Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
51 lines (42 loc) · 5.37 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

51 lines (42 loc) · 5.37 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for pola-rs/polars

Attack Surface: Untrusted Data Parsing

  • Description: Exploitation of vulnerabilities in Polars' data parsing routines (CSV, JSON, Parquet, Arrow) when processing data from untrusted sources. This is a direct attack on Polars' parsing logic.
    • How Polars Contributes: Polars' core functionality is parsing and processing data. Bugs in these parsers are a direct attack vector within Polars.
    • Example: An attacker crafts a malicious Parquet file that triggers a buffer overflow in Polars' Parquet parser, leading to arbitrary code execution within the Polars process.
    • Impact: Arbitrary code execution, data exfiltration, denial of service.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Fuzz Testing: This is the primary mitigation for Polars developers. Extensive fuzzing of all parsers is essential.
      • Input Validation (Application-Level): While this is application-level, it's crucial. Validate data before it reaches Polars.
      • Keep Polars Updated: Users should always use the latest version of Polars to benefit from security fixes.

Attack Surface: unsafe Code Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Memory safety vulnerabilities within Polars' unsafe Rust code blocks. This is an internal Polars vulnerability.
    • How Polars Contributes: Polars uses unsafe code for performance. Bugs in this code are internal to Polars.
    • Example: A bug in an unsafe block used for memory manipulation allows an attacker to trigger a use-after-free condition, leading to a crash or potentially arbitrary code execution within Polars.
    • Impact: Arbitrary code execution, data exfiltration, denial of service.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Code Auditing (Polars Developers): Rigorous code auditing and static analysis of unsafe blocks are essential for Polars developers.
      • Fuzz Testing (Polars Developers): Fuzzing should target code paths that utilize unsafe blocks.
      • Keep Polars Updated: Users should always use the latest version of Polars.

Attack Surface: Dependency Vulnerabilities (Direct Impact)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities in direct dependencies of Polars (especially arrow) that can be triggered through Polars' normal operation. This focuses on vulnerabilities that Polars exposes, not just general dependency issues.
    • How Polars Contributes: Polars' tight integration with libraries like arrow means vulnerabilities in those libraries can directly impact Polars' security.
    • Example: A vulnerability in the arrow crate's IPC handling is exploited by sending malformed Arrow data to Polars, triggering the vulnerability within Polars' interaction with arrow.
    • Impact: Varies depending on the specific dependency and vulnerability, but could range from denial of service to arbitrary code execution within the context of Polars.
    • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the dependency and vulnerability)
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Dependency Auditing (Polars Developers): Polars developers must actively monitor and audit their direct dependencies.
      • Prompt Dependency Updates (Polars Developers): Polars developers need to quickly update dependencies when vulnerabilities are found.
      • Keep Polars Updated: Users should always use the latest version of Polars.

Attack Surface: Resource Exhaustion (Internal Logic)

  • Description: Attacks that cause Polars to consume excessive resources (memory, CPU) due to vulnerabilities within Polars' internal logic, even with seemingly valid input. This differs from simply providing a large file; it focuses on triggering unexpected resource consumption through edge cases or bugs in Polars' algorithms.
    • How Polars Contributes: Bugs in Polars' internal algorithms (e.g., join algorithms, expression evaluation) could lead to excessive resource consumption even with moderately sized or structured input.
    • Example: A crafted dataset with specific characteristics triggers a worst-case scenario in Polars' join algorithm, causing it to consume excessive memory or CPU, even if the dataset itself is not exceptionally large. Or, a deeply nested expression, while syntactically valid, triggers excessive recursion within Polars' expression evaluator.
    • Impact: Denial of service.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Fuzz Testing (Polars Developers): Fuzzing should include tests designed to stress Polars' internal algorithms and identify potential resource exhaustion vulnerabilities.
      • Profiling and Performance Testing (Polars Developers): Regular profiling and performance testing can help identify areas where Polars' performance degrades unexpectedly.
      • Keep Polars Updated: Users should always use the latest version of Polars.
      • Resource Limits (Application-Level): While this is application-level, it's crucial. Limit resources available to the Polars process.