Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
64 lines (53 loc) · 6.32 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

64 lines (53 loc) · 6.32 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for cloudflare/pingora

Attack Surface: 1. HTTP Header Parsing Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Weaknesses in how Pingora parses HTTP headers, potentially leading to buffer overflows, DoS, or unexpected behavior.
  • Pingora Contribution: Pingora is responsible for parsing all incoming HTTP headers to route requests and apply security policies. Any flaw in its parsing logic becomes a direct attack surface.
  • Example: An attacker sends a request with an extremely long header name exceeding buffer limits in Pingora's header parsing code, causing a buffer overflow and potentially crashing the proxy.
  • Impact: Denial of Service, potential memory corruption, bypassing security checks.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep Pingora updated to the latest version, ensuring bug fixes and security patches are applied.
    • Configure request size limits to prevent excessively large headers from being processed.
    • Utilize Web Application Firewall (WAF) in front of Pingora to filter out malicious requests before they reach the proxy.

Attack Surface: 2. TLS Configuration Weaknesses

  • Description: Misconfigurations in Pingora's TLS settings, such as weak ciphers, outdated TLS versions, or incorrect certificate validation, weakening connection security.
  • Pingora Contribution: Pingora handles TLS termination, making its TLS configuration critical for secure communication. Incorrect configuration directly exposes vulnerabilities.
  • Example: Pingora is configured to allow outdated TLS 1.0 and weak ciphers. An attacker performs a downgrade attack, forcing the connection to use TLS 1.0 and a weak cipher, then intercepts and decrypts the traffic.
  • Impact: Compromised confidentiality and integrity of communication, man-in-the-middle attacks.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Enforce strong TLS versions (TLS 1.2 or higher).
    • Use strong cipher suites and disable weak or insecure ciphers.
    • Implement proper certificate validation, ensuring certificates are correctly verified against trusted Certificate Authorities.
    • Regularly review and update TLS configurations based on security best practices.

Attack Surface: 3. Routing Misconfigurations

  • Description: Incorrectly configured routing rules in Pingora leading to unintended exposure of backend services, routing loops, or access to restricted resources.
  • Pingora Contribution: Pingora's core function is routing requests based on configuration. Misconfiguration in Pingora's routing rules directly creates vulnerabilities.
  • Example: A routing rule is accidentally configured to forward requests for /admin path to a public-facing backend instead of an internal admin panel, exposing sensitive administrative functionalities.
  • Impact: Exposure of sensitive backend services, unauthorized access to resources, Denial of Service through routing loops.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement thorough testing of routing configurations before deployment.
    • Use a version control system for routing configurations to track changes and enable rollback.
    • Employ the principle of least privilege when defining routing rules, only allowing necessary access.
    • Regularly audit routing configurations to identify and correct any misconfigurations.

Attack Surface: 4. Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Potential in Routing Logic

  • Description: Vulnerability where Pingora can be manipulated to make requests to internal or external resources on behalf of the attacker due to unsanitized user-controlled input in routing decisions.
  • Pingora Contribution: If Pingora's routing logic uses user-provided data (e.g., from headers or parameters) to determine backend destinations without proper validation, it becomes vulnerable to SSRF attacks.
  • Example: A routing rule uses a header value to dynamically determine the backend server. An attacker injects a malicious internal IP address or hostname into this header, causing Pingora to make a request to an internal service that should not be publicly accessible.
  • Impact: Server-Side Request Forgery, allowing attackers to scan internal networks, access internal services, or potentially perform actions on behalf of the Pingora server.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid using user-controlled input directly in routing decisions if possible.
    • If user input is necessary for routing, strictly validate and sanitize it to prevent injection of malicious URLs or hostnames.
    • Implement network segmentation to limit the impact of SSRF by restricting Pingora's access to internal networks.

Attack Surface: 5. Vulnerabilities in TLS Libraries

  • Description: Pingora relies on underlying TLS libraries (like OpenSSL or BoringSSL). Critical vulnerabilities in these libraries directly and severely impact Pingora's security.
  • Pingora Contribution: Pingora uses TLS libraries for secure communication. Any critical vulnerability in these libraries directly translates to a critical vulnerability in Pingora's TLS functionality.
  • Example: A critical vulnerability is discovered in OpenSSL, the TLS library used by Pingora, allowing for remote code execution. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to gain full control of Pingora servers.
  • Impact: Wide range of severe impacts depending on the specific TLS library vulnerability, including information disclosure, remote code execution, or complete system compromise.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Immediately keep Pingora and its underlying TLS libraries updated to the latest versions, applying security patches with the highest priority.
    • Proactively monitor security advisories for the TLS library used by Pingora and have a rapid patching process in place.
    • Consider using automated vulnerability scanning tools to continuously monitor for outdated libraries.