Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
155 lines (112 loc) · 14.3 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

155 lines (112 loc) · 14.3 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for thoughtbot/factory_bot

Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize Sensitive Data in Factories

  • Description:

    1. Identify Sensitive Data Fields: Review your application's data model and identify fields that store sensitive information (PII, secrets, financial data, etc.).
    2. Replace Real Data with Faker: In your factory definitions, for each sensitive data field, replace any hardcoded real or realistic data with calls to the Faker gem (e.g., Faker::Name.name, Faker::Internet.email, Faker::Lorem.word).
    3. Placeholder Secrets: For fields representing secrets (API keys, passwords), use placeholder values like "placeholder_api_key" or generate random strings using SecureRandom.hex(32) instead of actual secrets.
    4. Review and Update: Regularly review factory definitions to ensure no new sensitive data is inadvertently introduced and update Faker usage as needed.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Data Exposure in Test Environments (High Severity): Accidental exposure of real or realistic sensitive data in test databases, logs, or during debugging.
    • Data Breach via Test Database Backup (Medium Severity): If test databases are backed up and these backups are compromised, sensitive data within factories could be exposed.

  • Impact:

    • Data Exposure in Test Environments (High Reduction): Significantly reduces the risk by replacing real data with non-sensitive, generated data.
    • Data Breach via Test Database Backup (Medium Reduction): Reduces the severity of a potential breach by limiting the exposure to non-sensitive data in test backups.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented in spec/factories. Faker is used for names and emails in User and Customer factories. Passwords are currently set to "password" in User factory.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Placeholder secrets are not consistently used for API keys or other secret-like fields across all factories.
    • Review and update process for factory definitions is not formally established.

Mitigation Strategy: Avoid Defaulting to Sensitive Data in Factories

  • Description:

    1. Review Factory Defaults: Examine factory definitions, especially for attributes related to roles, permissions, or access levels.
    2. Set Minimum Necessary Privileges: Ensure factories create entities with the minimum necessary privileges or roles required for the tests they support. Avoid creating default "admin" users unless specifically needed for admin-related tests.
    3. Use Traits for Elevated Privileges: If tests require entities with higher privileges, use Factory Bot traits to define these specific scenarios instead of making them the default.
    4. Test with Different Privilege Levels: Design tests to explicitly cover scenarios with different privilege levels to ensure proper authorization and access control.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Accidental Privilege Escalation in Tests (Low Severity): Tests might inadvertently rely on overly permissive default users, potentially masking authorization vulnerabilities.
    • Security Misconfiguration in Test Data (Low Severity): Test data might not accurately reflect real-world security configurations if defaults are too permissive.

  • Impact:

    • Accidental Privilege Escalation in Tests (Low Reduction): Reduces the risk of overlooking authorization issues by ensuring tests are not implicitly relying on overly privileged users.
    • Security Misconfiguration in Test Data (Low Reduction): Improves the accuracy of test data representation of security configurations.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Default users created by factories generally have standard user roles. Admin users are created using traits when needed.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Explicit review of all factory defaults for privilege levels is needed to ensure consistency.
    • More comprehensive testing with different privilege levels could be implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Explicitly Set Secure Values for Security-Sensitive Attributes

  • Description:

    1. Identify Security-Sensitive Attributes: Identify attributes in your data model that are critical for security (passwords, API keys, tokens, security flags, etc.).
    2. Explicitly Set in Factories: In factory definitions for entities with these attributes, explicitly set them to secure or appropriate values. Do not rely on application defaults.
    3. Use Secure Generation Methods: For passwords and similar attributes, use secure generation methods like SecureRandom.hex(32) or password hashing functions within the factory if needed for specific test scenarios.
    4. Avoid Hardcoded Insecure Defaults: Do not use simple or predictable hardcoded values for security-sensitive attributes in factories.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Insecure Defaults in Test Data (Medium Severity): Factories might create entities with insecure default values for security-sensitive attributes, potentially leading to vulnerabilities if these defaults are accidentally used or reflected in production.
    • Weak Password Usage in Tests (Low Severity): Using weak or predictable passwords in test data could make tests less realistic and potentially mask password-related vulnerabilities.

  • Impact:

    • Insecure Defaults in Test Data (Medium Reduction): Reduces the risk by ensuring security-sensitive attributes are explicitly set to secure values in test data.
    • Weak Password Usage in Tests (Low Reduction): Improves the security posture of test data by using stronger password generation methods.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Passwords in User factory are currently set to "password". API keys and tokens are often generated using SecureRandom.hex in factories where they are used.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Consistent use of secure password generation across all factories where passwords are relevant.
    • Review and standardization of how security-sensitive attributes are handled in all factories.

Mitigation Strategy: Use Strong Password Generation in Factories

  • Description:

    1. Replace Weak Passwords: In factories where passwords are set (e.g., User factory), replace any weak or hardcoded passwords (like "password") with strong password generation using SecureRandom.hex(32) or similar methods.
    2. Consider Password Hashing (If Needed): If your tests require interacting with password hashing logic, you might need to hash the generated password within the factory using your application's password hashing mechanism (e.g., BCrypt::Password.create(generated_password)).
    3. Ensure Password Complexity (If Applicable): If your application enforces password complexity rules, ensure the generated passwords in factories meet these requirements for relevant test cases.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Weak Password Usage in Tests (Low Severity): Using weak passwords in test data could make tests less realistic and potentially mask password-related vulnerabilities.
    • Password Guessing in Test Environments (Very Low Severity): While unlikely, weak passwords in test environments could theoretically be more easily guessed in case of unauthorized access.

  • Impact:

    • Weak Password Usage in Tests (Low Reduction): Improves the realism and security posture of test data by using strong passwords.
    • Password Guessing in Test Environments (Very Low Reduction): Marginally reduces the already low risk of password guessing in test environments.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Some factories use SecureRandom.hex for token generation, but passwords in User factory are still "password".

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Update User factory and other relevant factories to use SecureRandom.hex(32) for password generation.
    • Consider password hashing in factories if needed for specific password-related tests.

Mitigation Strategy: Design Factories to Be Focused and Minimal

  • Description:

    1. Review Factory Complexity: Examine existing factory definitions for complexity and nesting levels.
    2. Simplify Factories: Refactor overly complex factories to be more focused and minimal. Break down large factories into smaller, more specific factories or use traits to handle variations.
    3. Minimize Associations: Reduce unnecessary associations in factories. Only include associations that are directly required for the tests using those factories.
    4. Optimize Callbacks and Sequences: Review factory callbacks and sequences for performance impact. Simplify or remove unnecessary or resource-intensive operations.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Database Performance Issues in Tests (Medium Severity - Indirect Security Risk): Complex factories can lead to slow test execution and increased database load, potentially hindering security testing efforts.
    • Test Maintainability Issues (Low Severity - Indirect Security Risk): Overly complex factories can make tests harder to understand and maintain, indirectly impacting the ability to effectively test security features.

  • Impact:

    • Database Performance Issues in Tests (Medium Reduction): Improves test performance and reduces database load by simplifying factory creation.
    • Test Maintainability Issues (Low Reduction): Enhances test maintainability and readability, indirectly improving the effectiveness of security testing.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Some factories are relatively focused, but others could be simplified.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Systematic review and refactoring of complex factories to improve focus and minimize data generation.
    • Establish guidelines for factory design to promote simplicity and minimize complexity in future factory creation.

Mitigation Strategy: Limit Factory Usage Scope within Tests

  • Description:

    1. Review Test Setup: Examine test files and identify areas where factories are used.
    2. Create Only Necessary Factories: Within each test case, create only the specific factory instances that are directly required for that test. Avoid creating unnecessary objects.
    3. Avoid Global Factory Setup: Minimize or eliminate global factory setup (e.g., in before(:all) blocks) that creates objects used across multiple tests. Prefer creating factories within before(:each) or directly within individual it blocks.
    4. Refactor Tests for Specificity: Refactor tests to be more focused and specific, reducing the need for large numbers of factory objects.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Database Performance Issues in Tests (Medium Severity - Indirect Security Risk): Excessive factory usage can contribute to slow test execution and increased database load.
    • Test Readability and Maintainability Issues (Low Severity - Indirect Security Risk): Unnecessary factory objects can make tests harder to understand and maintain.

  • Impact:

    • Database Performance Issues in Tests (Medium Reduction): Improves test performance and reduces database load by limiting unnecessary factory creation.
    • Test Readability and Maintainability Issues (Low Reduction): Enhances test readability and maintainability by focusing factory usage on specific test needs.

  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Tests generally create factories within before(:each) or it blocks. Global factory setup is minimal.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Further review of tests to identify and eliminate any instances of unnecessary factory creation.
    • Promote best practices for limiting factory scope during code reviews.

Mitigation Strategy: Optimize Factory Creation Strategies for Performance

  • Description:

    1. Analyze Factory Performance: Profile factory creation performance to identify bottlenecks (e.g., slow callbacks, inefficient sequences, excessive database queries).
    2. Optimize Callbacks and Sequences: Refactor or remove slow or unnecessary callbacks and sequences. Ensure sequences are efficient and avoid redundant operations.
    3. Optimize Associations: Review factory associations for efficiency. Consider using association :related_object, factory: :minimal_related_object_factory to use lighter factories for associations when full object creation is not needed.
    4. Batch Create Records (Where Possible): If factories create multiple records of the same type, explore batch creation techniques to reduce database round trips.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Denial of Service (DoS) in Test Environments (Medium Severity - Indirect Security Risk): Inefficient factory creation can lead to slow test suites and potentially contribute to resource exhaustion in test environments under heavy load.
    • Slow Security Testing Cycles (Low Severity - Indirect Security Risk): Slow test suites due to factory performance issues can hinder the speed and efficiency of security testing.

  • Impact:

    • Denial of Service (DoS) in Test Environments (Medium Reduction): Reduces the risk of performance-related issues in test environments by optimizing factory creation.
    • Slow Security Testing Cycles (Low Reduction): Improves the speed and efficiency of security testing by reducing test suite execution time.

  • Currently Implemented: Not systematically implemented. Factory performance optimization is done reactively when performance issues are noticed.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Proactive factory performance analysis and optimization is not a standard practice.
    • No established guidelines for writing performant factories.