Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
137 lines (106 loc) · 10.5 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

137 lines (106 loc) · 10.5 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for fuellabs/fuel-core

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Node Configuration (Fuel-Core Specific)

Description: 1. Configuration File Hardening (within fuel-core): * RPC Settings: Ensure fuel-core's configuration parsing strictly validates RPC settings. If rpc.enabled is false, ensure the RPC server is completely disabled and cannot be started. If enabled, enforce restrictions on rpc.listen_addr (e.g., disallow binding to 0.0.0.0 by default). Provide clear configuration options for authentication (API keys, etc.) within fuel-core. * Logging: fuel-core should provide robust logging configuration options, including log levels, file paths, rotation settings, and potentially structured logging formats (JSON). * Network Settings: Validate bind_addr and port settings to prevent accidental exposure. 2. Secure Defaults: fuel-core should ship with secure default configuration values. For example, the RPC interface should be disabled by default. 3. Configuration Validation: The fuel-core process should perform rigorous validation of the configuration file at startup. It should reject insecure configurations (e.g., binding RPC to a public interface without authentication) and exit with a clear error message. 4. Environment Variable Support: fuel-core should natively support loading configuration values from environment variables, especially for sensitive data.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Unauthorized Access (Severity: High): Prevents attackers from gaining control via exposed RPC endpoints or weak authentication configured within fuel-core.
    • Information Disclosure (Severity: Medium): Reduces risk from misconfigured logging or exposed settings.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Severity: Medium): Limits attack surface by enforcing secure defaults and disabling unnecessary features within the node itself.
    • Privilege Escalation (Severity: High): Indirectly mitigated by ensuring the node runs with minimal privileges (this is still an OS-level concern, but fuel-core should not require root).

  • Impact:

    • Unauthorized Access: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Information Disclosure: Risk significantly reduced.
    • DoS: Risk moderately reduced.
    • Privilege Escalation: Indirectly mitigated.

  • Currently Implemented (Assumption):

    • Partially Implemented. fuel-core likely has a configuration file and some validation, but the level of security hardening and enforcement of secure defaults may vary.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Strict Configuration Validation: More rigorous validation to reject insecure configurations at startup.
    • Built-in Strong Authentication for RPC: Native support for API keys or other strong authentication methods.
    • Secure-by-Default Configuration: Shipping with a configuration that prioritizes security out-of-the-box.

Mitigation Strategy: Robust Peer Management (within fuel-core)

Description: 1. Peer Discovery (Fuel-Core Logic): fuel-core's peer discovery mechanism should be secure. If using a DHT or gossip protocol, ensure it's resistant to Sybil attacks and poisoning. 2. Peer Validation (Fuel-Core Logic): fuel-core should validate the identity of peers before establishing connections. This likely involves verifying cryptographic signatures. 3. Connection Limits (Fuel-Core Enforced): fuel-core should enforce limits on the number of inbound and outbound connections to prevent resource exhaustion. These limits should be configurable. 4. Blacklisting/Whitelisting (Fuel-Core Implemented): fuel-core should have internal mechanisms to blacklist known malicious peers (based on IP address or peer ID) and potentially whitelist trusted peers. 5. Peer Rotation (Fuel-Core Logic): fuel-core should periodically disconnect and reconnect to peers to maintain diversity. 6. Rate Limiting (Fuel-Core Implemented): fuel-core should implement rate limiting at the P2P layer to prevent flooding attacks from individual peers.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Eclipse Attacks (Severity: High): fuel-core's internal logic makes isolation difficult.
    • Sybil Attacks (Severity: Medium): fuel-core's peer validation and connection limits reduce the impact.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Severity: Medium): Connection limits and rate limiting, enforced by fuel-core, mitigate DoS.
    • Data Manipulation (Severity: High): Peer validation within fuel-core helps ensure data integrity.

  • Impact:

    • Eclipse Attacks: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Sybil Attacks: Risk moderately reduced.
    • DoS: Risk moderately reduced.
    • Data Manipulation: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented (Assumption):

    • Partially Implemented. fuel-core must have some peer management, but the robustness and security features may vary.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Advanced Reputation System: A more sophisticated, internal reputation system.
    • Automated Peer Blacklisting: Logic within fuel-core to automatically blacklist based on behavior.

Mitigation Strategy: Resource Metering (FuelVM - within fuel-core)

Description: 1. Strict Gas Limit Enforcement: The FuelVM (part of fuel-core) must strictly enforce gas limits for all smart contract operations. There should be no way to bypass these limits. 2. Gas Price Mechanism: The FuelVM should implement a gas price mechanism. 3. Configurable Gas Limits: fuel-core should allow configuration of maximum gas limits per block/transaction. 4. Deterministic Execution: The FuelVM must guarantee deterministic execution of smart contracts.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Denial of Service (DoS) (Severity: High): fuel-core's FuelVM prevents resource exhaustion.
    • Resource Exhaustion (Severity: High): fuel-core's FuelVM protects the node.
    • Spam Transactions (Severity: Medium): Gas pricing within fuel-core makes spam more expensive.
    • Non-Deterministic Behavior (Severity: High): The FuelVM ensures deterministic execution, preventing consensus issues.

  • Impact:

    • DoS: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Resource Exhaustion: Risk significantly reduced.
    • Spam Transactions: Risk moderately reduced.
    • Non-Deterministic Behavior: Risk eliminated (if implemented correctly).

  • Currently Implemented (Assumption):

    • Likely Largely Implemented. Gas limits and deterministic execution are fundamental to blockchain VMs.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Dynamic Gas Limits: Potentially, the ability for fuel-core to dynamically adjust limits based on network conditions.

Mitigation Strategy: Comprehensive Logging (within fuel-core)

Description: 1. Detailed Logging (Fuel-Core Generated): fuel-core should generate detailed logs for: * Network Activity: Connections, disconnections, messages. * Consensus Events: Block proposals, votes, finalizations. * Transaction Processing: Submissions, validations, executions. * Errors and Warnings: All errors and warnings. * RPC Requests: All requests and responses (if RPC is enabled). 2. Configurable Logging (Fuel-Core Options): fuel-core should provide options to configure log levels, output destinations (file, stdout), and rotation policies. 3. Structured Logging (Fuel-Core Format): fuel-core should ideally use a structured logging format (e.g., JSON) to facilitate parsing and analysis.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Intrusion Detection (Severity: Varies): fuel-core's logs provide the data needed for detection.
    • Performance Monitoring (Severity: Medium): fuel-core's logs provide performance data.
    • Debugging (Severity: Low): fuel-core's logs are essential for debugging.

  • Impact:

    • Intrusion Detection: Effectiveness depends on external analysis of the logs generated by fuel-core.
    • Performance Monitoring: Improves monitoring capabilities.
    • Debugging: Essential.

  • Currently Implemented (Assumption):

    • Partially Implemented. fuel-core likely has some logging, but the level of detail, configurability, and structure may vary.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Structured Logging: Using JSON or a similar format.
    • Comprehensive Coverage: Ensuring all relevant events are logged.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Dependency Management

  • Description:

    1. Dependency Auditing: fuel-core development process should include regular auditing of all dependencies for known vulnerabilities. Tools like cargo audit (for Rust) should be integrated into the build process.
    2. Dependency Pinning: fuel-core's build system should pin dependencies to specific versions to prevent unexpected updates that could introduce vulnerabilities.
    3. Vulnerability Response Plan: The fuel-core project should have a clear plan for responding to vulnerabilities discovered in dependencies, including timely updates and communication with users.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities (Severity: High to Low, depending on the vulnerability): Addresses vulnerabilities in dependencies used by fuel-core.

  • Impact:

    • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities: Risk significantly reduced.

  • Currently Implemented (Assumption):

    • Partially Implemented. The fuel-core project likely uses a dependency management tool (like cargo), but the rigor of auditing and the speed of response to vulnerabilities may vary.

  • Missing Implementation: * Automated Dependency Auditing in CI/CD: Integrating vulnerability scanning into the continuous integration/continuous deployment pipeline. * Public Vulnerability Disclosure Policy: A clear and publicly available policy for reporting and disclosing vulnerabilities.