In our previous post, we saw how to detect and protect against Direct Poisoned Pipeline Execution (D-PPE). We also saw how to detect that vulnerability using Skener Xygeni, as well as some protection mechanisms.
Zastrupljeno Pipeline Izvedba (PPE) is produced when the attacker can modify the pipeline logic in either of two ways:
- By modifying the CI config file (the pipeline) -> Neposredna osebna varovalna oprema (D-OOP)
- By modifying files referenced by the pipeline (na primer: skripte, na katere se sklicuje znotraj pipeline configuration file) -> Posredna osebna varovalna oprema (I-OVO)
In this post, we will deep dive into Indirect PPE . But, before that, and as a complement to my previous post, let’s see first how GitHub manages the execution of pipelines and what are the protection mechanisms against D-PPE.
How does GitHub protect the execution of pipelines coming from PRs?
How does GitHub work regarding the execution of modified pipelines?
Spremenjeno pipelines can come from Pushes or Pull Requests (PR). As a major best practice, it’s strongly recommended to avoid any direct “push” to a protected branch and use Pull Requests as a mechanism to enforce some review before accepting any contributed code.
Pull Requests may arrive from two different sources:
- PRs coming from vilice
- PRs coming from veje
PRs from vilice can come either from javnega or zasebna skladišč.
As we are dealing with PPE (Poisoned Pipeline Execution), our main point is not the “acceptance” of a PR but the execution of a modified pipeline during the PR’s acceptance/approval process. At the core of a PPE attack, there is an unintended execution of a “malicious” modified pipeline.
Z nekaj besedami, zastrupljen Pipeline Izvedba (OZO) se izvede, ko napadalec lahko spremeni pipeline Logika.
Obstajata dve variante:
- Neposredna osebna varovalna oprema (D-OZO): V scenariju D-OZO, napadalec spremeni konfiguracijsko datoteko CI v repozitoriju, do katerega imajo dostop, bodisi tako, da spremembo potisnejo neposredno v nezaščiteno oddaljeno vejo v repozitoriju bodisi tako, da s spremembo iz veje ali razvejitve oddajo PR. Odkar je bila CI pipeline Izvajanje je definirano z ukazi v spremenjeni konfiguracijski datoteki CI, napadalčevi zlonamerni ukazi pa se na koncu zaženejo v vozlišču gradnje, ko je gradnja končana. pipeline se sproži.
- Posredna osebna varovalna oprema (I-OZO): V nekaterih primerih nasprotniku z dostopom do možnosti uporabe D-OZO ni na voljo SCM skladišče (npr. če pipeline je konfiguriran tako, da potegne konfiguracijsko datoteko CI iz ločene, zaščitene veje v istem repozitoriju). V takšnem primeru namesto zastrupitve pipeline sam napadalec v datoteke, na katere se sklicuje pipeline (na primer: skripte, na katere se sklicuje znotraj pipeline konfiguracijska datoteka)
V obeh primerih GitHub bo izvedel spremenjeno pipeline brez potrebe po predhodnem pregledu ali odobritvi.
PRs from forks on javnega repo
GitHub allows configuring the behaviour when processing PRs coming from forks in public repos.
When a PR is coming from a fork, GitHub always forces some level of “approval” before executing the pipeline associated with the PR. This level of approval trades off from a weak to a strict approval.
At Org level (Org>>Settings>>Actions>>General), you can decide among several “approval” options:
The strictest is the last one (“Require approval from all outside collaborators”) because GitHub will always require approval when the PR is coming from forks from outside collaborators.
But even in this strict case, there are differences between collaborators with read and write permissions.
- When the PR comes from a preberite uporabnik, izvedba pipeline is STOPPED until there is an approval of changes. If the approval is ok, then the modified pipeline se izvrši.
- When the PR comes from a pisati uporabnik, approval is not needed and the modified pipeline is always executed !!
As a conclusion, PRs coming from forks on public repositories are lightly protected against PPE. There is some protection against external (read) users, but nothing related to internal (write) users.
Kaj pa o PRs coming from forks from private repos?
PRs from forks on zasebna repo
In this scenario, GitHub provides some useful configuration settings.
Above settings can be configured either at orgle ali na repo Raven.
Kdaj no option is checked, GitHub will ask for approval in it will not execute the modified pipeline. This is the safest configuration!!
Naš unsafest configuration kdaj "Run workflows from fork pull request” is checked. In this case, same for both read and write users, Github will automatically execute the modified pipeline!! And this situation can be even slabše če "Pošlji žetone za pisanje v delovne tokove iz fork-a pull requests"In"Send secrets and variables to workflows from fork pull requests” are checked. Do not do this unless clearly justified!!
Če "Require approval for fork pull request delovnih tokov” is checked, the above situation is somewhat enhanced: GitHub will ask for approval and not execute the modified pipeline for the read user, but it will still execute it for a write user.
Forks seen, what about PRs coming from branches?
PRs from veje
To protect this scenario you must rely on Branch Protection Rules.
At repo level, you can create branch protection rules for any branch. These rules add some constraints to modification of protected branches.
Although you configure a rule to “Zahtevajte pull request pred združitvijo"In"Require approvals" the modified pipeline will be automatically executed upon PR creation.The “approval” will only apply to the merge action.
What about Indirect Poisoned Pipeline Izvedba
As we saw above, D-PPE can be mitigated by using cilj_povleka_zahteva, ampak to does not apply to I-PPE.
If you use pull_request_target, the default checkout will be the base code. But if you want to validate some checks on the contributed code (PR code) you need to explicitly checkout the PR code. Therefore, if the PR code has modified any shell script invoked by the pipeline, the “base” (safe) pipeline will invoke the “modified” shell script → Indirect PPE!!
The solution to this is a bit more complicated (there is not a magic bullet like pull_request_target).
naše pipeline is now safe to D-PPE because we are using pull_request_target. But it is still vulnerable to I-PPE.
In our test example, we need to checkout the PR code basically to make the build, but the tests are executed on the artifact generated by the build.
Torej ... why don’t check out both codebases?
- Checkout PR code because is the contributed code what we want to build and test
- Checkout Base code to run the original version of the pipeline and the build/tests scripts
This might be done by checking out those codebases to different folders: the base code might be checked out to the root folder, and the PR to a different folder. In this case we would execute the build and the test script from the root folder against the code placed into the new folder.
This is an easy solution, of course!! But, for learning purposes I would like to introduce a quite interesting variant (…)
GitHub potek_dela sprožilni dogodek
Poleg tega cilj_povleka_zahteva, GitHub provides another trigger event: potek_dela. This event allows execution of a pipeline conditioned to another pipeline’s execution.
potek_dela in cilj_povleka_zahteva triggers are similar in one aspect : both will be executed in privileged mode and, despite the PR modifications, the base pipeline will be executed !!
Let’s see our current pipeline:
name: PR TARGET CI on: pull_request_target: branches: [ main ] env: MY_SECRET: ${{ secrets.MY_SECRET }} jobs: prt_build_test_and_merge: runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: # checkout PR code - name: Checkout repository uses: actions/checkout@v4 with: # This is to get the PR code instead of the repo code ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} # Simulation of a compilation - name: Building ... run: | mkdir ./bin touch ./bin/mybin.exe ls -lR # Simulation of running tests - name: Running tests ... id : run_tests run: | echo Running tests.. chmod +x runtests.sh ./runtests.sh echo Tests executed. # # Let’s omit the check conditions at this moment … # - name: pr_check_conditions_to_merge [...]The build section is safe to D-PPE, but the test section is still vulnerable to I-PPE.
Naš pipeline itself is safe to D-PPE due to the cilj_povleka_zahteva trigger. But the test step is still vulnerable to I-PPE due to invoking an external shell script.
Avoiding I-PPE
The purpose of the above pipeline is to build and test the contributed code, being safe to PPE.
Torej ... Why don’t split the pipeline into two ? One for building and another for testing..
- 1. oz pipeline (Build CI) would checkout the PR code (to build it), make the build and generate an artifact.
- 2 pipeline (Test CI) would checkout the Base code (to avoid shell script modification) and execute the original scripts against the artifact.
- Sinhronizacija testnega CI-ja pipeline zagnati PO gradnji CI pipeline, we will use the potek_dela sprožilec.
In this way:
- pipeline Build CI is varna obema D-OZO (zaradi cilj_povleka_zahteva) in I-OZO (because it no longer executes the shell script).
- pipeline Test CI tudi varna obema D-OZO (zaradi potek_dela) in I-OZO (because it checkout the base code to get the original shell script)
Let’s see the code of both pipelines according to these modifications …
1. pipeline (Build CI):
name: Build CI on: pull_request_target: branches: [ main ] env: MY_SECRET: ${{ secrets.MY_SECRET }} GITHUB_PAT: ${{ secrets.GH_PAT }} jobs: prt_build_and_upload: runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - name: Checking out PR code uses: actions/checkout@v4 if: ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request_target' }} with: # This is to get the PR code instead of the repo code ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} - name: Building ... run: | mkdir ./bin touch ./bin/mybin.exe # Save some PR info for later use by the 2nd pipeline echo "${{github.event.pull_request.title}}" > ./bin/PR_TITLE.txt echo "${{github.event.number}}" > ./bin/PR_ID.txt # Upload the binary as a pipeline artifact - name: Archive building artifacts uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3 with: name: archive-bin path: | bin2. pipeline (Test CI):
ame: Test CI on: workflow_run: workflows: [ 'PR TARGET CI' ] types: [completed] env: MY_SECRET: ${{ secrets.MY_SECRET }} GITHUB_PAT: ${{ secrets.GH_PAT }} jobs: deploy: runs-on: ubuntu-latest if: ${{ github.event.workflow_run.conclusion == 'success' }} steps: # By default, checks out base code (not PR code) - name: Checkout repository uses: actions/checkout@v4 # Download the artifact - name: 'Download artifact' uses: actions/github-script@v6 with: script: | let allArtifacts = await github.rest.actions.listWorkflowRunArtifacts({ owner: context.repo.owner, repo: context.repo.repo, run_id: context.payload.workflow_run.id, }); let matchArtifact = allArtifacts.data.artifacts.filter((artifact) => { return artifact.name == "archive-bin" })[0]; let download = await github.rest.actions.downloadArtifact({ owner: context.repo.owner, repo: context.repo.repo, artifact_id: matchArtifact.id, archive_format: 'zip', }); let fs = require('fs'); fs.writeFileSync(`${process.env.GITHUB_WORKSPACE}/myartifact.zip`, Buffer.from(download.data)); # Unzip the artifact - name: 'Unzip artifact' run: | unzip -o myartifact.zip # Runs tests - name: Running tests ... id : run_tests run: | echo Running tests.. chmod +x runtests.sh ./runtests.sh echo Tests executed. # # Let’s omit the check conditions at this moment … # - name: pr_check_conditions_to_merge [...] Wow… nice solution!! But ….. Are we safe? I’m afraid that no 😭
Indeed, we have introduced a new vulnerability!! Which one? This will be the subject of our next post 🙂 … Stay tuned!!
PS: Sorry, I can’t keep quiet 🤐 ..Have you heard about Zastrupitev z artefakti ? 😂
