Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
207 lines (178 loc) · 16.2 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

207 lines (178 loc) · 16.2 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the Hyper library based on the provided security design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

  • Objective: To conduct a thorough security analysis of Hyper's key components, identify potential vulnerabilities, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will focus on identifying weaknesses that could lead to Denial of Service (DoS), Remote Code Execution (RCE), Information Disclosure, Protocol-Level Attacks, and Supply Chain Attacks.
  • Scope: The analysis will cover the following key components of Hyper, as identified in the design review:
    • Client
    • Server
    • HTTP/1.1 Codec
    • HTTP/2 Codec
    • Connection Pool (Client)
    • Connection Management (Server)
    • TLS (rustls/openssl)
    • Network I/O
    • Build Process (Cargo, GitHub Actions)
  • Methodology:
    1. Codebase and Documentation Review: Analyze the provided design document, C4 diagrams, and infer architectural details from the Hyper GitHub repository (https://github.com/hyperium/hyper).
    2. Component-Specific Threat Modeling: For each component, identify potential threats based on its responsibilities and interactions with other components.
    3. Vulnerability Identification: Based on the threat modeling, identify specific vulnerabilities that could exist in each component.
    4. Mitigation Strategy Recommendation: Propose actionable and tailored mitigation strategies for each identified vulnerability.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

We'll analyze each component, considering its responsibilities, potential threats, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies.

  • Client

    • Responsibilities: Constructing, sending, and receiving HTTP requests and responses; managing connections.
    • Threats:
      • Request Smuggling: Maliciously crafted requests that exploit ambiguities in how the client and server interpret the request.
      • Response Splitting: Attacker injects data into the response that causes the client to interpret it as multiple responses.
      • Resource Exhaustion: Client-side resource exhaustion due to excessive connections or large responses.
      • TLS Downgrade Attacks: Forcing the client to use a weaker TLS version or cipher suite.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Improper handling of Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length headers.
      • Insufficient validation of response headers.
      • Lack of limits on connection pool size or response body size.
      • Insecure TLS configuration (e.g., accepting weak ciphers).
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Header Validation: Rigorously validate Transfer-Encoding, Content-Length, and other critical headers according to RFC specifications. Reject ambiguous or malformed headers.
      • Response Parsing Hardening: Implement robust response parsing to prevent response splitting attacks. Validate header lengths and values.
      • Resource Limits: Enforce limits on the number of concurrent connections, the maximum size of response headers, and the maximum size of response bodies. Provide configurable options for these limits.
      • Secure TLS Defaults: Use secure TLS defaults (e.g., TLS 1.2 or higher, strong cipher suites) and provide mechanisms for users to configure TLS settings securely. Reject connections with weak TLS configurations.
      • Connection Pool Management: Implement robust connection pool management to prevent connection leaks and exhaustion. Include timeouts and connection reuse limits.

  • Server

    • Responsibilities: Receiving, parsing, and sending HTTP requests and responses; managing connections.
    • Threats:
      • DoS: Attacks that aim to make the server unavailable to legitimate users.
      • Request Smuggling: Similar to the client-side threat, but exploiting server-side parsing vulnerabilities.
      • Slowloris Attacks: Slow HTTP requests that consume server resources.
      • Buffer Overflow: Exploiting vulnerabilities in request parsing to overwrite memory.
      • RCE: Exploiting vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code on the server.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Improper handling of Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length headers.
      • Insufficient validation of request headers and body.
      • Lack of limits on request size or connection duration.
      • Vulnerabilities in the parsing of chunked encoding.
      • Use of unsafe code without proper bounds checking.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict Header and Body Validation: Rigorously validate all request headers and the request body according to RFC specifications. Reject malformed requests.
      • Request Timeouts: Implement timeouts for various stages of request processing (e.g., connection establishment, request header reception, request body reception).
      • Connection Limits: Limit the number of concurrent connections and the rate of incoming connections.
      • Request Size Limits: Enforce limits on the maximum size of request headers and the request body.
      • Chunked Encoding Hardening: Carefully validate chunk sizes and boundaries in chunked encoding to prevent buffer overflows or other parsing errors.
      • unsafe Code Audit: Thoroughly review and audit all unsafe code blocks for potential vulnerabilities. Minimize the use of unsafe code where possible. Use tools like cargo-geiger to identify and analyze unsafe code.
      • Memory Safety: Leverage Rust's ownership and borrowing system to prevent memory safety issues.

  • HTTP/1.1 Codec

    • Responsibilities: Parsing and serializing HTTP/1.1 requests and responses.
    • Threats:
      • Request Smuggling/Response Splitting: Exploiting ambiguities in the parsing of HTTP/1.1 messages.
      • Header Injection: Injecting malicious headers into requests or responses.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Incorrect handling of line endings (CRLF).
      • Ambiguous parsing of Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length headers.
      • Insufficient validation of header names and values.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict RFC Compliance: Adhere strictly to the HTTP/1.1 specification (RFC 7230-7235) for parsing and serialization.
      • Header Parsing Hardening: Implement robust header parsing that handles various edge cases and prevents injection attacks.
      • Fuzzing: Extensively fuzz the HTTP/1.1 codec with various malformed and edge-case inputs.
      • Parser Combinators: Consider using parser combinator libraries (e.g., nom) to create a more robust and maintainable parser.

  • HTTP/2 Codec

    • Responsibilities: Parsing and serializing HTTP/2 frames.
    • Threats:
      • HPACK Bomb: Decompression bombs exploiting the HPACK header compression algorithm.
      • Stream Multiplexing Attacks: Exploiting vulnerabilities in stream multiplexing to cause DoS or information disclosure.
      • Frame-Specific Attacks: Attacks targeting specific HTTP/2 frame types (e.g., HEADERS, DATA, SETTINGS).
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Vulnerabilities in HPACK decompression.
      • Incorrect handling of stream priorities or dependencies.
      • Insufficient validation of frame payloads.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • HPACK Bomb Protection: Limit the size of decompressed headers and the number of header table updates.
      • Stream Management Hardening: Implement robust stream management to prevent resource exhaustion and ensure proper handling of stream priorities and dependencies.
      • Frame Validation: Rigorously validate the contents of each HTTP/2 frame according to the specification (RFC 7540).
      • Fuzzing: Extensively fuzz the HTTP/2 codec with various malformed and edge-case frame sequences.

  • Connection Pool (Client)

    • Responsibilities: Creating, reusing, and closing connections.
    • Threats:
      • Connection Exhaustion: Depleting the pool of available connections, leading to DoS.
      • Connection Leaks: Failing to properly close connections, leading to resource exhaustion.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Lack of limits on the number of connections.
      • Incorrect handling of connection errors or timeouts.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Connection Limits: Enforce a maximum number of connections in the pool.
      • Timeouts: Implement timeouts for connection establishment and idle connections.
      • Connection Reuse Limits: Limit the number of times a connection can be reused.
      • Proper Error Handling: Handle connection errors gracefully and ensure that connections are properly closed.

  • Connection Management (Server)

    • Responsibilities: Accepting connections, managing connection lifecycle.
    • Threats:
      • DoS: Attacks that overwhelm the server with connection requests.
      • Slowloris: Slow HTTP requests that consume server resources.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Lack of limits on the number of concurrent connections.
      • Insufficient timeouts for connection establishment and data transfer.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Connection Limits: Limit the number of concurrent connections and the rate of incoming connections.
      • Timeouts: Implement timeouts for connection establishment, request header reception, and request body reception.
      • Backlog Management: Properly manage the connection backlog to prevent resource exhaustion.

  • TLS (rustls/openssl)

    • Responsibilities: Establishing secure connections, encrypting and decrypting data.
    • Threats:
      • TLS Downgrade Attacks: Forcing the use of weaker TLS versions or cipher suites.
      • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks: Intercepting and modifying communication between the client and server.
      • Vulnerabilities in the TLS library itself (e.g., Heartbleed, CRIME).
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Using outdated or vulnerable TLS libraries.
      • Insecure TLS configuration (e.g., accepting weak ciphers, disabling certificate validation).
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use Up-to-Date Libraries: Keep the TLS library (rustls or openssl) up-to-date with the latest security patches.
      • Secure Configuration: Use secure TLS defaults (e.g., TLS 1.2 or higher, strong cipher suites) and provide mechanisms for users to configure TLS settings securely.
      • Certificate Validation: Enforce strict certificate validation, including hostname verification and revocation checks.
      • Regularly audit TLS configurations: Regularly review and update TLS configurations to ensure they align with best practices and address emerging threats.
      • Dependency Scanning: Use tools to scan and identify vulnerabilities in the chosen TLS library.

  • Network I/O

    • Responsibilities: Reading and writing data to sockets.
    • Threats:
      • Buffer Overflow: Exploiting vulnerabilities in reading or writing data to cause memory corruption.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Incorrect handling of socket errors.
      • Use of unsafe code without proper bounds checking.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Safe Abstractions: Use safe abstractions provided by Rust's standard library or asynchronous I/O frameworks (e.g., tokio) to handle network I/O.
      • unsafe Code Audit: Thoroughly review and audit any unsafe code related to network I/O.
      • Error Handling: Implement robust error handling for all network I/O operations.

  • Build Process (Cargo, GitHub Actions)

    • Threats:
      • Supply Chain Attacks: Compromise of dependencies or the build process itself.
    • Vulnerabilities:
      • Using outdated or vulnerable dependencies.
      • Compromised build server or CI/CD pipeline.
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Dependency Management:
        • Use cargo-crev to review and verify the trustworthiness of dependencies.
        • Use cargo audit to identify and fix known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
        • Pin dependency versions to specific commits or tags to prevent unexpected updates.
        • Regularly update dependencies to the latest secure versions.
      • CI/CD Security:
        • Secure the GitHub Actions workflows and runners.
        • Use signed commits and tags.
        • Implement least privilege principles for CI/CD access.
        • Monitor CI/CD logs for suspicious activity.
      • Reproducible Builds: Strive for reproducible builds to ensure that the same source code always produces the same binary.

3. Addressing Questions and Assumptions

  • Questions:

    • TLS/SSL Libraries: The specific libraries and configurations should be documented and regularly reviewed. The choice between rustls and openssl should be justified, and the configuration should be hardened. Automated checks for insecure configurations should be integrated into the CI pipeline.
    • Performance Requirements: Understanding the performance requirements helps prioritize security measures. For example, if extreme performance is critical, some security measures (e.g., very strict timeouts) might need to be adjusted.
    • Threat Model: A more detailed threat model would help focus security efforts. For example, if the primary concern is DoS attacks against servers using Hyper, then mitigation strategies for DoS should be prioritized.
    • SAST/DAST Integration: Integrating SAST (e.g., cargo audit, clippy with security-focused lints) and DAST (e.g., fuzzing with a focus on known attack patterns) is highly recommended.
    • unsafe Code Review: A formal process for reviewing and approving unsafe code should be established. This process should involve multiple developers and focus on identifying potential memory safety issues.

  • Assumptions:

    • Security Prioritization: The assumption that security is prioritized is crucial. This should be reflected in the project's culture, processes, and resources.
    • Effective Existing Controls: The effectiveness of existing controls (fuzzing, CI, code reviews) should be continuously monitored and improved.
    • Accurate Diagrams: The C4 diagrams provide a good overview, but the actual implementation might have additional complexities. Regular review of the architecture and code is necessary.
    • Well-Maintained TLS Libraries: The reliance on well-maintained TLS libraries is critical. The project should have a process for monitoring security advisories for these libraries and applying updates promptly.

4. Conclusion

Hyper, as a low-level HTTP library, plays a critical role in the security of many Rust applications. This analysis has identified several potential vulnerabilities and provided tailored mitigation strategies. The most important areas to focus on are:

  1. Robust Input Validation: Rigorously validate all inputs (headers, bodies, URI components) to prevent protocol-level attacks.
  2. Secure TLS Implementation: Use up-to-date TLS libraries, enforce secure configurations, and validate certificates properly.
  3. unsafe Code Management: Minimize the use of unsafe code and thoroughly audit any remaining unsafe blocks.
  4. Supply Chain Security: Implement measures to verify the integrity of dependencies and secure the build process.
  5. Continuous Security Testing: Expand fuzzing coverage, integrate SAST and DAST tools, and conduct regular security audits.

By implementing these recommendations, the Hyper project can significantly enhance its security posture and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities that could impact applications built upon it. Continuous monitoring, testing, and improvement are essential to maintain a strong security posture over time.