Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
188 lines (147 loc) · 15.6 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

188 lines (147 loc) · 15.6 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the Gleam language and compiler based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of the Gleam compiler, its core components, and the generated code's runtime environment (BEAM). The goal is to identify potential security vulnerabilities, assess their impact, and propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies. We aim to improve the overall security posture of Gleam and the applications built with it. This analysis focuses on Gleam itself, not general application security best practices.

  • Scope:

    • The Gleam compiler (lexer, parser, type checker, code generator, optimizer).
    • The Gleam build system (interaction with rebar3).
    • Dependency management (interaction with Hex).
    • The runtime environment (BEAM) as it pertains to Gleam-generated code. We will not deeply analyze the BEAM itself, but will consider its implications.
    • The provided C4 diagrams and deployment model (Docker/Kubernetes).
    • The identified security controls and accepted risks.

  • Methodology:

    1. Component Breakdown: Analyze each component of the Gleam compiler and build system, identifying potential security concerns based on its function and interactions.
    2. Threat Modeling: For each component, consider potential attack vectors and threat actors. We'll use the STRIDE model (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) as a framework.
    3. Data Flow Analysis: Trace the flow of data through the compiler and build system, identifying points where vulnerabilities might exist.
    4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: For each identified vulnerability, propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to Gleam and its ecosystem.
    5. Review of Existing Controls: Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing security controls and identify any gaps.
    6. Prioritization: Rank the identified vulnerabilities based on their potential impact and likelihood of exploitation.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each component, applying the STRIDE model:

  • Lexer:

    • Function: Converts source code into tokens.
    • Threats:
      • Denial of Service (DoS): Specially crafted input could cause the lexer to consume excessive resources (CPU, memory), leading to a denial of service. This could be due to complex regular expressions or unexpected input patterns.
      • Information Disclosure: Bugs in the lexer might lead to leaking parts of the source code or internal state in error messages, though this is less likely.
    • Mitigation:
      • Fuzz Testing: Extensive fuzz testing of the lexer with a wide variety of inputs, including malformed and edge-case inputs, is crucial.
      • Resource Limits: Implement resource limits (e.g., maximum input size, processing time) to prevent DoS attacks.
      • Careful Error Handling: Ensure error messages do not reveal sensitive information.

  • Parser:

    • Function: Constructs an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) from tokens.
    • Threats:
      • DoS: Similar to the lexer, maliciously crafted input could cause the parser to enter infinite loops, consume excessive memory, or trigger stack overflows. Deeply nested structures or ambiguous grammar rules could be exploited.
      • Code Injection (Tampering, Elevation of Privilege): If the parser has vulnerabilities, it might be possible to inject malicious code into the AST, which would then be executed by the code generator. This is a high-impact vulnerability.
    • Mitigation:
      • Fuzz Testing: Fuzz testing with a focus on grammar edge cases and ambiguous syntax.
      • Stack Overflow Protection: Implement checks for excessive recursion depth to prevent stack overflows.
      • Memory Management: Use safe memory management techniques to prevent buffer overflows or other memory-related vulnerabilities.
      • Grammar Review: Carefully review the Gleam grammar for any ambiguities that could be exploited.

  • Type Checker:

    • Function: Enforces Gleam's type system.
    • Threats:
      • Type Confusion (Tampering, Elevation of Privilege): Bugs in the type checker could allow code to bypass type safety, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution. This is a critical vulnerability, as type safety is a core security feature of Gleam. Exploiting this would likely require deep understanding of the type system and compiler internals.
      • DoS: Complex or maliciously crafted type definitions could cause the type checker to consume excessive resources.
    • Mitigation:
      • Formal Verification (Long-Term): Consider using formal methods to verify the correctness of the type checker, providing a higher level of assurance.
      • Extensive Testing: Thorough testing, including property-based testing, to ensure the type checker correctly handles all valid and invalid type combinations.
      • Fuzz Testing: Fuzz the type checker with a focus on complex and unusual type definitions.
      • Type System Design Review: Regularly review the design of the type system for potential weaknesses or loopholes.

  • Code Generator:

    • Function: Translates the typed AST into Erlang code.
    • Threats:
      • Code Injection (Tampering, Elevation of Privilege): If the code generator has vulnerabilities, it could generate malicious Erlang code, even if the Gleam source code is type-safe. This is a high-impact vulnerability.
      • Information Disclosure: Bugs in the code generator might lead to the inclusion of sensitive information (e.g., compiler internals, debug information) in the generated Erlang code.
    • Mitigation:
      • Code Review: Thorough code review of the code generator, focusing on the translation logic and ensuring it adheres to the semantics of Gleam and the Erlang VM.
      • Testing: Extensive testing to ensure the generated code is correct and does not introduce any vulnerabilities.
      • Output Validation: Consider adding a stage that validates the generated Erlang code for potential security issues (e.g., using static analysis tools for Erlang).
      • Minimize Generated Code Complexity: Strive for simple and straightforward code generation to reduce the attack surface.

  • Optimizer:

    • Function: Optimizes the generated Erlang code.
    • Threats:
      • Code Injection (Tampering, Elevation of Privilege): Optimizations could introduce vulnerabilities that were not present in the original generated code. This is a high-impact vulnerability, though potentially harder to exploit than vulnerabilities in other components.
      • DoS: Aggressive optimizations could, in rare cases, lead to performance degradation or even crashes.
    • Mitigation:
      • Conservative Optimization: Prioritize correctness over performance. Avoid overly aggressive optimizations that could introduce subtle bugs.
      • Testing: Extensive testing, including performance testing and regression testing, to ensure optimizations do not introduce vulnerabilities or performance issues.
      • Formal Verification (Long-Term): Consider using formal methods to verify the correctness of the optimizer.
      • Disable Optimizations (If Necessary): Provide a way to disable optimizations if they are suspected of causing problems.

  • Build System (gleam build, rebar3):

    • Function: Manages the compilation process and dependencies.
    • Threats:
      • Supply Chain Attacks (Tampering): Compromised dependencies (fetched from Hex) could introduce malicious code into Gleam applications. This is a major concern.
      • Dependency Confusion (Tampering): Attackers could publish malicious packages with names similar to legitimate packages, tricking the build system into using them.
      • DoS: Maliciously crafted build files (gleam.toml, rebar.config) could cause the build system to consume excessive resources or enter infinite loops.
    • Mitigation:
      • Software Composition Analysis (SCA): Integrate SCA tooling (e.g., dependabot, snyk, owasp dependency-check) to scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities. This is essential.
      • Dependency Pinning: Pin dependencies to specific versions (or narrow version ranges) to prevent unexpected updates from introducing vulnerabilities.
      • Checksum Verification: Verify the checksums of downloaded dependencies to ensure they have not been tampered with. Gleam/rebar3 should support this.
      • Private Package Repository (For Internal Dependencies): If using internal dependencies, consider using a private package repository to reduce the risk of dependency confusion attacks.
      • Build File Validation: Validate build files to prevent DoS attacks.
      • Reproducible Builds: Strive for reproducible builds to ensure that the build process is deterministic and auditable.

  • Runtime Environment (BEAM):

    • Function: Executes the compiled Gleam code.
    • Threats:
      • BEAM Vulnerabilities: Gleam's security is inherently tied to the security of the BEAM. Vulnerabilities in the BEAM could be exploited to attack Gleam applications.
      • Improper Use of BEAM Features: While the BEAM provides robust concurrency features, improper use of these features (e.g., message passing, process management) could lead to vulnerabilities in Gleam applications.
    • Mitigation:
      • Stay Up-to-Date: Keep the Erlang/OTP version used by Gleam up-to-date to benefit from security patches.
      • Security Audits of BEAM (Indirectly): While not directly responsible for BEAM security, the Gleam project should encourage and support security audits of the BEAM.
      • Gleam-Specific Guidance: Provide Gleam-specific guidance on how to use BEAM features securely. This should be part of the official documentation.
      • Erlang Interop Security: Carefully consider the security implications of interoperability with Erlang code. Any vulnerabilities in Erlang code called from Gleam could impact the Gleam application.

3. Data Flow Analysis

The primary data flow is from Gleam source code to Erlang bytecode:

  1. Developer writes Gleam code.
  2. Lexer tokenizes the code.
  3. Parser creates an AST.
  4. Type Checker validates the AST.
  5. Code Generator produces Erlang code.
  6. Optimizer (optionally) optimizes the Erlang code.
  7. rebar3 (via gleam build) manages dependencies and invokes the compiler.
  8. BEAM executes the resulting bytecode.

Key points of vulnerability in this flow are:

  • Input to the Lexer/Parser: Malicious source code.
  • AST Manipulation: Vulnerabilities in the parser or type checker could allow for AST manipulation.
  • Code Generation: Vulnerabilities in the code generator or optimizer could introduce malicious Erlang code.
  • Dependencies: Compromised dependencies could inject malicious code.

4. Mitigation Strategies (Actionable and Tailored)

The mitigation strategies outlined in section 2 are already tailored to Gleam. Here's a summary with prioritization:

  • High Priority:

    • SCA: Implement Software Composition Analysis (SCA) immediately. This is the most critical and readily achievable mitigation.
    • Fuzz Testing: Implement comprehensive fuzz testing of the lexer, parser, and type checker.
    • Dependency Pinning and Checksum Verification: Enforce strict dependency management practices.
    • Code Reviews with Security Focus: Make security an explicit part of code reviews.

  • Medium Priority:

    • Resource Limits: Implement resource limits in the lexer and parser.
    • Stack Overflow Protection: Implement checks for excessive recursion.
    • Output Validation (of Generated Erlang Code): Explore static analysis tools for Erlang.
    • Gleam-Specific Security Guidance: Develop comprehensive security documentation for Gleam developers.

  • Low Priority (Long-Term):

    • Formal Verification: Explore formal verification for the type checker and optimizer.
    • Private Package Repository: Consider if a private package repository is needed.

5. Review of Existing Controls

  • Type Safety: A strong foundation, but not a panacea. Bugs in the type checker itself are a critical risk.
  • Immutability: Reduces concurrency risks, but doesn't address all potential vulnerabilities.
  • Actor Model: Provides robust concurrency, but improper use can still lead to issues.
  • GitHub Actions: Good for CI/CD, but needs to be augmented with security-specific tools (SAST, SCA).
  • Dependency Updates: Good practice, but needs to be combined with SCA and pinning.
  • Code Reviews: Essential, but needs to explicitly include security considerations.

Gaps:

  • Lack of SAST: No static analysis of the Gleam compiler's source code.
  • Lack of SCA: No automated scanning of dependencies for vulnerabilities.
  • Lack of Fuzz Testing: No systematic fuzz testing of the compiler components.
  • Limited Security Documentation: No comprehensive security guidelines for Gleam developers.

6. Prioritization

The highest priority vulnerabilities are those that could lead to arbitrary code execution:

  1. Type Confusion in the Type Checker: Bypassing type safety is the most critical vulnerability.
  2. Code Injection in the Code Generator/Optimizer: Malicious Erlang code generation.
  3. Supply Chain Attacks: Compromised dependencies.
  4. Parser Vulnerabilities Leading to AST Manipulation: Code injection via the parser.

DoS vulnerabilities are generally lower priority, but should still be addressed.

Addressing Questions and Assumptions:

  • Security Standards/Compliance: While Gleam itself may not be directly subject to specific standards, applications built with it might be (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS). Gleam should facilitate building compliant applications by providing secure defaults and guidance.
  • Threat Model: The threat model for Gleam applications will vary. Web applications will face typical web vulnerabilities (XSS, CSRF, SQL injection, etc.). Backend services will face different threats (e.g., API abuse, data breaches). Gleam's type safety helps mitigate some of these, but developers must still implement appropriate security measures.
  • Developer Security Expertise: Assume a baseline level of security awareness, but provide clear and comprehensive security documentation to guide developers.
  • Security Guidelines: Essential. The Gleam project should develop official security guidelines and best practices.
  • Vulnerability Reporting: A clear and well-defined process for reporting and handling security vulnerabilities is crucial. This should be documented publicly (e.g., on the Gleam website or GitHub repository).

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the Gleam language and compiler. The recommendations focus on practical steps that can be taken to improve Gleam's security posture and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities in applications built with it. The most immediate actions are implementing SCA and fuzz testing.