Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift Pipelines Release 1.20.5

1. Requirements

   Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.

2. Architecture and Design

   Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.

3. Architecture and Design

   Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.

OWASP Cheat Sheets

• Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)

OWASP ASVS 4.0.3

• V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
• V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
• V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)

Attack patterns

• XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
• Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
• Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
• Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
• Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)

From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

1. Requirements

   The choice between a language which has named or unnamed exceptions needs to be done. While unnamed exceptions exacerbate the chance of not properly dealing with an exception, named exceptions suffer from the up call version of the weak base class problem.

2. Requirements

   A language can be used which requires, at compile time, to catch all serious exceptions. However, one must make sure to use the most current version of the API as new exceptions could be added.

3. Implementation

   Catch all relevant exceptions. This is the recommended solution. Ensure that all exceptions are handled in such a way that you can be sure of the state of your system at any given moment.

OWASP Cheat Sheets

• Logging (opens in a new tab)
• Error Handling (opens in a new tab)

From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

1. Implementation

   If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.

2. Architecture and Design · Implementation

   If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.

3. Implementation · Input Validation

   For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.

OWASP Cheat Sheets

• Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
• Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
• Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)

OWASP ASVS 4.0.3

• V5.1.2 (opens in a new tab)

From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

1. Architecture and Design

   URL Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated and processed for authorization. Make sure that your application does not decode the same input twice.

OWASP ASVS 4.0.3

• V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
• V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
• V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)

From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

1. Implementation · Input Validation

   Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.

2. Architecture and Design

   For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…

3. Implementation · Input Validation

   Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).

OWASP Cheat Sheets

• Authorization (opens in a new tab)

OWASP ASVS 4.0.3

• V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)

Attack patterns

• Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
• Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
• Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
• Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
• Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)

From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

1. Implementation

   When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…

2. Implementation

   Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…

3. Implementation · Input Validation

   Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.

Attack patterns

• Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
• Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (opens in a new tab)

From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).