Joint-assessment Outline

The joint-assessment is built on top of the self-assessment.md to collaboratively assess the current security state of a project.

The burden is primarily on the proposing project to demonstrate it is secure in a manner that is understandable to the broader community. The reviewers will help to assess and probe the design.

The proposing project must provide a written document that describes the project and its security. In the case of OpenFGA, there is structured information present in the Security-Insights page. The project self assessment has been completed.

Projects are encouraged to cross link additional supporting documents or details from their repo into the self-assessment.

Joint-assessment of OpenFGA

Table of Contents

Metadata

A table at the top for quick reference information, later used for indexing.

Assessment StageIncomplete
Softwarehttps://github.com/openfga
Security ProviderYes. OpenFGA is used to decide if a subject (user, application) user can perform a specific action on a resource or not.
LanguagesGo, Java, Javascript, Python, C#
SBOMThe Software Bill of Materials is not publicly available, but is included in each GitHub release using Syft, which is a CLI tool, and Go library for generating an SBOM from container images and file systems, since pull/683

These are link to existing security documentation for the project.

Docurl
Security PolicyOpenFGA Security Policy
Security InsightsOpenFGA Security Insights
Security risksOpenFGA Security risks

Overview

The overview sections are pulled from the self-assessment and updated.

Implementing access control is a very common requirement when developing applications, where different subjects can perform different actions on different resources.

OpenFGA is a high performance and flexible authorization/permission engine that can be used to implement fine grained access control in any application component.

Developers can use OpenFGA to easily craft authorization and permission methods based on the policies they require that are specific to their own projects. They can further use the API’s provided by the project to confirm users have the permissions required to access a given resource.

Background

OpenFGA is an authorization/permission engine that incorporates Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC) and Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) concepts with a domain-specific language that enables crafting authorizations solutions that can grow and evolve to any use case.

It’s inspired on the idea described in the Google Zanzibar paper .

Fine-Grained Authorization refers to individual users having access to specific objects and resources within a system. Google Drive is an example of this, as owners of resources can grant different users to have different levels of access to their resources.

OpenFGA makes helps developers make authorization decisions by combining two concepts:

  • An Authorization Model, where developers define their authorization policies

  • A set of relationship tuples that instantiate the model and OpenFGA uses to answer access control queries.

An authorization model looks like:

model
  schema 1.1

type user
type group
  relations
    define member: [user]
type folder
  relations
    define owner: [user]
    define parent: [folder]
    define viewer: [user, group#member] or owner or viewer from parent

type document
  relations
    define parent: [folder]
    define owner: [user]
    define viewer: [user, group#member] or owner or viewer from parent

Relationship tuples look like:

SubjectRelationObject
user:alicemembergroup:engineering
folder:rootparentdocument:readme
group#engineering:memberviewerfolder:root

With this information, OpenFGA can be queried in different ways:

  • Using the /check endpoint to ask questions like “Is user:alice a viewer for document:readme?”. With the data provided above, OpenFGA will return {allowed : "true"}, as Alice is a member of the engineering team, which has viewer access on the ‘readme’ document’s parent folder.

  • Using the /list-objects endpoint to ask questions like “What are all the documents for which user:alice is a viewer. With the data provided above, OpenFGA will return {object_ids { "document:readme" }

Goal

  • Simplify and standardize authorization processes, making them more consistent across various applications and systems.

  • Establish patterns and standards for externalized authorization.

  • Create architectural patterns, terminologies, and protocols that enable interoperability among different authorization systems.

  • Deliver an authorization service for any application component.

  • Enable centralized authorization decisions and permits diverse teams to implement authorization using a shared framework across various application components.

Non-goals

  • Tools for management of groups/roles/permissions not inherently provided to the end-users.

  • Does not intend to serve as a comprehensive data repository for non-authorization related data.

  • Does not aim to provide a complete authentication and Access Control Solution.

Joint-assessment use

The joint-assessment is initially created by the project team and then collaboratively developed with the security reviewers as part of the project’s TAG-Security Security Assessment (TSSA) Process. Information about the TAG-Security Review can be found in the CNCF TAG-Security Review Process Guide .

This document does not intend to provide a security audit of OpenFGA and is not intended to be used in lieu of a security audit. This document provides users of the project with a security focused understanding of OpenFGA and when taken with the self-assessment provide the community with the TAG-Security Review of the project. Both of these documents may be used and referenced as part of a security audit.

OpenFGA is a project that provides a security service and as such, any defect in the project may be a security issue. This document does not look to enumerate all the possible quality issues (e.g. undetected circular references in model definitions) that could lead to security issues for users of OpenFGA.

Taken together, this document and the self-assessment serve as a cornerstone for if and when OpenFGA seeks graduation and is preparing for a security audit.

Intended Use

  • Target Users and Use Cases. The key users of this project are users who define authorization models, application developers that integrate the API into their application for externalizing authorization and operators.

    OpenFGA can be used in any environment and has helm charts defined for install on a Kubernetes platform.

    1. OpenFGA is used by applications to externalize authorization decisions
    2. The project implements the Google Zanzibar paper paper for effective, performant authorization
    3. Administrators can program authorization models into the system for use by application teams
  • Operation. OpenFGA supports both MySQL and Postgres as its datastore.

Project Design

  • Design. OpenFGA provides rich documentation around its core concepts and usage of the project. Some project decisions are documented under the rfcs repository , however, this does not have a comprehensive list of all project decisions.

Functions and features

The list below describes the functionality provided by OpenFGA. This assessment did not segregate these into critical and other levels but focused on the server component as a priority.

actions:
  system.users:
    - Request access to [system.resources] through [openfga.clients|system.applications]

  system.developers:
    - Integrate [openfga.sdks] in [openfga.clients|system.applications]
    - Validate and verify semantically [openfga.authz_models]

  system.operators:
    - Migrate [openfga.datastore]
    - Deploy [openfga.server]

  system.external.idp:
    - Provide [jwks_uri] through oidc /.well-known/openid-configuration
    - Sign [token] with [rs256] algorithm

  openfga.language:
    - Provide a domain specific language to describe authorization policies
    - Describe the authorization model with [types], [relations] and [conditions]

  openfga.datastore:
    - Store authorization models [openfga.authz_models]
    - Store authorization data [openfga.relationships.tuples]
    - Support for [MySQL, Postgres] database

  openfga.clients|system.applications:
    - Authenticate against [openfga.server] with [openfga.psk] secret or through [external.idp]
    - Execute authorization checks with [openfga.relationships.queries]
    - Manage the authorization model [openfga.authz_models]

  openfga.server:
    - Write authorization model [openfga.authz_models] to [openfga.datastore]
    - Write authorization data [openfga.relationships.tuples] to [openfga.datastore]
    - Provide [grpc|http] messaging protocol
    - Authenticate trusted [openfga.clients] with 3 options [none|psk|oidc]
    - Validate and verify [payload]
    - Evaluate access control decisions [openfga.relationships.queries]

  openfga.server.api:
    stores:
      - list
      - create
      - get
      - delete
      - assertions.read
      - assertions.upsert
    authz-models:
      - list
      - create
      - get
    relationships.tuples:
      - read
      - write
      - delete
      - list.changes
    relationships.queries:
      - check
      - expand
      - list-objects
      - streamed-list-objects
      - list-users

Security functions and features

OpenFGA, being an Open-Source project, allows for a more robust security implementation by following the Principle of Open Design.

OpenFGA models authorization systems by providing the security features such as Role-based Access Control and Attribute-based Access Control.

OpenFGA boasts exceptional speed in processing secure authorization check call. This swift authorization mechanism not only enhances efficiency but also reinforces the security posture, assuring robust protection for applications and platforms for diverse scales.

OpenFGA provides a wide variety of SDK’s, as well as easy integration for new SDK’s. This reduces the chance of critical vulnerabilities due to compatibility issues.

Configuration and Set-Up

  • Default. The default configuration of the project is described under the getting started section of the documentation.

  • Secure. The recommended production configuration of the project is described under a separate part of the documentation.

Project Compliance

There are no specific security standards or sub-sections the project is documented as meeting (e.g. NIST 800-53, HiTrust, etc.).

Existing Audits

A self-assessment has been performed but there are no project audits currently for OpenFGA.

Security Analysis

Attacker Motivations

OpenFGA is an authorization/ permission engine that secures sensitive information including users of the systems referenced by the permission model as well as permissions and access levels for each. Attackers may have multiple motivations including:

  • Exfiltrating data from the service
  • Tampering with data to assign or elevate permissions
  • Studying the data to understand the technology landscape
  • Denial of service by rendering OpenFGA unable to respond to auth requests

Predisposing Conditions

There are multiple potential configurations of the project that could be exploited, this includes permissive settings for API tokens and other secrets, running the server in elevated/ privileged mode, exposing vulnerable endpoints accessible to an attacker and exfiltration of secret tokens from interfacing applications and CLI.

In addition vulnerabilities may be discovered in the server and other components that can be exploited by an attacker.

Expected Attacker Capabilities

While the attacker is not expected to possess the capability to break well-known encryption standards such as SHA256, they will have sufficient capabilities and motivation to use well-known tools and techniques for their work. Attackers are not just assumed to be external to the company but may also be persistent threats within the company network that are looking to gain a foothold for further exploits. The latter scenarios assume that the attacker has breached several layers of defense and has direct access to OpenFGA components and endpoints to further their position within the company perimeter.

Attack Risks and Effects

While not storing PII (as per project recommendations), OpenFGA does have sensitive information pertaining to the technology landscape and permissions within the organization. This data could be used by attackers to better understand the landscape and also perform more destructive actions such as escalating their permissions and locking out users from system access. In a microservices environment, data tampering may lead to subtle issues within the stack that are difficult to debug and may degrade customer experience and tie up technology teams in troubleshooting.

Security Degradation

A complete compromise of the OpenFGA server in production would lead to ripple effects throughout the organizations. Attackers could assign themselves arbitraty permissions to sensitive systems and also lock out legitimate users. This could lead to effects from a denial of service and degradation of customer experience to exfiltration of critical data from sensitive systems. OpenFGA deals directly with authorization and is a critical part of any organization, as such, compromising this system could have catastrophic consequences to the organization.

Compensating Mechanisms

Compensating mechanisms are covered in detail in the Threat Model section. These cover steps such as architecture changes for a more fine-grained permissions system, hardening the default deployment instructions, changes to user documentation and changes in functionality to address common exploits.

Threat Model

Threat modelling was done using MITRE Att&ck. Findings are listed below along with the Att&ck technique associated with the finding. The findings are categorized into logical sections. The values for the Impact and Likelihood ratings can be High, Med or Low.

Opportunities for improvement identified include:

  • Implement FGA for server API
  • Relook at user-defined API tokens as an authentication mechanism for API
  • Make all installation scripts “secure by default”
  • Validate best practices such as using strong API token and avoiding PII
  • Look at SPIFFE/ Spire integration as an option for OpenFGA server

Further opportunities for improvement are listed under the Secure Development section.

Methods of authentication for server API

Access to OpenFGA API is via oauth or pre-determined API tokens. Pre-shared tokens present several weak points that result in the findings below.

The project recommends oauth for secure authentication to the API. The recommendation is to mark shared API tokens as a relatively insecure method of authentication and that his be avoided in a production environment. This recommendation can be updated both in the documentation as well as a WARNING can be emmitted in the logs when authentication via shared API tokens is enabled.

The recommendation to enable Fine Grained Authorization for the API is being implemented under a project issue . This risk is currently being mitigated by OpenFGA users by proxying requests and performing authorization on the proxy.

SummaryFixed API access tokens are susceptible to brute force attacks.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessHaving a fixed set of API tokens with no set TTL to rotate allows attackers to brute-force user created API tokens.
MITRE classificationTA0006: Credential Access -> T1110: Brute Force
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationSupport for rotation may mitigate the impact. Also, is this to be disabled in production? Also, can there be a minimal requirement for length and entropy that the server checks for API tokens?
SPIFFE/ Spire integration may offer a much high level of security
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Med
SummaryAuthenticating with shared keys allows keys to be added to the list.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessShared API keys are open to manipulation and bruteforcing since they are fixed keys.
MITRE classificationTA0003: Persistence -> T1136: Create Account
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationBeing able to manipulate keys in the container requires access to container. However, impact will be high as openfga access will allow attackers to assign themselves arbitrary privileges.
Mitigations include, the ability to rotate keys on a frequent basis and forcing these API tokens to be mounted as files (can be permission controlled) instead of environment variables.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryThe openfga API endpoint does not support fga, so admins can modify models they may not own.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessBroad permissions allow an admin to modify any model, not just ones that they own.
MITRE classificationTA0042: Resource Development -> T1585: Establish Accounts
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationCan the API endpoint for openfga server support more fine grained permissions so that only owners of stores/ models can modify them? Permissions can be set at a module level.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryWhen authenticating using pre-shared keys, these are exposed in container env vars.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessEnv vars are accessible to anyone with access to the container. There cannot be further permissions set on these like files. Keys further give access to stores and models.
MITRE classificationTA0001: Initial Access -> T1078: Valid Accounts
TA0003: Persistence -> T1078: Valid Accounts
TA0004: Privilege Escalation -> T1078: Valid Accounts
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationSecrets mounted in filesystem can be restricted with permissions, however, may not offer a significantly higher level of security.
SPIFFE/ Spire integration may offer a much high level of security.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low

Setting secure defaults for install

This section has findings related to default install options that can be made more secure. The artifacts analysed in this section include the helm chart for installation and default configuration options.

SummaryOpen playground link - clients can access the playground (enabled by default) without authorization and access openfga models.
Discovered in self-assessment?Yes
WeaknessUnauthorized access to openfga data. Ability to both view and manipulate data.
MITRE classificationTA0043: Reconnaissance -> T1595: Active Scanning
TA0001: Initial Access -> T1189: Drive-by Compromise
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationAlready bring addresed by project team - https://github.com/openfga/roadmap/issues/7 .
Documentation is clear to disable playground for prod deployments.
When enabled, the playground can be accessed only from localhost. Thus, the attacker must have access to the host where the server is running.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryHelm chart runs containers with higher privilege by default.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessUnauthorized access to openfga data. Ability to both view and manipulate data.
MITRE classificationTA0002: Execution -> T1203: Exploitation for Client Execution
TA0003: Persistence -> T1098: Account Manipulation
TA0004: Privilege Escalation -> T1548: Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism
TA0004: Privilege Escalation -> T1134: Access Token Manipulation
TA0004: Privilege Escalation -> T1098: Account Manipulation
TA0004: Privilege Escalation -> T1611: Escape to Host
TA0005: Defense Evasion -> T1548: Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism
TA0005: Defense Evasion -> T1134: Access Token Manipulation
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationCould the defaults for all install scripts be set to run the openfga server with limited permissions?
In the case of helm chart, this would achieve:
  1. Not running server as root
  2. Not allowing privilege escalation
  3. Not allowing access to system calls unless required
  4. Setting filesystem to readonly
  5. Limiting access to mounted filesystems

This would greatly reduce the attack surface area.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryAn external dependency to groundnuty/k8s-wait-for is pinned using tag.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessSource tags can be overwritten in case of a supply chain attack and a compromised image may be pulled down. The risk is greater in the case of external, third party dependencies not under the projects control.
MITRE classificationTA0001: Initial Access -> T1195: Supply Chain Compromise
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationPin the dependency using SHA tag for the container image.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)Low
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low

Other findings

This section has other findings that could not be classified in earlier parts. It includes exploits such as server DDOS and potential leakage of information about application landscape.

SummaryPlayground link as well as shape of API identifies the openfga server.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessAn attacker performing reconnaissance will be able to identify if a service is the openfga server, a high-value target.
MITRE classificationTA0043: Reconnaissance -> T1592: Gather Victim Host Information
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationNot sure if there is a remediation, given it’s the case for any API server that endpoints will return a 403 rather than 404 for unauthenticated access. An attacker iterating through the expected shape of the API will be able to identify an openfga server.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)Low
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryUsage of PII as part of Tuples.
Discovered in self-assessment?Yes
WeaknessPII can be exfiltrated if present as a part of the Tuples.
MITRE classificationTA0042: Resource Development -> T1586: Compromise Accounts
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationSpecifically called out in documentation that PII is not to be used as a part of tuples but not enforced.
Also, many sites will use email ID as primary login, documentation may need to address how to handle this situation.
A change to detect PII such as email ID’s as part of relationships/ tuples and warn the user may tackle this finding at a code level.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)Med
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryTurning off audit logs will let an attacker mask operations on the server.
Discovered in self-assessment?No
WeaknessAllowing audit logs to be turned off completely via configuration would allow attackers to mask their trail.
MITRE classificationTA0005: Defense Evasion -> T1562: Impair Defenses
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationA possible mitigation is to log a warning message when logs are completely turned off?
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)Med
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low
SummaryDDOS attack on openfga server would impact overall application landscape.
Discovered in self-assessment?Yes
WeaknessA DDOS attack on the server endpoint is not handled by the server and will result in widespread impact on all dependent applications.
MITRE classificationTA0005: Defense Evasion -> T1562: Impair Defenses
Actorsopenfga.server
Suggested MitigationDocumentation can be created for production configuration using an API Gateway/ other DDOS prevention mechanism.
The likelihood is rated low as OpenFGA is designed to be run within an intranet environment and not exposed to public internet.
Impact (High/ Med/ Low)High
Likelihood (High/ Med/ Low)Low

Security Hygiene and Secure Development Practices

This section addresses questions related to project-level security decisions.

Opportunities for improvement include:

  • Multi-organizational ownership of security reporting
  • A roadmap that demonstrates a strong consideration for security features
  • Public documentation of the project’s release versioning policy
  • Easily understandable release process

Release and Update Process

Release Documentation

AspectStatus
Easily understandable release processGitHub Actions Workflow release.yml is used for GitHub releases. Action fails but release succeeds.
Release versioning policyReportedly in progress.

Provenance Artifacts

Artifacts included with each release:

  • Checksums
  • Checksum.sig/pem
  • in-toto

User Instructions for Validating Artifact Signatures

AspectStatus
Clear instructions are providedYes
Instructions are maintained independently from the release process.OpenFGA Provenance Implementation

Reporting Security Incidents

Security Reporting Method

AspectStatus
Documentation LocationProject’s Security tab
Emailsecurity@openfga.dev
SLA5-day
Visibility Test Response2 minutes

Security Reporting Ownership

AspectStatus
Bus-ProofingChecked by at least 2 users, available to more
Layoff-ProofingNot implemented; core maintainers are all currently from Okta

Reducing Vulnerabilities Through Development

AspectDetails
Secure Development PracticesOptional secure development training is provided by Okta.
Code Quality and TestingCodeQL is used on every pull request. The team is confident in the test coverage.
Binary ManagementCLOMonitor check passes, and the team is aware of the dangers of allowing binaries in the project.
OpenSSF ScorecardBadge present. Score is 9.3, well above the average of 4.
OpenSSF Best PracticesBadge present. Passing grade.
CLOMonitor100% security score.

Dependency Management

AspectStatus
Lifecycle PolicyDependency Lifecycle Policy
SCA Checks- Semgrep Workflow
- Pull Request Workflow
- Dependabot
SCA Findings Review ProcessRecommendations from Dependabot, Snyk, etc., are reviewed during a weekly meeting

Security Champions

The following maintainers take a special interest in project security:

  • Louis Jette
  • Maria Ines Parnisari

Roadmapped Security Improvements

  • Increase OpenSSF Best Practices badge level.
  • Implement a singleflight CheckResolver to avoid concurrent evaluation of overlapping subproblems. #1301

Security Issue Resolution

Responsible Disclosure

OpenFGA vulnerability management is described in the official project security documentation SECURITY.md .

Incident Response

The OpenFGA maintainers bear the responsibility of monitoring and addressing reported vulnerabilities. Identified issues undergo prioritized triage, with immediate escalation upon confirmation. The triage process is conducted in private channels.

Adhering to the GitHub security advisory process, OpenFGA initiates the CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) request upon issue identification. The resolution is developed in a private branch associated with the CVE.

Upon confirmation of the fix’s effectiveness, it is released through a new patch for each major supported version of OpenFGA.

The changelog will link to the CVE, which will describe the vulnerability and its mitigation. Any public announcements sent for these fixes will be linked to the release notes .

All OpenFGA security issues can be found on the Github advisories page .

Closed security issues and vulnerabilities

At the time of the joint assessment, OpenFGA listed closed issues under the security tab of the OpenFGA repo.

Hands-on assessment

The hands-on assessment is a lightweight review of the project’s internal security as well as the current recommendation configuration, deployment, and interaction with regard to security. Hands-on assessments are subject to security reviewer availability and expertise. They are not intended to serve as an audit or formal assessment and are no guarantee of the actual security of the project.

OpenFGA did not receive a hands-assessment from TAG-Security.

Roadmap

  • Project Next Steps. The team has created a project under the OpenFGA organization to track remediations for the findings from this joint assessment. The required fixes are being undertaken by the project team.
  • CNCF Requests. In the initial draft, please include whatever you believe the CNCF could assist with that would increase security of the ecosystem.

Appendix

  • Known Issues Over Time. Past issues that have been publicly reported are listed under security issues tab in the repository. This is not a comprehensive list of all security issues.

Case Studies

The list of projects that utilize OpenFGA include Okta FGA, Twintag, Mapped, Procure Ai,Canonical (Juju & LFX), Wolt, Italarchivi, Read AI, Virtool, Configu, Fianu Labs, and ExcID.

The list of related projects is available as a community resource