Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
164 lines (125 loc) · 20.4 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

164 lines (125 loc) · 20.4 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Pundit Authorization Library

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

This deep security analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the security design of the Pundit authorization library for Ruby applications. The objective is to identify potential security vulnerabilities, misconfiguration risks, and areas for improvement within Pundit and its integration into Ruby applications. This analysis will focus on understanding Pundit's architecture, components, and data flow to provide actionable and tailored security recommendations.

Scope:

The scope of this analysis is limited to the Pundit library as described in the provided Security Design Review document and inferred from the publicly available codebase and documentation of the varvet/pundit GitHub repository. It encompasses the following key components and aspects:

  • Pundit Library Core Functionality: Analysis of the authorization logic, policy definition mechanisms, and core API.
  • Integration with Ruby Applications: Examination of how Pundit is intended to be integrated into Ruby applications, including data flow and interaction with application components.
  • Security Controls: Review of existing and recommended security controls for Pundit development and usage.
  • Deployment Considerations: Security aspects related to the deployment of Ruby applications utilizing Pundit.
  • Build Process: Security considerations within the build and release pipeline of applications using Pundit.
  • Risk Assessment: Evaluation of potential security risks associated with Pundit and its usage.

This analysis will not cover:

  • Security of specific Ruby applications implementing Pundit (beyond general integration patterns).
  • Detailed code-level vulnerability analysis of the Pundit codebase (SAST is recommended as a separate control).
  • Security of the underlying Ruby runtime environment or operating systems.
  • Authentication mechanisms used by applications integrating Pundit (authentication is assumed to be handled externally).

Methodology:

This analysis will employ a security design review methodology, focusing on the following steps:

  1. Document Review: Thorough examination of the provided Security Design Review document, including business posture, security posture, design diagrams (C4 Context, Container, Deployment, Build), risk assessment, questions, and assumptions.
  2. Architecture Inference: Based on the documentation and understanding of authorization libraries, infer the internal architecture, key components, and data flow within Pundit and its interaction with a Ruby application. This will involve considering how policies are defined, evaluated, and enforced.
  3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential security threats and vulnerabilities associated with each component and interaction point, considering common authorization-related weaknesses and the specific design of Pundit.
  4. Security Control Analysis: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing and recommended security controls in mitigating identified threats.
  5. Actionable Recommendation Generation: Develop specific, actionable, and tailored security recommendations and mitigation strategies for Pundit and its users, focusing on practical improvements and addressing identified risks.
  6. Documentation and Reporting: Compile the findings, analysis, recommendations, and mitigation strategies into a comprehensive security analysis report.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the Security Design Review and inferred architecture, the key components and their security implications are analyzed below:

A. Pundit Library Core (Authorization Engine):

  • Component Description: This is the core Ruby library responsible for evaluating authorization policies. It likely includes modules for defining policies, a DSL for policy rules, and a mechanism to apply policies to actions and resources within a Ruby application.
  • Security Implications:
    • Policy Logic Vulnerabilities: Bugs or flaws in the policy evaluation logic could lead to authorization bypasses. If the engine incorrectly interprets policy rules or handles edge cases improperly, unauthorized access might be granted.
    • Policy Definition Complexity: Overly complex policy definitions can be difficult to understand and maintain, increasing the risk of introducing errors that lead to security vulnerabilities.
    • Performance Bottlenecks: Inefficient policy evaluation logic, especially with complex policies or high request volumes, could lead to denial-of-service (DoS) vulnerabilities or negatively impact application performance, indirectly affecting security (availability).
    • Input Handling in Policies: Policies might receive user-provided input or application data. Improper input validation within policies could lead to vulnerabilities like injection attacks if policies directly use this input in unsafe operations (though less likely in typical authorization logic, it's still a consideration).

B. Authorization Policies (Ruby Code):

  • Component Description: These are Ruby classes or modules defined by developers to specify the authorization rules for different resources and actions within their applications. Policies are the core of Pundit's authorization model.
  • Security Implications:
    • Policy Misconfiguration and Logic Errors: Developers might write incorrect or incomplete policies, leading to unintended access control gaps. For example, forgetting to check for a specific condition or using incorrect logic in policy rules.
    • Overly Permissive Policies: Policies might be unintentionally too broad, granting more access than intended. This can happen due to a lack of understanding of authorization requirements or errors in policy design.
    • Information Disclosure in Policies: Policies might inadvertently leak sensitive information if they expose internal application logic or data structures in error messages or policy responses.
    • Lack of Policy Testing: Insufficient unit testing of authorization policies can lead to undetected vulnerabilities. If policies are not rigorously tested, errors in logic might go unnoticed until they are exploited.
    • Code Injection in Dynamic Policy Generation (Less Likely but Possible): If policies are dynamically generated based on external input (which is generally discouraged but theoretically possible), there could be a risk of code injection if input is not properly sanitized.

C. Integration with Ruby Application (Controllers, Views, Models):

  • Component Description: This refers to how Pundit is used within a Ruby application's codebase, typically in controllers to authorize actions before execution, in views to conditionally display UI elements, and potentially in models for data access control.
  • Security Implications:
    • Missing Authorization Checks: Developers might forget to implement authorization checks in critical parts of the application, leaving certain actions or resources unprotected. This is a common source of authorization vulnerabilities.
    • Incorrect Authorization Context: Passing incorrect or insufficient context (user, resource, action) to Pundit's authorize method can lead to incorrect authorization decisions.
    • Authorization Bypass in Complex Workflows: In complex application workflows, it can be challenging to ensure authorization is consistently enforced at every step. Developers might overlook authorization checks in certain paths or edge cases.
    • Inconsistent Authorization Enforcement: Authorization might be enforced inconsistently across different parts of the application, leading to vulnerabilities in less frequently used or less scrutinized areas.
    • Reliance on Client-Side Authorization (View Logic): While Pundit can be used in views for UI control, relying solely on view-level authorization is insecure. Server-side authorization in controllers must be the primary enforcement point.

D. Build and Deployment Process:

  • Component Description: This encompasses the processes for building, testing, and deploying Ruby applications that use Pundit, as described in the "BUILD" and "DEPLOYMENT" sections of the Security Design Review.
  • Security Implications:
    • Vulnerabilities in Pundit Dependencies: Pundit relies on other Ruby gems. Vulnerabilities in these dependencies could indirectly affect the security of applications using Pundit.
    • Compromised Build Pipeline: If the build pipeline is compromised, malicious code could be injected into the application, including Pundit policies or the Pundit library itself.
    • Lack of Automated Security Checks: Failure to integrate SAST, dependency scanning, and linting into the build process can result in undetected vulnerabilities being deployed to production.
    • Insecure Deployment Configuration: Misconfigured application servers or deployment environments can weaken the overall security posture, even if Pundit itself is secure.

3. Architecture, Components, and Data Flow Inference

Based on the provided diagrams and common authorization library patterns, we can infer the following architecture, components, and data flow for Pundit within a Ruby application:

  1. Request Reception: A user request arrives at the Ruby application (e.g., a web request to a Rails controller action).
  2. Authentication (External): The application authenticates the user (using a separate authentication mechanism, not Pundit). This establishes the user's identity.
  3. Authorization Invocation: Within the controller action (or other relevant application code), the developer invokes Pundit's authorize method. This method typically takes:
    • user: The authenticated user object.
    • record (Resource): The resource being accessed or manipulated (e.g., a model instance, class, or symbol representing a resource type).
    • action (Implicit or Explicit): The action being performed (often inferred from the controller action name or explicitly provided).
  4. Policy Resolution: Pundit determines the relevant policy class based on the record (resource). Naming conventions are likely used (e.g., PostPolicy for Post model).
  5. Policy Instantiation: Pundit instantiates the policy class, typically passing the user and record to the policy object.
  6. Policy Method Invocation: Pundit invokes a policy method corresponding to the action (e.g., update? for an update action).
  7. Policy Logic Execution: The policy method executes the authorization logic defined by the developer. This logic can access the user, record, and potentially other application context to determine if the action is permitted.
  8. Authorization Decision: The policy method returns a boolean value (true for authorized, false for unauthorized).
  9. Enforcement: Pundit's authorize method checks the returned boolean.
    • If true (authorized), the controller action proceeds.
    • If false (unauthorized), Pundit raises an exception (e.g., Pundit::NotAuthorizedError), which the application should handle (e.g., by rendering a 403 Forbidden error page).
  10. Data Access (Post-Authorization): If authorized, the application proceeds with the requested action, potentially accessing and manipulating data in the database.

Data Flow Diagram (Simplified):

User Request --> Ruby Application (Controller) --> Pundit (authorize method)
Pundit --> Policy Resolution --> Policy Instantiation --> Policy Method Invocation
Policy Method (Authorization Logic) --> Authorization Decision (true/false)
Pundit (authorize method) <-- Authorization Decision
Ruby Application (Controller) <-- Pundit (Authorization Result)
[If Authorized] Ruby Application --> Database

4. Specific Security Recommendations for Pundit Projects

Based on the analysis, here are specific security recommendations tailored to projects using Pundit:

A. Policy Development and Management:

  1. Principle of Least Privilege: Design policies to grant the minimum necessary access. Avoid overly broad or permissive policies. Regularly review and refine policies to ensure they remain aligned with application requirements and security best practices.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Implement a policy review process as part of the development lifecycle. Use code reviews specifically focused on authorization logic. Document the intended access control for each policy and resource.
  2. Policy Unit Testing: Thoroughly unit test all authorization policies. Test various scenarios, including authorized and unauthorized access attempts, edge cases, and different user roles. Aim for high test coverage of policy logic.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Integrate policy unit tests into the application's test suite. Use testing frameworks to assert the expected authorization outcomes for different inputs and contexts.
  3. Policy Code Reviews: Conduct security-focused code reviews of all authorization policies. Ensure policies are well-structured, easy to understand, and correctly implement the intended access control logic. Pay close attention to complex policy rules and conditional logic.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Train developers on secure authorization principles and common policy misconfiguration pitfalls. Establish a code review checklist that includes specific authorization policy security considerations.
  4. Centralized Policy Management: Organize policies in a clear and maintainable structure. Consider grouping policies by resource or functional area. Avoid scattering policy logic throughout the application.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Follow Pundit's recommended policy organization patterns. Use namespaces or directories to structure policies logically. Document the policy structure and naming conventions.
  5. Input Validation within Policies (Cautiously): If policies need to process user-provided input or application data, perform input validation within the policy logic to prevent unexpected behavior or potential vulnerabilities. However, avoid overly complex input validation in policies; focus on authorization logic. Input validation is generally better handled earlier in the application flow.
    • Mitigation Strategy: If input validation is necessary in policies, use established Ruby validation libraries or methods. Keep validation logic simple and focused on preventing policy logic errors, not general input sanitization.

B. Pundit Integration and Usage:

  1. Mandatory Authorization Checks: Ensure that authorize calls are implemented for all critical actions and resources that require access control. Use code analysis tools or manual reviews to identify potential missing authorization checks, especially in new features or refactored code.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Implement linters or static analysis rules to detect missing authorize calls in controllers or other relevant code locations. Conduct regular security audits to verify authorization coverage.
  2. Correct Authorization Context: Carefully review and verify that the correct user, record, and action are being passed to the authorize method in all contexts. Errors in context can lead to incorrect authorization decisions.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Document the expected context for each authorize call. Use clear and consistent naming conventions for context variables. Review authorization context during code reviews.
  3. Consistent Authorization Enforcement: Establish a consistent pattern for enforcing authorization throughout the application. Use Pundit's features consistently and avoid mixing different authorization approaches.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Define application-wide authorization conventions and guidelines. Train developers on these conventions. Use code linters to enforce consistent Pundit usage patterns.
  4. Server-Side Authorization Focus: Always rely on server-side authorization enforced by Pundit in controllers. Do not depend solely on client-side authorization or view-level authorization for security-critical access control. View-level authorization should be considered a UI convenience, not a security mechanism.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Emphasize server-side authorization in security training and development guidelines. Clearly document the separation of concerns between server-side authorization and client-side UI control.
  5. Exception Handling for Unauthorized Access: Implement proper exception handling for Pundit::NotAuthorizedError exceptions raised by Pundit. Return appropriate HTTP status codes (e.g., 403 Forbidden) and user-friendly error messages. Avoid leaking sensitive information in error messages.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Configure a global exception handler in the application to catch Pundit::NotAuthorizedError. Customize error responses to be informative but not overly revealing. Log unauthorized access attempts for security monitoring.

C. Build and Deployment Security:

  1. Dependency Scanning: Integrate dependency scanning tools into the build process to automatically detect known vulnerabilities in Pundit's dependencies. Regularly update dependencies to patch vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Use tools like bundler-audit or integrate with CI/CD security scanning services. Automate dependency updates and vulnerability patching.
  2. Static Application Security Testing (SAST): Implement SAST tools to automatically analyze the application codebase, including Pundit policies and integration code, for potential security vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Integrate SAST tools into the CI/CD pipeline. Configure SAST tools to scan for authorization-related vulnerabilities and policy misconfigurations. Regularly review and remediate SAST findings.
  3. Secure Build Pipeline: Secure the CI/CD pipeline to prevent unauthorized modifications or injection of malicious code. Use secure artifact repositories and signing mechanisms.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Implement access controls for the CI/CD system. Use secure credentials management. Audit CI/CD pipeline configurations and logs.
  4. Regular Security Updates: Stay informed about security updates and best practices for Pundit and Ruby applications. Regularly update Pundit and other dependencies to address known vulnerabilities.
    • Mitigation Strategy: Subscribe to security mailing lists or vulnerability databases related to Ruby and Pundit. Establish a process for monitoring and applying security updates.

5. Actionable Mitigation Strategies

The recommendations above are inherently actionable mitigation strategies. To summarize and further emphasize actionability, here are key steps to take:

  1. Implement Policy Unit Tests: Immediately prioritize writing comprehensive unit tests for all existing and new authorization policies. This is a crucial step to catch policy logic errors early.
  2. Integrate SAST and Dependency Scanning: Set up SAST and dependency scanning tools in the CI/CD pipeline. Start with basic configurations and gradually refine them. Address high-priority findings promptly.
  3. Conduct Policy Code Reviews: Incorporate mandatory security-focused code reviews for all policy changes. Train developers on authorization security best practices.
  4. Document Authorization Conventions: Create clear documentation outlining authorization conventions, policy structure, and best practices for using Pundit within the project.
  5. Regular Security Audits: Schedule periodic security audits of the application's authorization implementation, including policy reviews, integration checks, and testing for bypass vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

Pundit provides a valuable framework for implementing authorization in Ruby applications. However, like any security-sensitive component, it requires careful design, implementation, and ongoing maintenance to ensure robust security. By addressing the identified security implications and implementing the tailored recommendations and mitigation strategies outlined in this analysis, development teams can significantly enhance the security posture of their Pundit-powered applications and minimize the risk of authorization-related vulnerabilities. Focusing on policy testing, code reviews, automated security checks in the build process, and consistent application of Pundit's features are crucial steps towards building secure and reliable Ruby applications.