Interpreting alerts from scanner tools

Interpreting alerts from scanner tools

Interpreting alerts from container and software composition analysis (SCA) tools involves reviewing reports that typically include various security vulnerabilities, license risks, compliance issues, and information about outdated libraries. While these alerts are vital for maintaining a secure and compliant software development process, interpreting them correctly is crucial to avoid unnecessary disruptions and ensure a pragmatic approach to security.

Here’s a breakdown of how to interpret alerts from scanner tools and the aspects you need to keep in mind while analyzing them.

1. Types of Alerts in Reports

Scanner tools generate alerts that cover several key areas. Here’s what each of them typically entails:

A. Security Vulnerabilities

These alerts indicate known security weaknesses in the container images, application dependencies, or infrastructure. These are typically sourced from databases like Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), OWASP, and others.

Severity Levels:

1. Critical:

Often indicates an exploit that can lead to significant data breaches or unauthorized access. These require immediate remediation.

2. High:

Vulnerabilities that could be exploited under certain conditions. They should be prioritized but might not always lead to immediate compromises.

3. Medium/Low:

Issues that have a lower likelihood of being exploited, but should still be addressed over time.

Interpretation:

1. Exploitability:

Assess how easily the vulnerability can be exploited. For example, does the vulnerability require user interaction or is it remotely exploitable?

2. Impact:

Determine what happens if the vulnerability is exploited. Does it expose sensitive data or allow code execution? What’s the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA)?

B. License Risks and Compliance

License-related alerts arise from the usage of open-source libraries with incompatible or undesirable licenses.

Types of License Risks:

1. Prohibited Licenses:

Licenses that may violate your organization's open-source usage policy (e.g., GPL, AGPL).

2. Incompatible Licenses:

Licenses that conflict with your existing licenses (e.g., using a GPL-licensed library in a proprietary software product).

Interpretation:

1. Policy Violations:

Check whether the licenses in use violate your organization’s software policy. If so, remediation might involve replacing the offending libraries or negotiating with the authors.

2. License Compatibility:

Evaluate whether the license of a new library fits within the existing legal framework of your project or product.

C. Outdated Libraries

Outdated libraries refer to dependencies that have not been updated to the latest, most secure version. These may contain vulnerabilities that have been patched in newer versions.

Interpretation:

1. Security Patches:

If a library is outdated, check if it has known vulnerabilities that have been addressed in newer versions.

2. Feature Enhancements:

In some cases, newer versions might provide critical functionality improvements or security hardening.

3. Compatibility:

Sometimes, upgrading libraries may cause compatibility issues with other parts of the application. It’s crucial to verify that the upgrade does not break functionality.

2. Aspects to Keep in Mind While Interpreting Alerts

When analyzing the alerts from container scanning and SCA tools, it’s essential to consider several factors to ensure that the process is efficient, accurate, and aligned with your security and development goals.

A. False Positives

False positives are alerts where the scanner incorrectly identifies an issue that doesn’t actually exist, which can waste time and lead to unnecessary actions.

Minimizing False Positives:

1. Contextual Analysis:

Investigate whether the vulnerability is relevant to your specific application context. For example, a vulnerability in a dependency that is not actually used in your build can likely be ignored.

2. Custom Rules and Configuration:

Many scanning tools allow the customization of rules to tailor the scan to your specific use case and reduce irrelevant alerts.

3. Historical Data:

Cross-reference with previous scans to see if similar vulnerabilities have been addressed in the past.

Dealing with False Positives:

1. Ignore or Exclude:

If you are confident that the alert does not pose a real threat, you can configure the scanner to ignore or exclude it in future scans.

2. Report & Validate:

Document why certain alerts were dismissed, ensuring that the decision is well-understood by the security and development teams. Validation can involve a manual review or consulting with security experts.

B. Security Bug Bar

The "security bug bar" refers to the threshold of risk at which a vulnerability is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Setting this bar helps prioritize which issues require immediate remediation versus those that can be addressed later.

Establishing a Security Bug Bar:

1. Severity Thresholds:

Critical and high-severity vulnerabilities should always be addressed immediately, while medium and low-severity vulnerabilities can be reviewed periodically or addressed according to business priorities.

2. Business Impact:

Align the bug bar with business risk. For example, vulnerabilities that affect data privacy in a customer-facing product may require faster action than vulnerabilities in an internal tool.

3. Legal Compliance:

Some vulnerabilities or license risks might be mandated by law to be resolved quickly. For example, vulnerabilities related to PCI-DSS, GDPR, or HIPAA compliance must be addressed as soon as possible.

Balancing Priorities:

1. Threat Intelligence:

Consider external threat intelligence and exploitability of vulnerabilities. A low-severity issue may be urgent if it’s actively being exploited in the wild.

2. Business Deadlines:

Consider business timelines and feature priorities. While security is important, sometimes temporary mitigating measures (e.g., using a patched version later) may be more feasible than an immediate fix.

C. Contextual Relevance of Vulnerabilities

Not all vulnerabilities are equally relevant for every project. It's important to understand the context of your application and the technology stack.

In Use or Not?:

If a library or container image contains vulnerabilities but is not used in your application, it might not require immediate attention.

Runtime Threats vs. Build Time Vulnerabilities:

Vulnerabilities identified during build time (in images or code) are usually more pressing. Run-time threats can often be mitigated by runtime protections like Microsoft Defender for Containers.

D. Patch Management and Upgrade Cycles

Managing vulnerabilities often involves updating or replacing outdated libraries or container images with newer versions.

Consider the following:

1. Regular Updates:

Integrate automatic dependency and container image scans in your CI/CD pipeline. This ensures that outdated libraries or images are identified early in the development lifecycle.

2. Vendor Support:

Make sure that your third-party libraries and container images are actively maintained. If a library is deprecated and no longer supported, consider replacing it with an actively maintained alternative.

3. Test Compatibility:

Before applying updates, test the impact of new library versions on the functionality and performance of your application.

E. Compliance with Security Standards and Regulations

Some vulnerabilities and license risks may have broader implications beyond immediate security concerns. They could affect regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA) or internal security policies (e.g., corporate policies regarding open-source software usage).

1. Audit and Reporting:

If the application is subject to specific regulatory or security frameworks, ensure that scanning reports align with the requirements of that framework. Tools like SonarQube, Snyk, and WhiteSource Bolt often integrate compliance checks into their scanning reports.

2. Risk Mitigation:

If a vulnerability violates compliance standards, it must be remediated according to the regulatory requirements, sometimes involving full documentation and reporting of the fix.

3. Best Practices for Handling Alerts

1. Prioritize Based on Risk:

Use a risk-based approach to prioritize vulnerabilities. Fix critical vulnerabilities that are easy to exploit first, and plan for remediating lower-priority issues in later stages.

2. Integrate Security into CI/CD:

Automate the process of scanning for vulnerabilities and license risks in your CI/CD pipeline to detect and address issues early in the development cycle.

3. Use Automated Quality Gates:

Set up automated quality gates in your pipelines that prevent code from being merged or deployed if vulnerabilities or non-compliant licenses are detected.

4. Document and Track:

Maintain detailed records of vulnerabilities that were deemed false positives, deferred, or resolved, so you can ensure transparency and accountability.

5. Periodic Reassessments:

Regularly rescan and reassess dependencies and container images, as vulnerabilities and new compliance requirements evolve.

4. Summary

Interpreting alerts from container scanning tools, vulnerability scanners, and license compliance tools requires a balanced, context-aware approach.

It’s important to understand the severity, impact, and context of each alert to ensure efficient and effective remediation. While addressing false positives, maintaining a security bug bar, and considering patch management and compliance requirements are crucial to keep your development flow uninterrupted, it’s also key to understand that some vulnerabilities may be more relevant in specific scenarios, and should be prioritized accordingly.

By carefully managing how alerts are processed and acted upon, you can minimize risk while optimizing the time and resources spent on addressing vulnerabilities and compliance issues.