Google Online Security Blog: July 2021

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20211129122102/https://security.googleblog.com/2021/07/

A new chapter for Google’s Vulnerability Reward Program

July 27, 2021

Posted by Jan Keller, Technical Program Manager, Google VRP

A little over 10 years ago, we launched our Vulnerability Rewards Program (VRP). Our goal was to establish a channel for security researchers to report bugs to Google and offer an efficient way for us to thank them for helping make Google, our users, and the Internet a safer place. To recap our progress on these goals, here is a snapshot of what VRP has accomplished with the community over the past 10 years:

Total bugs rewarded: 11,055
Number of rewarded researchers: 2,022
Representing 84 different countries
Total rewards: $29,357,516

To celebrate our anniversary and ensure the next 10 years are just as (or even more) successful and collaborative, we are excited to announce the launch of our new platform, bughunters.google.com.

This new site brings all of our VRPs (Google, Android, Abuse, Chrome and Play) closer together and provides a single intake form that makes it easier for bug hunters to submit issues. Other improvements you will notice include:

More opportunities for interaction and a bit of healthy competition through gamification, per-country leaderboards, awards/badges for certain bugs and more!
A more functional and aesthetically pleasing leaderboard. We know a lot of you are using your achievements in the VRP to find jobs (we’re hiring!) and we hope this acts as a useful resource.
A stronger emphasis on learning: Bug hunters can improve their skills through the content available in our new Bug Hunter University
Streamlined publication process: we know the value that knowledge sharing brings to our community. That’s why we want to make it easier for you to publish your bug reports.
Swag will now be supported for special occasions (we heard you loud and clear!)

We also want to take a moment to shine a light on some aspects of the VRP that are not yet well-known, such as:

Submitting patches to open-source software is eligible for a reward
We have rewards for research papers on the security of open source
Your open-source software might be eligible for a subsidy

When we launched our very first VRP, we had no idea how many valid vulnerabilities - if any - would be submitted on the first day. Everyone on the team put in their estimate, with predictions ranging from zero to 20. In the end, we actually received more than 25 reports, taking all of us by surprise.

Since its inception, the VRP program has not only grown significantly in terms of report volume, but the team of security engineers behind it has also expanded – including almost 20 bug hunters who reported vulnerabilities to us and ended up joining the Google VRP team.

That is why we are thrilled to bring you this new platform, continue to grow our community of bug hunters and support the skill development of up-and-coming vulnerability researchers.

Thanks again to the entire Google bug hunter community for making our vulnerability rewards program successful. As you continue to play around with the new site and reporting system, tell us about it - we would love to hear your feedback. Until next time, keep on finding those bugs!

Protecting more with Site Isolation

July 20, 2021

Posted by Charlie Reis and Alex Moshchuk, Chrome Security Team Chrome's Site Isolation is an essential security defense that makes it harder for malicious web sites to steal data from other web sites. On Windows, Mac, Linux, and Chrome OS, Site Isolation protects all web sites from each other, and also ensures they do not share processes with extensions, which are more highly privileged than web sites. As of Chrome 92, we will start extending this capability so that extensions can no longer share processes with each other. This provides an extra line of defense against malicious extensions, without removing any existing extension capabilities. Meanwhile, Site Isolation on Android currently focuses on protecting only high-value sites, to keep performance overheads low. Today, we are announcing two Site Isolation improvements that will protect more sites for our Android users. Starting in Chrome 92, Site Isolation will apply to sites where users log in via third-party providers, as well as sites that carry Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy headers. Our ongoing goal with Site Isolation for Android is to offer additional layers of security without adversely affecting the user experience for resource-constrained devices. Site Isolation for all sites continues to be too costly for most Android devices, so our strategy is to improve heuristics for prioritizing sites that benefit most from added protection. So far, Chrome has been isolating sites where users log in by entering a password. However, many sites allow users to authenticate on a third-party site (for example, sites that offer "Sign in with Google"), possibly without the user ever typing in a password. This is most commonly accomplished with the industry-standard OAuth protocol. Starting in Chrome 92, Site Isolation will recognize common OAuth interactions and protect sites relying on OAuth-based login, so that user data is safe however a user chooses to authenticate. Additionally, Chrome will now trigger Site Isolation based on the new Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy (COOP) response header. Supported since Chrome 83, this header allows operators of security-conscious websites to request a new browsing context group for certain HTML documents. This allows the document to better isolate itself from untrustworthy origins, by preventing attackers from referencing or manipulating the site's top-level window. It’s also one of the headers required to use powerful APIs such as SharedArrayBuffers. Starting in Chrome 92, Site Isolation will treat non-default values of the COOP header on any document as a signal that the document's underlying site may have sensitive data and will start isolating such sites. Thus, site operators who wish to ensure their sites are protected by Site Isolation on Android can do so by serving COOP headers on their sites. As before, Chrome stores newly isolated sites locally on the device and clears the list whenever users clear their browsing history or other site data. Additionally, Chrome places certain restrictions on sites isolated by COOP to keep the list focused on recently-used sites, prevent it from growing overly large, and protect it from misuse (e.g., by requiring user interaction on COOP sites before adding them to the list). We continue to require a minimum RAM threshold (currently 2GB) for these new Site Isolation modes. With these considerations in place, our data suggests that the new Site Isolation improvements do not noticeably impact Chrome's overall memory usage or performance, while protecting many additional sites with sensitive user data. Given these improvements in Site Isolation on Android, we have also decided to disable V8 runtime mitigations for Spectre on Android. These mitigations are less effective than Site Isolation and impose a performance cost. Disabling them brings Android on par with desktop platforms, where they have been turned off since Chrome 70. We advise that sites wanting to protect data from Spectre should consider serving COOP headers, which will in turn trigger Site Isolation. Users who desire the most complete protection for their Android devices may manually opt in to full Site Isolation via chrome://flags/#enable-site-per-process, which will isolate all websites but carry higher memory cost.

Advancing an inclusive, diverse security industry

July 20, 2021

Posted by Sarah Morales, Community Outreach Manager, Security Women in Cybersecurity (WiCyS)SANS InstituteSecurity Training Scholarship Program

112 people received training-based scholarship

15 Full Scholarship Recipients received the full course training, which includes:

CyberStart Game and SANS BootUp CTF
SANS SEC275 Foundations & Exam
SANS 401 Security Essentials Bootcamp and GSEC
Elective - SANS SEC504/GCIH, SEC488/GCLD, SEC560/GPEN, or SEC548/GWAPT

24 certifications earned to date with 100% pass rate, with average score on GSEC 90%

Since 2013, only 2 people have scored 99% on GIAC Certified Incident Handler (GCIH) one is a WiCyS Scholarship Recipient

1/3 of students were employed in direct information security roles before the program ended

100% of Full Scholarship Recipients intend to have long term careers in information security (15+ years)

WiCyS application page

Verifiable design in modern systems

July 15, 2021

Posted by Ryan Hurst, Production Security Team
verifiable data structuresMerkle TreesCertificate Transparencyintroduce transparency and accountabilitybreaking the webplatformGo Checksum DatabaseannouncedSigstoreenable hardware-enforced supply chain integrity for device firmwaretaxonomy and modeling framework transparency.dev

Measuring Security Risks in Open Source Software: Scorecards Launches V2

July 1, 2021

Posted by Kim Lewandowski, Azeem Shaikh, Laurent Simon, Google Open Source Security Team
Scorecards projectour launch last fall.Open Source Security FoundationScorecards v2
Identifying RisksKnow, Prevent, Fix frameworkMalicious contributors

Contributors with malicious intent or compromised accounts can introduce potential backdoors into code. Code reviews help mitigate against such attacks. With the new Branch-Protection check, developers can verify that the project enforces mandatory code review from another developer before code is committed. Currently, this check can only be run by a repository admin due to GitHub API limitations. For a third-party repository, use the less informative Code-Review check instead.

Vulnerable code

Despite best efforts by developers and peer reviews, vulnerable code can enter source control and remain undetected. That’s why it's important to enable continuous fuzzing and static code analysis to catch bugs early in the development lifecycle. We have added checks to detect if a project uses Fuzzing and SAST tools as part of their CI/CD system.

Build system compromise

A common CI/CD solution used by GitHub projects is GitHub Actions. A danger with these action workflows is that they may handle untrusted user input. Meaning, an attacker can craft a malicious pull request to gain access to the privileged GitHub token, and with it the ability to push malicious code to the repo without review. To mitigate this risk, Scorecard's Token-Permissions prevention check now verifies that the GitHub workflows follow the principle of least privilege by making GitHub tokens read-only by default.

Bad dependencies

Any software is as secure as its weakest dependency. This may sound obvious, but the first step to knowing our dependencies is simply to declare them... and have our dependencies declare them too. Once we have this provenance information, we can assess the risks of our software and mitigate those risks. Unfortunately, there are several widely-used anti-patterns that break this provenance principle. The first of these anti-patterns is checked-in binaries -- as there's no way to easily verify or check the contents of the binary in the project. Scorecards provides Binary-Artifacts check for testing this.

Another anti-pattern is the use of curl | bash in scripts which dynamically pulls dependencies. Cryptographic hashes let us pin our dependencies to a known value: if this value ever changes, the build system will detect it and refuse to build. Pinning dependencies is useful everywhere we have dependencies: not just during compilation, but also in Dockerfiles, CI/CD workflows, etc. Scorecards checks for these anti-patterns with the Frozen-Deps check. This check is helpful for mitigating against malicious dependency attacks such as the recent CodeCov attack.

Even with hash-pinning, hashes need to be updated once in a while when dependencies patch vulnerabilities. Tools like dependabot or renovatebot give us the opportunity to review and update the hashes. The Scorecards Automated-Dependency-Update check verifies that developers rely on such tools to update their dependencies.

It is important to know vulnerabilities in a project before uptaking it as a dependency. Scorecards can provide this information via the new Vulnerabilities check, without the need to subscribe to a vulnerability alert system.

Scaling the impact

To date, the Scorecards project has scaled up to evaluate security criteria for over 50,000 open source projects. In order to scale this project, we undertook a massive redesign of our architecture and used a PubSub model which achieved horizontal scalability and higher throughput. This fully automated tool periodically evaluates critical open source projects and exposes the Scorecards check information through a public BigQuery dataset which is refreshed weekly.

This data can be retrieved using the bq command line tool. The following example shows how to export data for the Kubernetes project. Substitute the url for the repo to export data from a different project:

$ bq query --nouse_legacy_sql 'SELECT Repo, Date, Checks FROM openssf.scorecardcron.scorecard_latest WHERE Repo="github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes"'

To export the latest data on all analyzed projects, see instructions here.

How does the internet measure up?

Scorecards data for available projects is now included in the recently announced Google Open Source Insights project and also showcased in OpenSSF Security Metrics project. The data on these sites shows that there are still important security gaps to fill, even in widely used packages like Kubernetes.

We also analyzed Scorecards data through Google Data Studio -- one of our data analysis and visualization tools.The diagram below shows a breakdown of the checks that were run and the pass/fail outcome for the 50,000 repositories:

As we can see, a lot needs to be done to improve the security of these critical projects. A large number of these projects are not continuously fuzzed, do not define a security policy for reporting vulnerabilities, and do not pin dependencies, to name just a few common problems. We all need to come together as an industry to drive awareness of these widespread security risks, and to make improvements that will benefit everyone.

Scorecards in Action

Several large projects have adopted Scorecards and are keeping us updated on their experiences with it. Below are some examples of Scorecards in action:

Envoy
Early on we talked about how the Envoy maintainers adopted Scorecards for their project and integrated it within their policy on introducing new dependencies. Since then, pull requests introducing new dependencies to Envoy must get approval from a dependency maintainer who uses Scorecards to evaluate the dependency against a set of criteria.

In addition, Envoy also got right to work in improving its own security health metrics according to its own Scorecards evaluation, and is now pinning C++ dependencies and requiring pip hashes for python dependencies. Github actions are also pinned in the continuous integration flow.

Previously, Envoy had created a tool that outputs Scorecards data on its dependencies as a CSV that can be used to generate a table of results:

Now with more project data, Envoy is able to automatically generate up-to-date Scorecard information about its dependencies and publish it in documentation, like the following:

Scorecards
We improved our own score for the Scorecards! For example, we are now pinning our own dependencies by hash (e.g. docker dependencies, workflow dependencies) to prevent CodeCov style attacks. We’ve also included a Security Policy based on this recommended template.

Get involved

We look forward to continuing to grow the Scorecards community. The project now has contributions from 23 developers. Thank you to Azeem, Naveen, Laurent, Asra and Chris for their work building these new features and scaling Scorecards.

If you would like to join the fun, check out these good first timer issues.

If you would like us to help you run Scorecards on specific projects, please submit a GitHub pull request to add those projects here.

Last but not least, we have a lot of ideas and many more checks we’d like to add, but we want to hear from you. Tell us which checks you would like to see in the next version of Scorecards.

What’s next?

There are a couple of big enhancements we’re especially excited about:

Scorecards Badges - GitHub badges to show off compliance
Integration with CI/CD and GitHub Code Scanning Results
Integration with Allstar project - GitHub App for enforcing security policies

Thanks again to the entire Scorecards community and the OpenSSF for making this project successful. If you’re adopting and improving the score of the projects you maintain, tell us about it. Until next time, keep on improving those scores!