignments can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data or system resources.
    • Introduction of Vulnerabilities through Custom Code: Severity: Medium - Custom Puppet code might contain logic flaws or vulnerabilities if not properly reviewed, potentially weakening system security.
    • Accidental Hardcoding of Secrets: Severity: High - Developers might unintentionally hardcode sensitive information like passwords, API keys, or certificates in manifests, leading to exposure if code is compromised.

  • Impact:

    • Security Misconfigurations due to Coding Errors: High Reduction - Code review significantly reduces the likelihood of introducing configuration errors that lead to vulnerabilities.
    • Unintended Access Permissions: Medium Reduction - Reviewers can identify and correct overly permissive configurations before they are deployed.
    • Introduction of Vulnerabilities through Custom Code: Medium Reduction - Code review helps catch logic flaws and potential vulnerabilities in custom Puppet code.
    • Accidental Hardcoding of Secrets: High Reduction - Code review is a critical step in preventing hardcoded secrets from making their way into production.

  • Currently Implemented: Yes - Hypothetical Project - Development Team uses Git and pull requests for code changes. Basic code reviews are performed, but security focus is inconsistent.

  • Missing Implementation: Formalized security-focused checklist for Puppet code reviews. Consistent security expertise in code reviews. Tracking and metrics for code review effectiveness.

Mitigation Strategy: Employ Static Analysis Tools for Puppet Code

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Research and select static analysis tools that are compatible with Puppet DSL (Domain Specific Language) or can analyze Puppet code for security vulnerabilities and coding errors. (Note: Native Puppet static analysis tools might be limited, consider general code analysis tools or linters that can be adapted).
    • Step 2: Integrate the chosen static analysis tool into the development pipeline. This can be done as part of the CI/CD (Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery) process, triggered on code commits or pull requests.
    • Step 3: Configure the static analysis tool to check for relevant security rules and best practices for Puppet. This might involve customizing rule sets or defining custom checks if the tool allows. Focus on rules that detect:
      • Overly permissive file permissions (e.g., world-writable files).
      • Insecure service configurations (e.g., default passwords, insecure protocols enabled).
      • Potential command injection vulnerabilities (if applicable in dynamic Puppet code).
      • Basic coding errors that could indirectly lead to security issues.
    • Step 4: Run the static analysis tool on all Puppet code changes.
    • Step 5: Configure the CI/CD pipeline to fail builds or deployments if the static analysis tool reports security violations or high-severity issues.
    • Step 6: Provide developers with clear reports from the static analysis tool, highlighting identified issues and guidance on remediation.
    • Step 7: Regularly update the static analysis tool and its rule sets to stay current with new vulnerabilities and best practices.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Security Misconfigurations due to Coding Errors: Severity: High - Static analysis can automatically detect many common configuration errors that lead to vulnerabilities.
    • Introduction of Known Vulnerabilities: Severity: Medium - Tools can identify patterns or code constructs known to be associated with vulnerabilities.
    • Coding Standard Violations Leading to Security Weaknesses: Severity: Low to Medium - Enforcing coding standards through static analysis can improve code quality and reduce the likelihood of subtle security flaws.

  • Impact:

    • Security Misconfigurations due to Coding Errors: Medium Reduction - Static analysis provides an automated layer of defense, catching errors that might be missed in manual reviews.
    • Introduction of Known Vulnerabilities: Medium Reduction - Tools can identify and flag known vulnerability patterns, preventing their introduction.
    • Coding Standard Violations Leading to Security Weaknesses: Low to Medium Reduction - Improved code quality contributes to a more secure overall system.

  • Currently Implemented: No - Hypothetical Project - No static analysis tools are currently integrated for Puppet code.

  • Missing Implementation: Selection and integration of a suitable static analysis tool for Puppet. Configuration of security-focused rules. Integration into CI/CD pipeline. Developer training on using and interpreting static analysis results.

Mitigation Strategy: Thoroughly Test Puppet Code in Non-Production Environments

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Establish dedicated non-production environments (staging, testing, development) that closely mirror the production environment in terms of infrastructure, operating systems, and application configurations.
    • Step 2: Implement a deployment pipeline that automatically deploys Puppet code changes to these non-production environments before production.
    • Step 3: Integrate security testing into the testing phase of the deployment pipeline. This should include:
      • Vulnerability Scanning: Use vulnerability scanners to scan systems managed by Puppet in non-production environments after Puppet application.
      • Configuration Audits: Perform automated configuration audits to verify that Puppet has applied configurations as intended and that these configurations are secure (e.g., using tools like inspec or custom scripts).
      • Penetration Testing (Optional but Recommended): Conduct penetration testing in staging environments to identify vulnerabilities that might be exposed by Puppet configurations.
    • Step 4: Define clear pass/fail criteria for security tests. Failures should prevent the promotion of Puppet code to production.
    • Step 5: Provide developers with detailed reports of security test results, including identified vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.
    • Step 6: Iterate on Puppet code and configurations based on test results until security tests pass in non-production environments.
    • Step 7: Only promote Puppet code to production after successful security testing in non-production environments.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Deployment of Security Misconfigurations to Production: Severity: High - Testing prevents deploying insecure configurations that could create vulnerabilities in production.
    • Undetected Vulnerabilities Introduced by Puppet Changes: Severity: High - Testing identifies vulnerabilities introduced by Puppet code before they reach production systems.
    • Production Downtime due to Configuration Errors: Severity: Medium - Testing helps identify and fix configuration errors that could lead to service disruptions in production.

  • Impact:

    • Deployment of Security Misconfigurations to Production: High Reduction - Testing is a crucial gatekeeper preventing insecure configurations from reaching production.
    • Undetected Vulnerabilities Introduced by Puppet Changes: High Reduction - Testing actively searches for and identifies vulnerabilities introduced by Puppet code.
    • Production Downtime due to Configuration Errors: Medium Reduction - Testing improves the stability and reliability of Puppet deployments, indirectly reducing security risks associated with downtime.

  • Currently Implemented: Yes - Hypothetical Project - Staging and testing environments exist. Basic functional testing is performed.

  • Missing Implementation: Integration of automated security testing (vulnerability scanning, configuration audits) into the testing pipeline for Puppet deployments. Defined security pass/fail criteria. Penetration testing in staging environments.

Mitigation Strategy: Utilize Trusted and Well-Maintained Puppet Modules

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Prioritize using Puppet modules from reputable sources like the Puppet Forge Verified Partners program or official vendor-supported modules.
    • Step 2: When considering community modules from the Puppet Forge or other sources, carefully evaluate them before adoption. Assess:
      • Module Author Reputation: Check the author's history and contributions to the Puppet community.
      • Module Download Statistics and Community Feedback: High download counts and positive reviews can indicate wider usage and potentially better quality.
      • Last Update Date and Maintenance Activity: Actively maintained modules are more likely to be secure and up-to-date.
      • Module Code Quality and Security: Review the module's code (manifests, Ruby code if any) for potential security flaws or insecure practices.
    • Step 3: Avoid using modules that are outdated, unmaintained, or from unknown or untrusted sources.
    • Step 4: If a suitable module is not available, consider developing an internal module instead of relying on potentially risky external modules.
    • Step 5: Regularly review and re-evaluate the modules used in your Puppet infrastructure. As modules evolve, their security posture might change.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Modules from Untrusted Sources: Severity: High - Malicious modules could contain backdoors, malware, or insecure configurations designed to compromise systems.
    • Vulnerable Modules due to Poor Code Quality or Lack of Maintenance: Severity: Medium to High - Modules with vulnerabilities can introduce security weaknesses into managed systems.
    • Supply Chain Attacks through Compromised Modules: Severity: High - If a trusted module is compromised, it could be used to distribute malicious code to users.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Modules from Untrusted Sources: High Reduction - Careful module selection significantly reduces the risk of using intentionally malicious modules.
    • Vulnerable Modules due to Poor Code Quality or Lack of Maintenance: Medium to High Reduction - Choosing well-maintained and reviewed modules lowers the chance of introducing vulnerabilities.
    • Supply Chain Attacks through Compromised Modules: Medium Reduction - While not eliminating the risk entirely, using reputable sources and monitoring module updates reduces the likelihood of supply chain attacks.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Hypothetical Project - Primarily uses modules from Puppet Forge, but vetting process for community modules is informal and inconsistent.

  • Missing Implementation: Formalized module vetting process with documented criteria. Regular review of used modules. Consideration of a private module repository for internal modules and vetted external modules.

Mitigation Strategy: Regularly Update Puppet Modules and Agents

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Establish a process for regularly checking for updates to Puppet modules and agents. This can be automated using tools or scripts that monitor module repositories and Puppet agent versions.
    • Step 2: Subscribe to security mailing lists and advisories related to Puppet and its modules to receive notifications about security vulnerabilities and updates.
    • Step 3: Prioritize applying security updates for Puppet modules and agents promptly.
    • Step 4: Before deploying updates to production, thoroughly test them in non-production environments to ensure compatibility and stability.
    • Step 5: Implement an automated or semi-automated process for updating Puppet modules and agents across the infrastructure. Consider using tools like r10k or Code Manager for module management and orchestration tools for agent updates.
    • Step 6: Maintain an inventory of Puppet modules and agent versions used in the environment to track updates and identify outdated components.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Outdated Puppet Components: Severity: High - Outdated Puppet master, agents, or modules may contain known vulnerabilities that attackers can exploit.
    • Exposure to Security Bugs Fixed in Newer Versions: Severity: Medium to High - Staying updated ensures access to bug fixes, including security-related fixes, in newer versions.

  • Impact:

    • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Outdated Puppet Components: High Reduction - Regular updates directly address known vulnerabilities, significantly reducing the risk of exploitation.
    • Exposure to Security Bugs Fixed in Newer Versions: Medium to High Reduction - Staying current with updates provides ongoing protection against newly discovered security bugs.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Hypothetical Project - Puppet agents are generally updated during OS patching cycles. Module updates are less frequent and not systematically tracked.

  • Missing Implementation: Automated or systematic process for checking and applying Puppet module updates. Dedicated process for tracking Puppet agent versions and ensuring timely updates. Proactive monitoring of Puppet security advisories.

Mitigation Strategy: Adhere to the Principle of Least Privilege in Puppet Code

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Design Puppet manifests and modules to grant only the minimum necessary permissions and access rights to managed resources (files, directories, services, users, etc.).
    • Step 2: Avoid using overly permissive configurations like mode => '0777' for files or granting unnecessary administrative privileges to users or services.
    • Step 3: When configuring users and groups, grant only the required group memberships and avoid adding users to overly privileged groups (e.g., wheel, sudo).
    • Step 4: For services, configure them to run with the least privileged user account possible.
    • Step 5: Regularly review and audit Puppet code to identify and remediate instances where the principle of least privilege is not being followed.
    • Step 6: Educate developers on the principle of least privilege and its importance in Puppet configuration management.
    • Step 7: Use code review processes to enforce adherence to the principle of least privilege in Puppet code.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Lateral Movement after Initial Compromise: Severity: Medium to High - Least privilege limits the impact of a successful attack by restricting the attacker's ability to move laterally within the system.
    • Privilege Escalation: Severity: Medium to High - Overly permissive configurations can create opportunities for attackers to escalate their privileges on a compromised system.
    • Data Breaches and Unauthorized Access: Severity: Medium to High - Insufficiently restricted access controls can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data or system resources.

  • Impact:

    • Lateral Movement after Initial Compromise: Medium to High Reduction - Least privilege significantly hinders an attacker's ability to expand their access after gaining initial foothold.
    • Privilege Escalation: Medium to High Reduction - Properly configured permissions and access controls make privilege escalation much more difficult.
    • Data Breaches and Unauthorized Access: Medium to High Reduction - Least privilege reduces the attack surface and limits the potential for unauthorized access.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Hypothetical Project - Developers are generally aware of least privilege, but consistent enforcement in Puppet code is lacking. No systematic audits are performed.

  • Missing Implementation: Formalized guidelines and best practices for least privilege in Puppet code. Automated checks or linting for overly permissive configurations. Regular audits of Puppet code for least privilege adherence. Developer training on secure configuration principles in Puppet.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Communication Channels (HTTPS) Between Puppet Agent and Master

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Ensure that the Puppet master is configured to enforce HTTPS for all agent communication. This is typically configured in the Puppet master's puppet.conf file.
    • Step 2: Verify that all Puppet agents are configured to communicate with the Puppet master over HTTPS. This is also usually configured in the agent's puppet.conf file.
    • Step 3: Properly configure SSL/TLS certificates for the Puppet master and agents. Use a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) or establish an internal CA for certificate management.
    • Step 4: Ensure that certificates are valid, not expired, and correctly configured on both the master and agents.
    • Step 5: Regularly monitor certificate expiration dates and renew certificates before they expire to maintain secure communication.
    • Step 6: Disable or restrict insecure communication protocols like HTTP for Puppet agent-master communication.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks: Severity: High - Without HTTPS, communication between agents and the master is vulnerable to eavesdropping and manipulation by attackers intercepting network traffic.
    • Data Exposure in Transit: Severity: High - Sensitive data, including configurations and potentially secrets if not properly handled, can be exposed if transmitted in plaintext over HTTP.
    • Agent Impersonation: Severity: Medium - Insecure communication can make it easier for attackers to impersonate legitimate Puppet agents.

  • Impact:

    • Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks: High Reduction - HTTPS encryption protects communication channels, making MITM attacks significantly more difficult.
    • Data Exposure in Transit: High Reduction - Encryption prevents eavesdropping and protects sensitive data transmitted between agents and the master.
    • Agent Impersonation: Medium Reduction - While HTTPS alone doesn't fully prevent impersonation, it adds a layer of security and makes it harder for attackers.

  • Currently Implemented: Yes - Hypothetical Project - HTTPS is configured for Puppet agent-master communication.

  • Missing Implementation: Regular checks for certificate validity and expiration. Automated certificate renewal process. Monitoring for insecure HTTP communication attempts (though likely disabled).

Mitigation Strategy: Never Hardcode Secrets in Puppet Manifests or Modules

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Establish a strict policy against hardcoding any sensitive information (passwords, API keys, certificates, etc.) directly into Puppet manifests, modules, or Hiera data.
    • Step 2: Educate developers about the risks of hardcoding secrets and provide alternative secure methods for managing secrets in Puppet.
    • Step 3: Implement code review processes to specifically check for hardcoded secrets in Puppet code.
    • Step 4: Utilize static analysis tools (if capable) to detect potential hardcoded secrets in Puppet code.
    • Step 5: Regularly scan Puppet code repositories for potential hardcoded secrets using dedicated secret scanning tools (e.g., git-secrets, trufflehog).

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Exposure of Secrets in Version Control Systems: Severity: High - Hardcoded secrets committed to version control become permanently accessible in the repository history, even if later removed.
    • Secrets Leakage through Code Sharing or Accidental Exposure: Severity: High - Hardcoded secrets can be easily leaked if Puppet code is shared, accidentally exposed, or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
    • Increased Impact of Code Repository Compromise: Severity: High - If a code repository containing hardcoded secrets is compromised, attackers gain direct access to those secrets.

  • Impact:

    • Exposure of Secrets in Version Control Systems: High Reduction - Preventing hardcoding eliminates the risk of secrets being stored in version control history.
    • Secrets Leakage through Code Sharing or Accidental Exposure: High Reduction - Avoiding hardcoding significantly reduces the chances of accidental secret leakage.
    • Increased Impact of Code Repository Compromise: High Reduction - Without hardcoded secrets, the impact of a code repository compromise is reduced, as secrets are not directly accessible within the code itself.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Hypothetical Project - Developers are generally aware of the issue, but occasional hardcoding might still occur. No automated secret scanning is in place.

  • Missing Implementation: Formal policy against hardcoded secrets. Automated secret scanning integrated into the development pipeline. Regular scans of code repositories. Developer training on secure secrets management in Puppet.

Mitigation Strategy: Utilize Dedicated Secrets Management Solutions Integrated with Puppet

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Choose a suitable secrets management solution (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, CyberArk Conjur, cloud provider secret services) that can be integrated with Puppet.
    • Step 2: Configure Puppet to retrieve secrets dynamically from the chosen secrets management solution during agent runs. This typically involves using external lookup functions or custom facts in Puppet.
    • Step 3: Store sensitive data (passwords, API keys, certificates) securely within the secrets management solution instead of directly in Puppet code or configuration files.
    • Step 4: Implement proper authentication and authorization mechanisms for Puppet agents to access the secrets management solution.
    • Step 5: Ensure secure communication channels (HTTPS) between Puppet agents and the secrets management solution.
    • Step 6: Regularly audit access logs for the secrets management solution to monitor secret access and identify any suspicious activity.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Exposure of Secrets in Puppet Code and Configuration: Severity: High - Storing secrets in Puppet code or configuration files makes them vulnerable to exposure through various channels (version control, logs, accidental access).
    • Hardcoded Secrets Vulnerabilities (as described above): Severity: High - Secrets management eliminates the need to hardcode secrets, mitigating all related threats.
    • Centralized Secrets Management Weaknesses: Severity: Medium - While secrets management improves security, vulnerabilities in the secrets management system itself could become a single point of failure. (Mitigated by securing the secrets management system itself).

  • Impact:

    • Exposure of Secrets in Puppet Code and Configuration: High Reduction - Secrets are no longer stored directly in Puppet, eliminating this primary exposure vector.
    • Hardcoded Secrets Vulnerabilities: High Reduction - Secrets management completely removes the risk of hardcoded secrets.
    • Centralized Secrets Management Weaknesses: Medium Reduction - Shifts the security focus to securing the secrets management system, which, if done correctly, provides a stronger security posture than managing secrets within Puppet itself.

  • Currently Implemented: No - Hypothetical Project - Secrets are currently managed through encrypted Hiera data or sometimes even directly in manifests (undesirable).

  • Missing Implementation: Selection and deployment of a secrets management solution. Integration of Puppet with the chosen solution. Migration of existing secrets to the secrets management system. Developer training on using secrets management in Puppet.

Mitigation Strategy: Employ Encrypted Data Types and Hiera Backends for Sensitive Data

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Utilize encrypted data types and Hiera backends (e.g., eyaml backend for Hiera) to store sensitive data in Puppet configuration files in an encrypted format.
    • Step 2: Configure the chosen encryption method (e.g., eyaml with GPG or PKCS7) and ensure proper key management.
    • Step 3: Securely store and manage decryption keys, ensuring they are not accessible to unauthorized individuals or systems.
    • Step 4: Restrict access to encrypted data files to only authorized Puppet agents or processes that require access to the sensitive data.
    • Step 5: Regularly rotate encryption keys to enhance security.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Exposure of Secrets in Configuration Files at Rest: Severity: Medium to High - Without encryption, sensitive data stored in Hiera or other configuration files is vulnerable if these files are accessed by unauthorized individuals or systems.
    • Accidental Disclosure of Secrets in Configuration Files: Severity: Medium - Unencrypted secrets in configuration files can be accidentally disclosed through backups, file sharing, or system compromises.

  • Impact:

    • Exposure of Secrets in Configuration Files at Rest: Medium to High Reduction - Encryption protects secrets stored in configuration files, making them unreadable without decryption keys.
    • Accidental Disclosure of Secrets in Configuration Files: Medium Reduction - Encryption reduces the risk of accidental disclosure, as the data is not readily usable even if configuration files are exposed.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Hypothetical Project - eyaml is used for some sensitive data in Hiera, but not consistently applied across all secrets. Key management practices are not fully formalized.

  • Missing Implementation: Consistent use of encrypted data types for all sensitive data in Puppet configuration. Formalized key management procedures for decryption keys. Regular key rotation policy.

Mitigation Strategy: Carefully Vet Puppet Modules Before Use

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Establish a mandatory vetting process for all Puppet modules before they are approved for use in the project.
    • Step 2: Define clear criteria for module vetting, including security considerations. This should involve:
      • Code Review: Review the module's code (manifests, Ruby code, etc.) for potential security vulnerabilities, insecure configurations, and malicious code.
      • Source and Author Trustworthiness: Assess the reputation and trustworthiness of the module's author and source repository.
      • Module Functionality and Necessity: Evaluate if the module's functionality is truly needed and if it aligns with security best practices.
      • Maintenance and Updates: Check the module's maintenance status, last update date, and responsiveness of the maintainers.
    • Step 3: Document the vetting process and criteria.
    • Step 4: Assign responsibility for module vetting to designated security personnel or experienced developers.
    • Step 5: Maintain a list of vetted and approved Puppet modules.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Modules from Untrusted Sources: Severity: High - Vetting helps prevent the use of modules containing intentionally malicious code.
    • Vulnerable Modules due to Poor Code Quality: Severity: Medium to High - Vetting can identify modules with coding flaws that could introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Supply Chain Attacks through Compromised Modules: Severity: High - While not foolproof, vetting adds a layer of defense against using compromised modules.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Modules from Untrusted Sources: High Reduction - Vetting significantly reduces the risk of introducing malicious modules.
    • Vulnerable Modules due to Poor Code Quality: Medium to High Reduction - Vetting helps identify and avoid modules with potential vulnerabilities.
    • Supply Chain Attacks through Compromised Modules: Medium Reduction - Vetting provides an additional check in the module supply chain.

  • Currently Implemented: No - Hypothetical Project - Module selection is mostly based on functionality and community popularity, with limited formal security vetting.

  • Missing Implementation: Formal module vetting process with documented criteria. Designated personnel responsible for vetting. Tracking of vetted and approved modules.

Mitigation Strategy: Prefer Modules from Trusted Sources and Authors

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Prioritize using Puppet modules from trusted and reputable sources. This includes:
      • Puppet Forge Verified Partners: Modules from verified partners have undergone a basic level of vetting by Puppet.
      • Official Vendor-Supported Modules: Modules provided and supported by software vendors for their products.
      • Well-Known and Respected Community Authors: Modules from authors with a strong track record and positive reputation in the Puppet community.
    • Step 2: When choosing between modules with similar functionality, prefer those from more trusted sources.
    • Step 3: Be cautious when using modules from unknown or less reputable sources, especially for critical infrastructure components.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malicious Modules from Untrusted Sources: Severity: High - Prioritizing trusted sources reduces the likelihood of encountering malicious modules.
    • Vulnerable Modules due to Lack of Expertise or Care: Severity: Medium - Modules from trusted sources are generally more likely to be developed and maintained with greater care and expertise.
    • Supply Chain Attacks (Reduced Likelihood): Severity: Medium - While trusted sources can still be compromised, the risk is generally lower compared to unknown sources.

  • Impact:

    • Malicious Modules from Untrusted Sources: Medium to High Reduction - Choosing trusted sources significantly lowers the probability of using malicious modules.
    • Vulnerable Modules due to Lack of Expertise or Care: Medium Reduction - Modules from trusted sources are more likely to be of higher quality and less prone to vulnerabilities.
    • Supply Chain Attacks (Reduced Likelihood): Medium Reduction - Reduces the overall risk in the module supply chain by focusing on more reputable providers.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially - Hypothetical Project - Preference for Puppet Forge modules, but "trusted source" is not rigorously defined or enforced.

  • Missing Implementation: Formal definition of "trusted sources" for Puppet modules. Documented guidelines for prioritizing trusted sources. Enforcement of trusted source preference during module selection.

Mitigation Strategy: Consider Using a Private Puppet Module Repository

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Evaluate the feasibility and benefits of setting up a private Puppet module repository. This can be a dedicated server or a cloud-based service.
    • Step 2: Implement a private module repository to host internally developed Puppet modules and vetted external modules.
    • Step 3: Configure Puppet infrastructure to use the private module repository as the primary source for modules.
    • Step 4: Establish a workflow for adding modules to the private repository. This should include the module vetting process (described above) and version control.
    • Step 5: Regularly maintain and update the private module repository.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Supply Chain Attacks through Public Repositories: Severity: Medium to High - A private repository reduces reliance on public repositories, limiting exposure to potential compromises of those repositories.
    • Use of Unvetted or Malicious Public Modules: Severity: High - A private repository allows for control over which modules are used, ensuring only vetted modules are deployed.
    • Dependency on External Public Infrastructure: Severity: Low to Medium - Reduces dependency on the availability and security of public module repositories.

  • Impact:

    • Supply Chain Attacks through Public Repositories: Medium to High Reduction - Significantly reduces the attack surface related to public module repositories.
    • Use of Unvetted or Malicious Public Modules: High Reduction - Provides strong control over module usage, preventing the deployment of unvetted or malicious modules.
    • Dependency on External Public Infrastructure: Low to Medium Reduction - Increases resilience and control over the module supply chain.

  • Currently Implemented: No - Hypothetical Project - Relies solely on public Puppet Forge and direct Git module sources.

  • Missing Implementation: Evaluation of private repository options. Setup and configuration of a private module repository. Migration of modules to the private repository. Workflow for managing modules in the private repository.

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Module Signing and Verification (If Available)

  • Description:

    • Step 1: Investigate if Puppet or your module management tools support module signing and verification mechanisms. (Note: Native Puppet Forge doesn't inherently enforce signing, but some tools or workflows might offer this functionality).
    • Step 2: If module signing is supported, implement it for all Puppet modules.
    • Step 3: Generate and manage signing keys securely.
    • Step 4: Configure Puppet infrastructure to verify module signatures before deploying modules to managed nodes.
    • Step 5: Establish a process for module authors to sign their modules before they are distributed or added to a module repository.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Module Tampering or Modification: Severity: High - Signing and verification ensures module integrity and prevents unauthorized modifications after module creation.
    • Supply Chain Attacks through Module Compromise: Severity: Medium to High - Verification can detect if a module has been tampered with during transit or in a repository, potentially indicating a supply chain attack.
    • Accidental Module Corruption: Severity: Low - Verification can also detect accidental corruption of module files.

  • Impact:

    • Module Tampering or Modification: High Reduction - Signing provides strong assurance of module integrity and prevents unauthorized changes.
    • Supply Chain Attacks through Module Compromise: Medium to High Reduction - Verification adds a significant layer of defense against supply chain attacks targeting modules.
    • Accidental Module Corruption: Low Reduction - Provides a mechanism to detect corrupted modules, ensuring deployment of intact code.

  • Currently Implemented: No - Hypothetical Project - Module signing and verification are not currently implemented.

  • Missing Implementation: Investigation of module signing options. Implementation of module signing and verification mechanisms. Key management for signing keys. Configuration of Puppet infrastructure for signature verification. Workflow for module signing.