Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
61 lines (54 loc) · 7.81 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

61 lines (54 loc) · 7.81 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for pola-rs/polars

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Input Schema Validation for Polars Data Loading

  • Description:
    • Step 1: Before using Polars to read data from sources like CSV, JSON, or Parquet, define explicit schemas that specify the expected data types, column names, and constraints (e.g., nullability, categorical values). Polars' schema inference can be helpful initially, but for security, explicit schemas are crucial.
    • Step 2: Utilize Polars' schema enforcement capabilities during data loading. When using functions like pl.read_csv, pl.read_json, or pl.read_parquet, provide the defined schema as an argument. Polars will then validate the input data against this schema during the reading process.
    • Step 3: Implement error handling for schema validation failures. If Polars encounters data that violates the schema, it will raise an error. Ensure your application gracefully handles these errors, logs them appropriately, and prevents further processing of invalid data.
    • Step 4: For user-provided schemas or dynamic schema scenarios, carefully validate the schema itself to prevent malicious schema definitions that could bypass validation or cause unexpected behavior in Polars.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Data Injection Attacks via Malformed Data (High Severity): Prevents malicious data crafted to exploit potential parsing vulnerabilities within Polars' data reading functions or to inject unexpected data types that could cause issues in subsequent Polars operations.
    • Denial of Service (DoS) due to Unexpected Data Structures (Medium Severity): Reduces the risk of Polars encountering unexpected data structures that could lead to errors, resource exhaustion, or crashes during data loading.
    • Data Integrity Issues from Incorrect Data Types (Medium Severity): Ensures data loaded into Polars DataFrames conforms to expected types, preventing data corruption or misinterpretations during analysis and processing within Polars.
  • Impact:
    • Data Injection Attacks: High reduction by ensuring only data conforming to a predefined structure is processed by Polars, limiting attack surface.
    • Denial of Service (DoS): Medium reduction by preventing crashes or resource issues caused by unexpected input data formats during Polars data loading.
    • Data Integrity Issues: High reduction by enforcing data type consistency from the start of Polars processing, improving data reliability.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • Backend API data loading from JSON requests uses schema validation via libraries before data is passed to Polars, but not directly using Polars' schema enforcement during reading.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Direct schema enforcement using Polars' schema argument in pl.read_csv, pl.read_json, and pl.read_parquet is not consistently implemented across all data ingestion points. Need to integrate Polars schema validation directly into data loading processes.
    • Schema validation is not applied to user-uploaded files before they are processed by Polars.

Mitigation Strategy: Resource Limits for Polars Operations

  • Description:
    • Step 1: Identify Polars operations that are potentially resource-intensive, such as large joins, aggregations on massive datasets, or complex custom expressions.
    • Step 2: Utilize Polars' configuration options, if available, to limit resource usage. While Polars is designed for efficiency, explore if there are settings to control memory allocation or thread usage that can be relevant in a security context.
    • Step 3: Implement timeouts for Polars operations, especially in user-facing applications. Use asynchronous task execution with timeouts to prevent long-running Polars queries from hanging indefinitely and consuming resources.
    • Step 4: Monitor the resource consumption of Polars processes (CPU, memory, I/O) during production. Set up alerts to detect unusual spikes in resource usage that might indicate malicious activity or inefficient Polars queries.
    • Step 5: Optimize Polars queries and expressions to minimize resource usage. Use .explain() to analyze query plans and identify potential bottlenecks. Encourage developers to write efficient Polars code.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Denial of Service (DoS) via Polars Resource Exhaustion (High Severity): Prevents malicious actors or unintentional complex queries from consuming excessive CPU, memory, or disk I/O through Polars, leading to application unavailability.
  • Impact:
    • Denial of Service (DoS): High reduction by limiting the potential for Polars operations to exhaust system resources, maintaining application stability and availability.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • Timeouts are implemented at the API request level, indirectly limiting the execution time of Polars operations triggered by API calls.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • No specific resource limits are configured within Polars itself. Need to investigate Polars configuration options for resource control.
    • Granular monitoring of resource usage specifically for Polars operations is not in place. Need to implement metrics to track Polars resource consumption.
    • Explicit timeouts are not set directly for individual Polars operations within the application code.

Mitigation Strategy: Chunked Data Processing in Polars for Large Datasets

  • Description:
    • Step 1: When dealing with potentially large datasets, especially from file sources, leverage Polars' chunked reading capabilities. Use the chunk_size parameter in functions like pl.read_csv and pl.read_parquet to load data in smaller, manageable chunks.
    • Step 2: Process data in chunks within your Polars workflows. Design your data transformations and analyses to operate on these chunks iteratively, rather than loading the entire dataset into memory at once.
    • Step 3: For operations that require processing the entire dataset (e.g., aggregations), ensure Polars' lazy evaluation and query optimization are effectively utilized to minimize memory footprint even when working with chunked data.
    • Step 4: Monitor memory usage during Polars data loading and processing, even with chunking enabled, to ensure memory consumption remains within acceptable limits and chunking is effective.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Denial of Service (DoS) via Memory Exhaustion during Polars Processing (Medium to High Severity): Prevents loading excessively large datasets into memory, which could lead to memory exhaustion, application crashes, and DoS.
    • Performance Degradation due to Large Memory Footprint (Medium Severity): Improves application performance and responsiveness when handling large datasets by reducing memory pressure and enabling more efficient processing.
  • Impact:
    • Denial of Service (DoS): Medium to High reduction by mitigating memory exhaustion risks associated with large datasets processed by Polars.
    • Performance Degradation: High reduction by improving performance and responsiveness when working with large datasets in Polars.
  • Currently Implemented:
    • Chunked reading is used in some data pipelines for processing very large CSV files with Polars.
  • Missing Implementation:
    • Chunked processing is not consistently applied across all Polars workflows, especially for complex data transformations or when dealing with data from sources other than files.
    • The chunk_size parameter is not dynamically adjusted based on available resources or dataset size. Need to explore adaptive chunking strategies.