Cloud

1/17/2018
04:27 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Where to Find Security Holes in Serverless Architecture

Serverless architectures take away business responsibility for server management, but security should still be top of mind.

Application security is getting a twist with the rise of serverless architectures, which introduce a new way of developing and managing applications - and a new wave of related security risks.

Serverless architectures, also known as Function as a Service (FaaS), let businesses build and deploy software without maintaining physical or virtual servers. That's the job of providers like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and IBM, which run popular serverless architectures AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, Google Cloud Functions, and IBM BlueMix Cloud Functions, respectively.

A common use case for serverless applications is altering media files. If someone uploads a file to an AWS S3 bucket, an application can invoke a function to automatically resize the image. If someone sends an SMS in a chatbot application, a separate function could send a return SMS.

Businesses are looking to serverless architectures to drive simplicity and reduce cost. Applications built on these platforms scale as cloud workloads grow, so developers can focus on product functionality without worrying about the operating system, application server, or software runtime environment, explains Ory Segal, PureSec CTO.

"You can stitch together applications that are events-driven, and at the same time you don't have to manage any of the infrastructure - it automatically scales," says Segal. "If there's one event, one function will get evoked. If there's [more], then the provider is responsible for [supporting] as many functions as you need events."

Billing is based on CPU time, he says of the cost benefit. If there's no computing being done, the organization doesn't pay for anything. Vendors charge per 100 milliseconds of compute. "It's very simple to develop in serverless, it's very cheap to develop in serverless," he adds.

The Security Risks of Serverless

However simple and cost-effective, this architecture has its security issues. Serverless applications are still at risk for breaches and traditional security solutions are not relevant in this space, says Segal. Users hand over the responsibility of security patches to providers.

PureSec today published its "Serverless Architectures Security Top 10," a list of security risks in these services. Researchers compiled scans from more than 5,000 serverless projects on GitHub, serverless projects using algorithms created by PureSec, and partner data and insights.

"There's a big chunk of IT security that is now the responsibility of the cloud provider," he explains, adding that security admins can't install tools like antivirus, firewalls, and IDS. "You don't control the environment. You don't control the network, you don't control the servers."

Major security issues include a larger attack surface. Serverless functions pull data from a broad range of event sources (HTTP APIs, cloud storage, IoT device communications), which increases the attack surface when messages can't be scanned by Web application firewalls. Given the newness of serverless architecture, the attack surface can also be complex to understand.

PureSec's Top 10 list digs into specific risks. The first, and most critical, is Function Event-Data injection. Injection flaws are a common risk, but in serverless architecture they're not limited to direct user input. Serverless functions can take input from any type of event source (cloud storage, SQL database) and each input could be controlled by an attacker.

The second most-critical risk is Broken Authentication. Serverless applications can pack dozens to hundreds of different functions. Some may glue processes together; others may consume events of different source types. Applying robust authentication is necessary and complicated. Users must secure the serverless function and the applications with which it interacts.

"A weak authentication implementation might enable an attacker to bypass application logic and manipulate its flow," the report explains. This could let an attacker execute functions and perform actions that weren't supposed to be exposed to unauthenticated users. PureSec advises businesses to use the authentication tools provided by their serverless environment.

The growth of serverless architecture is introducing a "paradigm shift" in security, Segal says. "If we used to secure the infrastructure, the perimeter, the network, we now have to secure the serverless execution itself." Developers are responsible for designing robust applications and ensuring their code doesn't introduce any vulnerabilities to the application layer.

Related Content:

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Julian Assange Arrested in London
Dark Reading Staff 4/11/2019
8 'SOC-as-a-Service' Offerings
Steve Zurier, Freelance Writer,  4/12/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-1840
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-18
A vulnerability in the DHCPv6 input packet processor of Cisco Prime Network Registrar could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to restart the server and cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on the affected system. The vulnerability is due to incomplete user-supplied input validation when...
CVE-2019-1841
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-18
A vulnerability in the Software Image Management feature of Cisco DNA Center could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to access to internal services without additional authentication. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vuln...
CVE-2019-1826
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-18
A vulnerability in the quality of service (QoS) feature of Cisco Aironet Series Access Points (APs) could allow an authenticated, adjacent attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper input validation on QoS fields within Wi-Fi fra...
CVE-2019-1829
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-18
A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Aironet Series Access Points (APs) could allow an authenticated, local attacker to gain access to the underlying Linux operating system (OS) without the proper authentication. The attacker would need valid administrator device credentials. The vulnerability is due...
CVE-2019-1830
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-18
A vulnerability in Locally Significant Certificate (LSC) management for the Cisco Wireless LAN Controller (WLC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to cause the device to unexpectedly restart, which causes a denial of service (DoS) condition. The attacker would need to have valid administr...