Skip to main content

AWS Lambda security risks

And here is the list of top Lambda security risks:

1. Function event data injection: Injection flaws in applications are one of the most common risks and can be triggered not only through untrusted input such as through a web API call but due to the potential attack surface of serverless architecture, can also come from cloud storage events, NoSQL databases, code changes, message queue events and IoT telemetry signals, among others.



2. Broken authentication: Applications built for serverless architectures often contain dozens -- or even hundreds -- of serverless functions, each with a specific purpose.

These functions connect together to form overall system logic, but some of these functions may expose public web APIs, others may consume events from different source types, and others may have coding issues ripe for exploit and attacks, which lead to unauthorized authentication.

3. Insecure serverless deployment configuration: The security firm found that incorrect settings and the misconfiguration of cloud services are a common theme. This, in turn, can provide an entry point for attacks against serverless architectures, the leak of sensitive, confidential information, and potentially Man-in-The-Middle (MiTM) attacks.

4. Over-privileged function permissions and roles: Serverless applications -- and enterprise systems as a whole -- should follow the principle of "least privilege."


5. Inadequate function monitoring and logging: The reconnaissance phase of an attack, where threat actors attempt to gain intel on a network's defenses and weaknesses, is also a crucial point for cybersecurity solutions to detect suspicious behavior and shut it down.


6. Insecure third-party dependencies: When serverless functions rely on third-party software, such as open-source packages and libraries, if vulnerabilities are present, these can pave the way for exploit.

7. Insecure application secrets storage: Many apps require "secret" information to be encrypted and stored, such as API keys, passwords, configuration settings, and database credentials.


8. DDoS attacks, resources stretched to the limit: According to the study, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks pose a serious risk to serverless architecture as there may be memory allocation, duration per function, and execution limits.


9. Serverless function execution flow manipulation: Attackers may be able to subvert application logic by tampering with application flows, leading to access control bypass, privilege escalation or denial-of-service attacks.


10. Improper exception handling and verbose error messages: Line-by-line debugging services for serverless architecture are often rather limited. As a result, some developers adopt verbose error messages, enable debugging after the fact, and they may forget to clean the code when it is moved to production.
Reference: OWASP/ PurSec

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

File Upload through Null Byte Injection

Sometimes, during file upload we come across situation wherein there would be check on the file extension at the client side as well as server side too. If the application does allow only .jpeg extension to be uploaded, the client side java script checks for the extension of the file before passing the request. We all know that how easily this can be defeated. Some applications, checks for the extension at the server side also. That's not easy to bypass. However there are some ways with which it still can be bypassed. Most of server side scripts are written in high level languages such as Php, Java etc who still use some C/C++ libraries to read the file name and contents. That leads to the problem. In C/C++ a line ends with /00 or which is called Null Byte. So whenever the interpreter sees a null byte at the end of the a string, it stops reading thinking it has reached at the end of the string. This can be used for the bypass. It works for many servers, specially php servers. T...

'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' dropped

From Owasp Top 10 2010 List, the issue 'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' has been dropped. But it's not the final list,its child release actually. Bu I feel it shouldn't be set aside because its still the one of the prevalent issues these days. That's why I mailed to Dave Wicher: Hi Dave, Excellent work, Congrats! Just one little query- Don't you think that Information Leakage & Improper Error Handling still deserves to be in Top 10? Dave replied: This topic is clearly a very prevalent issue that deserves attention by most organizations. However, the typical impact of such a flaw is usually very low. Therefore, the overall risk of this type of flaw is lower than the other items in the top 10, which is why it was replaced in this update with one of the 2 new items. Regarding dropping Info Leak/Error handling - It is incredibly prevalent, no question. But their impact is typically very low, so the overall risk is low, which is why it fell out of t...

jtool - an alternative to otool

jtool comes with a capability of running on Linux environment. Some ipa scanning tools are created to run on Linux environment where mac environment is not available. In such cases tools such as otool and class-dump-z will not work. So jtool can be an alternative to otool. For more information on jtool please refer to http://www.newosxbook.com/tools/jtool.html . It lists down various commands which have same output as otool or a equivalent. There are several commands mentioned in link. But for our customized requirements and basis checks I have listed down the below ones after running on many binaries. The outputs are similar or equivalent to otool and class-dump-z: Commands for checking PIE flag (ASLR) in jTool jtool -d -v -arch | grep stack ·           Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) protection: jtool -d -v -arch | grep _objc_release ·           To check if the devic...