Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
204 lines (166 loc) · 22.9 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

204 lines (166 loc) · 22.9 KB

Deep Security Analysis of Gleam Language Project

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

This deep security analysis aims to identify and evaluate potential security vulnerabilities and risks associated with the Gleam programming language project, focusing on its design, architecture, build process, and deployment considerations. The analysis will provide actionable and tailored security recommendations to enhance the overall security posture of the Gleam project and mitigate identified threats. The core objective is to ensure the Gleam language and its ecosystem are secure and trustworthy for developers and users.

Scope:

The scope of this analysis encompasses the following key components of the Gleam project, as outlined in the provided Security Design Review and inferred from the project's nature:

  • Gleam Language (Compiler and Standard Library): Analysis of the compiler's security, including potential vulnerabilities in parsing, type checking, and code generation. Examination of the standard library for insecure functions or potential weaknesses.
  • Build Tool (Gleam CLI): Security assessment of the build tool, focusing on dependency management, build process integrity, and potential for malicious actions during build execution.
  • Package Manager: Evaluation of the package manager's security, including package integrity verification, secure communication with package registries, and protection against supply chain attacks.
  • Deployment Architectures (Erlang VM and Javascript Runtimes): Consideration of security implications specific to deploying Gleam applications on Erlang VM and Javascript environments, including runtime security dependencies.
  • Build Process and CI/CD Pipeline: Analysis of the security of the build pipeline, including dependency fetching, security scanning, artifact generation, and potential vulnerabilities in the CI/CD infrastructure.
  • Ecosystem (Package Registry, Documentation Website, GitHub Repository): Brief overview of the security considerations for supporting infrastructure and services.

Methodology:

This analysis will employ the following methodology:

  1. Document Review: Thorough review 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. Codebase Inference (GitHub): Analysis of the Gleam codebase on GitHub (https://github.com/gleam-lang/gleam) to understand the architecture, components, data flow, and implementation details. This will involve examining key directories like compiler, stdlib, gleam_cli, and build scripts.
  3. Documentation Review (gleam.run - assumed): Review of the official Gleam documentation (if available online) to gain further insights into the language design, features, and intended usage patterns.
  4. Threat Modeling: Identification of potential threats and vulnerabilities for each key component based on common attack vectors and security best practices for programming languages and build systems.
  5. Risk Assessment: Evaluation of the likelihood and impact of identified threats to prioritize mitigation efforts.
  6. Recommendation Generation: Development of specific, actionable, and tailored security recommendations and mitigation strategies for the Gleam project, aligned with the project's goals and context.
  7. Output Generation: Compilation of the analysis findings, recommendations, and mitigation strategies into a comprehensive report.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Based on the Security Design Review and inferred architecture, the following are the security implications for each key component:

2.1. Gleam Language (Compiler and Standard Library)

  • Security Implication 1: Compiler Vulnerabilities (Code Injection, Denial of Service):
    • Threat: Vulnerabilities in the Gleam compiler (parser, type checker, code generator) could be exploited by malicious Gleam code to inject arbitrary code into the compiled output (Erlang bytecode or Javascript) or cause a denial of service during compilation.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: A compromised compiler could lead to all applications built with Gleam being vulnerable. This is a high-impact, low-likelihood risk, but critical to address.
    • Example: A crafted Gleam program could exploit a buffer overflow in the compiler's parser, allowing an attacker to inject malicious Erlang code into the .beam file.
  • Security Implication 2: Standard Library Vulnerabilities (Insecure Functions, Logic Errors):
    • Threat: The Gleam standard library might contain insecure functions or logic errors that could be exploited by Gleam applications, leading to vulnerabilities like information disclosure, data manipulation, or denial of service.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Developers rely on the standard library for core functionalities. Vulnerabilities here could be widely propagated across Gleam applications.
    • Example: A function in the http module of the standard library might be vulnerable to HTTP header injection if not properly implemented.
  • Security Implication 3: Type System Bypass (Circumventing Type Safety):
    • Threat: While Gleam emphasizes type safety, vulnerabilities in the type system or compiler could potentially allow developers to bypass type checks, leading to runtime type errors and potential security issues.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Undermines the core security benefit of Gleam's static typing, potentially leading to vulnerabilities that static typing is intended to prevent.
    • Example: A flaw in type inference could allow a function to accept an argument of an unexpected type, leading to runtime errors or unexpected behavior.

2.2. Build Tool (Gleam CLI)

  • Security Implication 4: Dependency Vulnerabilities (Transitive Dependencies, Outdated Packages):
    • Threat: Gleam projects rely on dependencies (Erlang libraries, Javascript libraries). Vulnerabilities in these dependencies, especially transitive ones, can introduce security risks into Gleam applications. Outdated dependencies may also contain known vulnerabilities.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Gleam projects inherit the dependency management challenges of both Erlang and Javascript ecosystems.
    • Example: A Gleam project might depend on an Erlang library with a known security vulnerability that allows for remote code execution.
  • Security Implication 5: Malicious Packages (Dependency Confusion, Typosquatting):
    • Threat: Attackers could publish malicious packages to package registries (Hex, npm) with names similar to legitimate Gleam dependencies (dependency confusion or typosquatting). If the Gleam build tool is not configured securely, it might download and use these malicious packages.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Supply chain attack vector targeting Gleam projects through package registries.
    • Example: An attacker publishes a package named gleam-http (typosquatting on a hypothetical legitimate gleam_http package) containing malicious code. A developer accidentally includes gleam-http in their gleam.toml and the build tool downloads and uses the malicious package.
  • Security Implication 6: Build Process Manipulation (Compromised Build Tool, Malicious Plugins):
    • Threat: If the Gleam build tool itself is compromised or allows for malicious plugins, attackers could manipulate the build process to inject malicious code into the compiled artifacts or steal sensitive information during the build.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Compromising the build tool is a high-impact supply chain attack.
    • Example: A vulnerability in the Gleam CLI allows an attacker to inject a malicious script that gets executed during the build process, modifying the generated Erlang bytecode.

2.3. Package Manager

  • Security Implication 7: Package Registry Compromise (Data Integrity, Availability):
    • Threat: If the package registries used by Gleam (Hex, npm) are compromised, attackers could tamper with packages, inject malware, or cause denial of service.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Gleam ecosystem relies on these registries. Compromise affects the entire ecosystem's trust and availability.
    • Example: An attacker gains access to the Hex registry and replaces a legitimate Gleam package with a backdoored version.
  • Security Implication 8: Insecure Package Download (Man-in-the-Middle Attacks):
    • Threat: If package downloads from registries are not secured (e.g., using HTTPS and integrity checks), attackers could perform man-in-the-middle attacks to intercept and replace packages with malicious versions during download.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Compromises package integrity during download.
    • Example: A developer's network is compromised, and an attacker intercepts the download of a Gleam package, replacing it with a malicious version before it's installed.
  • Security Implication 9: Lack of Package Integrity Verification (Checksums, Signatures):
    • Threat: If the Gleam package manager does not properly verify package integrity (e.g., using checksums or digital signatures), it might install tampered or malicious packages without detection.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Reduces confidence in package authenticity and increases risk of supply chain attacks.
    • Example: A tampered Gleam package is hosted on a compromised mirror of the package registry. Without integrity verification, the Gleam package manager might install this malicious package.

2.4. Deployment Architectures (Erlang VM and Javascript Runtimes)

  • Security Implication 10: Erlang VM Security Vulnerabilities (Runtime Exploits, Configuration Issues):
    • Threat: Gleam applications deployed on Erlang VM are susceptible to vulnerabilities in the Erlang VM itself, including runtime exploits or misconfigurations of the VM.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Gleam applications inherit the security posture of the Erlang VM.
    • Example: A vulnerability in the Erlang VM's JIT compiler could be exploited by a malicious Gleam application to gain unauthorized access to the underlying system.
  • Security Implication 11: Javascript Runtime Security Vulnerabilities (Browser Exploits, Node.js Issues):
    • Threat: Gleam applications deployed in Javascript runtimes (browsers, Node.js) are vulnerable to Javascript runtime security issues, including browser exploits, DOM-based vulnerabilities, and Node.js specific security concerns.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Gleam applications inherit the security posture of Javascript runtimes.
    • Example: A Gleam application compiled to Javascript and running in a browser might be vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) if it doesn't properly handle user input.
  • Security Implication 12: Interoperability Security (Erlang/Javascript Interop):
    • Threat: If Gleam applications need to interoperate with existing Erlang or Javascript code, security vulnerabilities could arise from insecure interop mechanisms or vulnerabilities in the external code being integrated.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Bridging different runtime environments can introduce security complexities.
    • Example: A Gleam application interacts with a legacy Erlang library that has a known buffer overflow vulnerability.

2.5. Build Process and CI/CD Pipeline

  • Security Implication 13: Compromised CI/CD Pipeline (Secret Exposure, Malicious Builds):
    • Threat: If the CI/CD pipeline used to build and release Gleam components is compromised, attackers could gain access to secrets (API keys, credentials), inject malicious code into builds, or disrupt the release process.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Compromising the CI/CD pipeline is a critical supply chain attack vector.
    • Example: An attacker gains access to the GitHub Actions workflow for Gleam and modifies it to inject malicious code into the compiler binaries before release.
  • Security Implication 14: Insecure Build Environment (Lack of Isolation, Vulnerable Tools):
    • Threat: If the build environment in the CI/CD pipeline is not properly secured (e.g., lacks isolation, uses vulnerable tools), it could be compromised, leading to malicious builds or data breaches.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Compromises the integrity of the build process.
    • Example: The build environment in GitHub Actions is not sufficiently isolated, and a vulnerability in a build tool allows an attacker to gain access to the environment and modify build artifacts.
  • Security Implication 15: Lack of Security Scanning in CI/CD (Missed Vulnerabilities):
    • Threat: If security scanning (SAST, DAST, dependency scanning) is not integrated into the CI/CD pipeline, potential vulnerabilities in the Gleam compiler, standard library, or dependencies might be missed before release.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Increases the likelihood of releasing vulnerable software.
    • Example: A vulnerability is introduced into the Gleam compiler code, but without automated SAST, it is not detected and gets released to users.

2.6. Ecosystem (Package Registry, Documentation Website, GitHub Repository)

  • Security Implication 16: Documentation Website Vulnerabilities (XSS, Defacement):
    • Threat: The documentation website could be vulnerable to common web vulnerabilities like cross-site scripting (XSS) or defacement, potentially harming users and damaging the project's reputation.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Impacts user trust and project image.
    • Example: The documentation website is vulnerable to XSS, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts that steal user credentials or redirect users to phishing sites.
  • Security Implication 17: GitHub Repository Access Control Issues (Unauthorized Modifications):
    • Threat: Insufficient access control to the GitHub repository could allow unauthorized individuals to modify the Gleam codebase, introduce vulnerabilities, or disrupt development.
    • Specific Risk to Gleam: Compromises the integrity of the source code and development process.
    • Example: A contributor account is compromised, and the attacker uses it to push malicious code to the Gleam repository.

3. Actionable and Tailored Mitigation Strategies

Based on the identified security implications, here are actionable and tailored mitigation strategies for the Gleam project:

For Gleam Language (Compiler and Standard Library):

  • Mitigation 1.1: Implement Robust Compiler Security Testing:
    • Action: Develop a comprehensive suite of security tests specifically for the Gleam compiler. This should include fuzzing, property-based testing, and targeted test cases to identify vulnerabilities in parsing, type checking, and code generation.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Focus on testing Gleam-specific language features and compiler internals.
    • Actionable: Integrate these security tests into the CI/CD pipeline to run automatically on every code change.
  • Mitigation 1.2: Conduct Regular Security Audits of Compiler and Standard Library:
    • Action: Engage external security experts to conduct regular security audits of the Gleam compiler and standard library code. Focus on identifying potential vulnerabilities and design flaws.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Audits should be performed by experts familiar with compiler security and functional programming languages.
    • Actionable: Schedule audits at least annually and after significant code changes. Prioritize addressing findings from audits.
  • Mitigation 1.3: Secure Coding Practices for Standard Library Development:
    • Action: Establish and enforce secure coding guidelines for developers contributing to the Gleam standard library. This should include input validation, output encoding, and avoiding known insecure patterns.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Guidelines should be specific to Gleam and its target platforms (Erlang VM, Javascript).
    • Actionable: Document and communicate these guidelines to contributors. Implement code review processes to ensure adherence.

For Build Tool (Gleam CLI):

  • Mitigation 2.1: Implement Dependency Scanning and Management:
    • Action: Integrate dependency scanning tools (e.g., mix audit for Erlang dependencies, npm audit or yarn audit for Javascript dependencies, and dedicated dependency scanning tools) into the CI/CD pipeline.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Scan both Erlang and Javascript dependencies used by Gleam projects.
    • Actionable: Automate dependency scanning in CI/CD. Establish a process for reviewing and addressing identified vulnerabilities, including dependency updates and patching.
  • Mitigation 2.2: Implement Package Integrity Verification in Build Tool:
    • Action: Ensure the Gleam build tool verifies the integrity of downloaded packages using checksums or digital signatures provided by package registries (Hex, npm).
    • Tailored to Gleam: Implement verification for both Hex and npm packages.
    • Actionable: Enable package integrity verification by default in the Gleam build tool. Document how developers can verify package integrity manually.
  • Mitigation 2.3: Secure Build Tool Updates and Distribution:
    • Action: Implement a secure process for updating and distributing the Gleam CLI. Use code signing for releases to ensure authenticity and integrity.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Focus on securing the distribution channels for the Gleam CLI binaries.
    • Actionable: Use HTTPS for downloads, provide checksums for releases, and consider using digital signatures for binaries.

For Package Manager:

  • Mitigation 3.1: Advocate for Package Registry Security Best Practices:
    • Action: Engage with package registry maintainers (Hex, npm) to advocate for and support security best practices, such as package integrity verification, vulnerability scanning, and secure infrastructure.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Focus on registries relevant to the Gleam ecosystem.
    • Actionable: Participate in community discussions, report security concerns, and contribute to security improvements in package registries.
  • Mitigation 3.2: Provide Guidance on Secure Package Management for Gleam Developers:
    • Action: Develop and publish security guidelines for Gleam developers on secure package management practices, including dependency pinning, vulnerability monitoring, and avoiding untrusted packages.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Guidelines should be specific to Gleam projects and their dependency management using gleam.toml.
    • Actionable: Include these guidelines in the Gleam documentation and tutorials.

For Deployment Architectures (Erlang VM and Javascript Runtimes):

  • Mitigation 4.1: Provide Security Best Practices for Gleam Application Deployment:
    • Action: Document and promote security best practices for deploying Gleam applications on both Erlang VM and Javascript runtimes. This should include guidance on secure configuration, input validation, output encoding, and runtime environment hardening.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Provide separate guidelines for Erlang VM and Javascript deployments, highlighting platform-specific security considerations.
    • Actionable: Include deployment security guidelines in the Gleam documentation and provide examples of secure deployment configurations.
  • Mitigation 4.2: Encourage Use of Secure Cryptographic Libraries:
    • Action: Clearly document and encourage the use of secure cryptographic libraries available in target platforms (Erlang crypto, Javascript Web Crypto API) for Gleam applications requiring cryptography.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Provide examples of how to interoperate with these libraries from Gleam code.
    • Actionable: Include examples and best practices for using cryptography in Gleam applications in the documentation.

For Build Process and CI/CD Pipeline:

  • Mitigation 5.1: Implement Automated Security Scanning in CI/CD Pipeline:
    • Action: Integrate SAST (Static Application Security Testing) and DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) tools into the CI/CD pipeline for the Gleam compiler and standard library.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Choose SAST/DAST tools that are effective for functional languages and compiler code.
    • Actionable: Configure CI/CD to automatically run SAST and DAST on every code change and build. Establish a process for reviewing and addressing identified vulnerabilities.
  • Mitigation 5.2: Secure CI/CD Pipeline Configuration and Secrets Management:
    • Action: Harden the CI/CD pipeline configuration and implement secure secrets management practices. Use dedicated secrets management tools and follow the principle of least privilege for access control.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Secure GitHub Actions workflows and secrets used for building and releasing Gleam.
    • Actionable: Regularly review CI/CD pipeline configurations and access controls. Rotate secrets periodically.
  • Mitigation 5.3: Isolate Build Environment in CI/CD Pipeline:
    • Action: Ensure the build environment in the CI/CD pipeline is isolated and hardened. Minimize the tools and software installed in the build environment to reduce the attack surface.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Utilize containerized build environments in CI/CD to ensure isolation.
    • Actionable: Regularly review and harden the build environment configuration in CI/CD.

For Ecosystem (Package Registry, Documentation Website, GitHub Repository):

  • Mitigation 6.1: Implement Web Security Best Practices for Documentation Website:
    • Action: Implement standard web security practices for the documentation website, including input validation, output encoding, Content Security Policy (CSP), and regular security updates.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Focus on protecting against common web vulnerabilities like XSS and CSRF.
    • Actionable: Conduct regular security assessments of the documentation website and address identified vulnerabilities.
  • Mitigation 6.2: Enforce Strong Access Control and Code Review on GitHub Repository:
    • Action: Enforce strong access control policies for the GitHub repository, following the principle of least privilege. Implement mandatory code review for all code changes before merging.
    • Tailored to Gleam: Utilize GitHub's access control features and branch protection rules.
    • Actionable: Regularly review and audit GitHub repository access controls and code review processes.

By implementing these tailored mitigation strategies, the Gleam project can significantly enhance its security posture, build trust within the developer community, and mitigate the identified security risks. Continuous monitoring, regular security assessments, and proactive vulnerability management will be crucial for maintaining a secure and trustworthy Gleam ecosystem.