Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
111 lines (80 loc) · 12.2 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

111 lines (80 loc) · 12.2 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for gleam-lang/gleam

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Interoperability with Erlang

Description:

  1. Identify Interoperability Points: Clearly identify all points where your Gleam application interacts with Erlang code (e.g., using Erlang libraries, calling Erlang functions, shared data structures).
  2. Security Review of Erlang Code: Conduct security reviews of the Erlang code that your Gleam application interacts with, especially if it handles sensitive data or external inputs.
  3. Data Validation at Boundaries: Implement strict data validation and sanitization at the boundaries between Gleam and Erlang code. Ensure that data passed between the two languages is properly validated and sanitized in both directions.
  4. Type Safety Considerations: Be mindful of type differences and potential type mismatches when interoperating between Gleam and Erlang. Ensure type conversions are handled securely and prevent type confusion vulnerabilities.
  5. Minimize Erlang Code Exposure: Where possible, minimize the amount of Erlang code that your Gleam application directly interacts with. Encapsulate Erlang functionality behind well-defined and secure interfaces.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Vulnerabilities in Erlang Interop Code (Medium to High Severity): Vulnerabilities present in the Erlang code that is called or used by the Gleam application. These vulnerabilities can be exploited through the Gleam application's interaction with the Erlang code.
  • Data Injection at Interop Boundary (Medium Severity): Injection attacks where malicious data is injected at the boundary between Gleam and Erlang code, exploiting vulnerabilities in data handling or validation in either language.
  • Type Confusion at Interop Boundary (Medium Severity): Type mismatches or incorrect type handling at the Gleam-Erlang boundary leading to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities.

Impact:

  • Vulnerabilities in Erlang Interop Code: Medium to High impact reduction. Depends on the security of the reviewed Erlang code.
  • Data Injection at Interop Boundary: Medium impact reduction. Data validation and sanitization at boundaries are effective in preventing many injection attacks.
  • Type Confusion at Interop Boundary: Medium impact reduction. Careful type handling and validation can mitigate type confusion risks.

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Basic data validation is performed, but specific security reviews of Erlang interop code and boundary security are not consistently conducted.

Missing Implementation: Establish a process for security review of Erlang interop code. Implement robust data validation and sanitization at Gleam-Erlang boundaries. Define clear guidelines for secure interoperability.

Mitigation Strategy: Leverage Gleam's Type System for Security

Description:

  1. Design with Types in Mind: Design your Gleam application with a strong focus on type safety. Utilize Gleam's type system to represent data structures and enforce data integrity.
  2. Use Custom Types for Validation: Create custom Gleam types to represent validated data. For example, instead of using String for user input, create a type like ValidatedUsername(String) that can only be constructed after validation.
  3. Compile-Time Type Checking: Rely on Gleam's compiler to perform static type checking and catch type-related errors at compile time. Address type errors reported by the compiler diligently.
  4. Avoid unsafe Operations: Minimize or eliminate the use of unsafe operations or type casts that bypass Gleam's type system. These can introduce type-related vulnerabilities.
  5. Document Type Invariants: Clearly document the type invariants and assumptions in your Gleam code, especially for complex data structures and functions.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Type Confusion Vulnerabilities (Medium to High Severity): Vulnerabilities arising from incorrect assumptions about data types or unexpected data types in critical operations. This can lead to memory corruption, data breaches, or unexpected program behavior.
  • Data Integrity Issues (Medium Severity): Data corruption or inconsistencies due to incorrect type handling or lack of type safety.

Impact:

  • Type Confusion Vulnerabilities: High impact reduction. Gleam's strong type system is very effective at preventing type confusion vulnerabilities at compile time.
  • Data Integrity Issues: Medium to High impact reduction. Type system helps enforce data integrity and reduces the risk of data corruption.

Currently Implemented: Largely implemented. Developers are generally leveraging Gleam's type system, but custom types for validation and explicit documentation of type invariants could be improved.

Missing Implementation: Promote the use of custom types for validation and encourage developers to explicitly document type invariants in code comments and documentation.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Error Handling in Gleam

Description:

  1. Use Result Type for Error Handling: Consistently use Gleam's Result type to represent operations that can fail. This forces explicit handling of potential errors.
  2. Avoid Uncaught Exceptions: Minimize the use of panic or other mechanisms that lead to uncaught exceptions. Handle errors gracefully using Result or try blocks.
  3. Sanitize Error Messages: Ensure that error messages do not expose sensitive information (e.g., internal paths, database credentials, API keys). Log detailed error information securely but provide generic error messages to users.
  4. Implement Centralized Error Logging: Set up a centralized error logging system to capture and monitor errors in your Gleam application. This helps in identifying and responding to potential security incidents or application failures.
  5. Test Error Handling Logic: Thoroughly test error handling paths in your Gleam application to ensure they are robust and do not introduce vulnerabilities.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Information Disclosure in Error Messages (Low to Medium Severity): Exposure of sensitive information in error messages that can be exploited by attackers to gain insights into the application's internals or infrastructure.
  • Denial of Service through Error Handling (Low to Medium Severity): Error handling logic that is inefficient or prone to resource exhaustion, potentially leading to denial of service.
  • Application Instability due to Unhandled Errors (Medium Severity): Unhandled errors causing application crashes or unexpected behavior, potentially leading to security vulnerabilities or data corruption.

Impact:

  • Information Disclosure in Error Messages: Medium impact reduction. Sanitizing error messages effectively prevents accidental information leaks.
  • Denial of Service through Error Handling: Low to Medium impact reduction. Robust error handling can mitigate some DoS risks, but complex attacks may still be possible.
  • Application Instability due to Unhandled Errors: Medium impact reduction. Using Result and proper error handling significantly improves application stability.

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Result type is used for error handling, but error message sanitization and centralized logging are not fully implemented. Error handling logic is not always rigorously tested.

Missing Implementation: Implement error message sanitization to prevent information disclosure. Set up centralized error logging. Include error handling logic in security testing.

Mitigation Strategy: Code Audits Focused on Gleam Idioms

Description:

  1. Train Auditors on Gleam: Ensure that security auditors are trained on the Gleam language, its ecosystem, and common programming patterns.
  2. Focus on Gleam-Specific Vulnerabilities: During code audits, specifically look for vulnerabilities that might arise from Gleam-specific idioms, language features, or interactions with Erlang/OTP.
  3. Review Gleam Best Practices: Audit code against established Gleam best practices and secure coding guidelines.
  4. Automated Static Analysis (if available): Explore and utilize any available static analysis tools for Gleam that can automatically detect potential security vulnerabilities or coding style issues.
  5. Peer Reviews: Incorporate peer code reviews as a regular part of the development process, with a focus on security considerations and Gleam-specific aspects.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Gleam-Specific Vulnerabilities (Medium Severity): Vulnerabilities that are unique to Gleam applications or arise from misunderstandings of the language or its ecosystem. These might be missed by general security audits.
  • Coding Errors due to Gleam Idioms (Low to Medium Severity): Security-relevant coding errors that are more likely to occur due to specific Gleam programming patterns or lack of familiarity with the language.

Impact:

  • Gleam-Specific Vulnerabilities: Medium impact reduction. Targeted audits can uncover vulnerabilities that might be missed by general audits.
  • Coding Errors due to Gleam Idioms: Low to Medium impact reduction. Code audits and peer reviews can help improve code quality and reduce the likelihood of errors.

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. General code reviews are conducted, but auditors are not specifically trained on Gleam security, and audits are not explicitly focused on Gleam idioms.

Missing Implementation: Provide Gleam-specific security training for auditors. Incorporate Gleam-focused security checks into code audit processes and peer reviews. Explore static analysis tools for Gleam.

Mitigation Strategy: Input Validation and Sanitization (Contextualized for Gleam)

Description:

  1. Validate Input at Entry Points: Validate all external inputs to your Gleam application at the points where they enter the system (e.g., API endpoints, user interfaces, file uploads).
  2. Use Gleam Types for Validation: Leverage Gleam's type system and custom types to represent validated input data. Create functions that parse and validate input and return Result types indicating success or validation errors.
  3. Sanitize Output for Context: Sanitize output data based on the context in which it will be used (e.g., HTML escaping for web output, SQL escaping for database queries). Use Gleam functions to perform context-aware sanitization.
  4. Parameterize Queries: When interacting with databases, use parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection vulnerabilities. Gleam libraries for database interaction should support parameterized queries.
  5. Regularly Review Validation Logic: Periodically review input validation and output sanitization logic to ensure it is comprehensive and up-to-date with evolving threats.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Injection Attacks (High Severity): SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), command injection, and other injection attacks that exploit vulnerabilities in input validation and output sanitization.
  • Data Integrity Issues (Medium Severity): Data corruption or inconsistencies due to invalid or unsanitized input data.

Impact:

  • Injection Attacks: High impact reduction. Robust input validation and output sanitization are crucial for preventing injection attacks.
  • Data Integrity Issues: Medium impact reduction. Input validation helps ensure data integrity by rejecting invalid input.

Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Input validation is performed in some areas, but not consistently applied across all entry points. Output sanitization is used for web output, but may not be comprehensive.

Missing Implementation: Implement consistent input validation at all entry points. Develop and enforce comprehensive output sanitization practices for all relevant contexts. Regularly review and update validation and sanitization logic.