Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
177 lines (158 loc) · 19 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

177 lines (158 loc) · 19 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for cloudflare/pingora

Mitigation Strategy: Regularly Update Pingora

  • Description:
    1. Establish a process to monitor Pingora's official release channels (e.g., GitHub releases, Cloudflare blog) for new versions.
    2. Subscribe to security mailing lists or notifications related to Pingora.
    3. Upon release of a new Pingora version, review the release notes specifically for security patches and bug fixes relevant to Pingora itself.
    4. Download and test the new Pingora version in a staging environment, focusing on verifying Pingora's core functionality and compatibility with existing Pingora configurations and extensions.
    5. Schedule and deploy the updated Pingora version to the production environment during a maintenance window, following established deployment procedures for Pingora updates.
    6. Continuously monitor Pingora after the update for any unexpected behavior or issues related to the Pingora update.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Pingora Core - Severity: High
    • Denial of Service (DoS) due to unpatched bugs in Pingora - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities in Pingora Core: Significantly Reduces Risk - Patching directly addresses Pingora vulnerabilities.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) due to unpatched bugs in Pingora: Moderately Reduces Risk - Bug fixes improve Pingora's stability.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - We have a general update process, but dedicated high-priority monitoring for Pingora releases and specific Pingora update testing are needed.
  • Missing Implementation: Need a dedicated high-priority alert for Pingora releases and integrate Pingora-specific update testing into our release pipeline.

Mitigation Strategy: Dependency Auditing and Management

  • Description:
    1. Integrate cargo audit into the development and CI/CD pipeline for Pingora-related builds (including custom extensions).
    2. Run cargo audit regularly (e.g., daily or with each build) to scan Pingora's dependencies (Rust crates) for known vulnerabilities.
    3. Configure cargo audit to fail builds if vulnerabilities in Pingora's dependencies with a severity level above a defined threshold are detected.
    4. Establish a process for reviewing cargo audit reports specifically for Pingora dependencies and prioritizing vulnerability remediation in the Pingora context.
    5. Update vulnerable Pingora dependencies to patched versions as soon as possible, testing for compatibility and regressions within the Pingora environment after updates.
    6. Utilize Cargo.lock to ensure consistent builds of Pingora and its extensions, while still allowing for security updates of dependencies.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Exploitation of Vulnerabilities in Pingora Dependencies - Severity: High
    • Supply Chain Attacks via Compromised Pingora Dependencies - Severity: High
  • Impact:
    • Exploitation of Vulnerabilities in Pingora Dependencies: Significantly Reduces Risk - Proactively addresses vulnerabilities in software Pingora relies on.
    • Supply Chain Attacks via Compromised Pingora Dependencies: Moderately Reduces Risk - cargo audit helps detect known compromised versions used by Pingora.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - cargo audit is used locally, but CI/CD integration and automated report review for Pingora dependencies are missing.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to fully integrate cargo audit into Pingora's CI/CD, automate report review for Pingora dependencies, and define dependency update procedures based on audit results.

Mitigation Strategy: Code Reviews and Security Audits of Pingora Configurations and Extensions

  • Description:
    1. Mandate security-focused code reviews for all Pingora configuration changes and custom Rust code extensions before deployment.
    2. Develop and utilize security checklists specifically tailored to Pingora configurations and extension security for code reviewers.
    3. Conduct periodic security audits specifically focused on the Pingora deployment, including configurations, extensions, and integration points.
    4. Consider engaging external security experts for penetration testing and vulnerability assessments specifically targeting the Pingora proxy and its configurations.
    5. Document all Pingora configurations and custom extensions thoroughly to facilitate security reviews and audits.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Misconfigurations in Pingora Leading to Security Vulnerabilities - Severity: Medium to High
    • Vulnerabilities in Custom Pingora Extensions - Severity: High
    • Logic Errors in Pingora's Request/Response Handling (Custom Logic) - Severity: Medium to High
  • Impact:
    • Misconfigurations in Pingora Leading to Security Vulnerabilities: Moderately Reduces Risk - Reviews and audits catch configuration errors in Pingora.
    • Vulnerabilities in Custom Pingora Extensions: Significantly Reduces Risk - Crucial for securing custom code interacting with Pingora.
    • Logic Errors in Pingora's Request/Response Handling (Custom Logic): Moderately Reduces Risk - Helps identify flaws in custom Pingora logic.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Code reviews are standard, but security-focused reviews for Pingora configurations and extensions are inconsistent.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to formalize security checklists for Pingora code reviews, schedule regular Pingora-focused security audits, and potentially engage external auditors for Pingora security.

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Adherence to HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Specifications within Pingora

  • Description:
    1. Ensure Pingora configurations and any custom logic strictly adhere to the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 RFCs and related specifications in its protocol handling.
    2. Utilize protocol analysis tools (e.g., Wireshark) to verify Pingora's HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 behavior against specifications during testing of Pingora itself.
    3. Stay updated on any errata or clarifications to the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 specifications and adjust Pingora configurations accordingly to maintain compliance.
    4. Avoid implementing non-standard or experimental HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 features within Pingora unless absolutely necessary and with thorough security review of the Pingora implementation.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Protocol Mismatches in Pingora Leading to Vulnerabilities - Severity: Medium to High
    • Request Smuggling and Desynchronization Attacks due to Pingora's Protocol Handling - Severity: High
    • Stream Manipulation Attacks Exploiting Pingora's HTTP/2/3 Implementation - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Protocol Mismatches in Pingora Leading to Vulnerabilities: Moderately Reduces Risk - Adherence minimizes protocol flaws in Pingora.
    • Request Smuggling and Desynchronization Attacks due to Pingora's Protocol Handling: Significantly Reduces Risk - Strict adherence in Pingora is key to prevention.
    • Stream Manipulation Attacks Exploiting Pingora's HTTP/2/3 Implementation: Moderately Reduces Risk - Correct Pingora protocol implementation reduces stream vulnerabilities.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - General aim for protocol compliance, but explicit verification and monitoring for Pingora's specification adherence are not consistent.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to incorporate protocol compliance testing into Pingora's testing suite and establish a process for reviewing specification updates and their impact on Pingora configurations.

Mitigation Strategy: Rate Limiting and Connection Limiting for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 within Pingora

  • Description:
    1. Configure Pingora's built-in rate limiting features to restrict request rates specifically for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 connections.
    2. Implement connection limiting within Pingora to restrict concurrent HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 connections.
    3. Fine-tune Pingora's rate limits and connection limits based on expected traffic and Pingora's resource capacity, considering HTTP/2/3 multiplexing.
    4. Monitor Pingora's rate limiting and connection limiting metrics to detect and respond to DoS attempts targeting Pingora via HTTP/2/3.
    5. Consider using Pingora's features for adaptive rate limiting to dynamically adjust limits based on traffic observed by Pingora.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Connection Exhaustion DoS Attacks Targeting Pingora - Severity: High
    • Resource Exhaustion DoS Attacks via Multiplexed Streams against Pingora - Severity: High
    • Slowloris-style Attacks over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 targeting Pingora - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Connection Exhaustion DoS Attacks Targeting Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Pingora limits prevent resource exhaustion.
    • Resource Exhaustion DoS Attacks via Multiplexed Streams against Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Pingora's rate/connection limits control stream volume.
    • Slowloris-style Attacks over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 targeting Pingora: Moderately Reduces Risk - Pingora's rate limiting can mitigate slow-rate attacks.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Basic rate limiting is in place in Pingora, but not specifically tuned for HTTP/2/3, and connection limiting in Pingora is not fully implemented.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to configure connection limiting in Pingora, optimize Pingora's rate limiting for HTTP/2/3, and implement monitoring and adaptive rate limiting within Pingora.

Mitigation Strategy: Header Validation and Sanitization within Pingora

  • Description:
    1. Define a strict whitelist of allowed HTTP headers for requests and responses processed by Pingora.
    2. Implement header validation logic within Pingora to reject requests/responses with headers not on the whitelist or with invalid values.
    3. Sanitize potentially dangerous headers within Pingora by removing or modifying them before forwarding requests or sending responses.
    4. Pay special attention in Pingora's header handling to headers known for vulnerabilities, such as Content-Length, Transfer-Encoding, Host, and custom headers.
    5. Regularly review and update the header whitelist and sanitization rules within Pingora's configuration.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Header Injection Attacks Targeting Pingora or Upstream via Pingora - Severity: High
    • HTTP Request Smuggling via Header Manipulation through Pingora - Severity: High
    • Bypass of Security Controls via Header Manipulation processed by Pingora - Severity: Medium to High
    • Exploitation of Vulnerabilities in Upstream Applications via Malicious Headers forwarded by Pingora - Severity: High
  • Impact:
    • Header Injection Attacks Targeting Pingora or Upstream via Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Pingora's whitelisting and sanitization prevent injection.
    • HTTP Request Smuggling via Header Manipulation through Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Pingora's header validation is crucial for prevention.
    • Bypass of Security Controls via Header Manipulation processed by Pingora: Moderately Reduces Risk - Pingora's validation can block some bypass attempts.
    • Exploitation of Vulnerabilities in Upstream Applications via Malicious Headers forwarded by Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Pingora's sanitization protects upstream systems.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Basic header validation in Pingora exists, but a comprehensive whitelist and sanitization rules within Pingora are not fully defined and enforced.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to define a strict header whitelist for Pingora, implement robust header validation and sanitization logic within Pingora, and regularly review and update these rules in Pingora's configuration.

Mitigation Strategy: TLS/SSL Configuration Hardening for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 in Pingora

  • Description:
    1. Configure Pingora to enforce TLS 1.3 or higher for all HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 connections it handles.
    2. Disable support for older TLS versions (TLS 1.2 and below) and SSL protocols in Pingora's TLS configuration.
    3. Configure Pingora to use strong cipher suites and disable weak or obsolete ciphers in its TLS settings.
    4. Implement HSTS (HTTP Strict Transport Security) in Pingora's responses to enforce HTTPS connections for clients interacting with Pingora.
    5. Enable OCSP Stapling in Pingora's TLS configuration to improve TLS handshake performance.
    6. Regularly update TLS certificates used by Pingora and ensure proper certificate management practices for Pingora, including automated renewal.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks against connections handled by Pingora - Severity: High
    • Protocol Downgrade Attacks targeting Pingora - Severity: Medium to High
    • Cipher Suite Weakness Exploitation in Pingora's TLS - Severity: Medium
    • Information Disclosure due to Weak Encryption in Pingora's TLS - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks against connections handled by Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Strong TLS in Pingora makes MitM harder.
    • Protocol Downgrade Attacks targeting Pingora: Significantly Reduces Risk - Enforcing TLS 1.3 and HSTS in Pingora prevents downgrades.
    • Cipher Suite Weakness Exploitation in Pingora's TLS: Moderately Reduces Risk - Disabling weak ciphers in Pingora eliminates vulnerabilities.
    • Information Disclosure due to Weak Encryption in Pingora's TLS: Moderately Reduces Risk - Strong encryption in Pingora protects data in transit.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - TLS 1.3 is enabled in Pingora, but cipher suite configuration, HSTS implementation in Pingora, and OCSP Stapling might not be fully hardened and reviewed.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to rigorously review and harden Pingora's TLS cipher suite configurations, fully implement HSTS in Pingora responses, enable OCSP Stapling in Pingora, and automate certificate management for Pingora.

Mitigation Strategy: Request and Response Handling Logic Security within Pingora Extensions

  • Description:
    1. Thoroughly review and security test all custom request routing, modification, and response handling logic implemented in Pingora extensions.
    2. Apply input validation and output encoding techniques within Pingora extensions to prevent injection vulnerabilities in custom logic.
    3. Avoid complex or unnecessary request/response manipulations within Pingora extensions to minimize the attack surface introduced by custom code.
    4. Implement secure coding practices in custom Pingora Rust extensions, including memory safety, error handling, and input sanitization within the extension code.
    5. Conduct regular security testing, including penetration testing, specifically targeting custom request/response handling logic within Pingora extensions.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Injection Vulnerabilities in Custom Pingora Extension Logic - Severity: High
    • Path Traversal Vulnerabilities in Pingora Extensions - Severity: Medium to High
    • Information Leakage via Custom Pingora Extension Logic - Severity: Medium
    • Logic Errors in Pingora Extensions Leading to Security Bypass - Severity: Medium to High
  • Impact:
    • Injection Vulnerabilities in Custom Pingora Extension Logic: Significantly Reduces Risk - Input validation and secure coding in extensions are crucial.
    • Path Traversal Vulnerabilities in Pingora Extensions: Moderately Reduces Risk - Careful path handling in extensions is needed.
    • Information Leakage via Custom Pingora Extension Logic: Moderately Reduces Risk - Secure coding and testing of extensions help prevent leakage.
    • Logic Errors in Pingora Extensions Leading to Security Bypass: Moderately Reduces Risk - Thorough testing and reviews of extensions are essential.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Basic input validation in extensions might exist, but comprehensive security testing and secure coding practices for custom Pingora logic need improvement.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to implement more robust input validation and output encoding in Pingora extensions, enforce secure coding guidelines for Pingora extensions, and conduct regular security testing of custom request/response handling logic in extensions.

Mitigation Strategy: Error Handling and Information Disclosure in Pingora

  • Description:
    1. Configure Pingora to provide minimal and generic error responses to clients, avoiding detailed error messages from Pingora that could leak sensitive information.
    2. Implement custom error pages within Pingora that do not reveal internal Pingora server details or application stack traces.
    3. Log detailed error information internally within Pingora for debugging and troubleshooting purposes, ensuring these logs are secured separately.
    4. Implement robust error handling within Pingora core and extensions to prevent unexpected crashes or behaviors that could be exploited.
    5. Regularly review Pingora's error logs to identify and address potential issues and vulnerabilities within Pingora itself.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Information Disclosure via Verbose Pingora Error Messages - Severity: Medium
    • Exploitation of Pingora's Error Handling Logic - Severity: Medium
    • Denial of Service due to Unhandled Errors in Pingora - Severity: Medium
  • Impact:
    • Information Disclosure via Verbose Pingora Error Messages: Moderately Reduces Risk - Generic Pingora error responses prevent leakage.
    • Exploitation of Pingora's Error Handling Logic: Moderately Reduces Risk - Robust Pingora error handling reduces exploitable conditions.
    • Denial of Service due to Unhandled Errors in Pingora: Moderately Reduces Risk - Proper Pingora error handling improves stability.
  • Currently Implemented: Partial - Generic error pages are used by Pingora, but detailed error logging and comprehensive error handling within Pingora core and extensions might need review.
  • Missing Implementation: Need to thoroughly review and refine error handling logic in Pingora, ensure generic error responses are consistently enforced by Pingora, and enhance internal Pingora error logging for debugging without external information exposure.