Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Guarddog integration #2499

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

hugo-glez
Copy link

adding GuardDog CI closes #2483

Description

GuardDog tool was added to the Docker of malware_tools_analyzers, because the requirement of python 3.10, libraries for thug were also updated. The decision to use docker instead of directly integration is because is the only way to support Windows.

[Guarddog] (https://github.com/DataDog/guarddog/tree/main) scans for libraries in the ecosystem to detect suspicious or malicious content

It supports pypi, npm and go modules. It can scan a binary file with the package or from the name retrieve from the repository and perform the scan. In total six new scanners were added.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • [ x] New feature. The use of guarddog scaner for files and observables.

Checklist

  • [x ] I have read and understood the rules about how to Contribute to this project
  • [x ] The pull request is for the branch develop
  • [ x] A new plugin guarddog scaner (analyzer, connector, visualizer, playbook, pivot or ingestor) was added or changed, in which case:
    • [x ] I strictly followed the documentation "How to create a Plugin"
    • Usage file was updated.
    • Advanced-Usage was updated (in case the plugin provides additional optional configuration).
    • [ x] I have dumped the configuration from Django Admin using the dumpplugin command and added it in the project as a data migration. ("How to share a plugin with the community")
    • If a File analyzer was added and it supports a mimetype which is not already supported, you added a sample of that type inside the archive test_files.zip and you added the default tests for that mimetype in test_classes.py.
    • If you created a new analyzer and it is free (does not require any API key), please add it in the FREE_TO_USE_ANALYZERS playbook by following this guide.
    • Check if it could make sense to add that analyzer/connector to other freely available playbooks.
    • [ x] I have provided the resulting raw JSON of a finished analysis and a screenshot of the results.
    • If the plugin interacts with an external service, I have created an attribute called precisely url that contains this information. This is required for Health Checks.
    • [x ] If the plugin requires mocked testing, _monkeypatch() was used in its class to apply the necessary decorators.
    • I have added that raw JSON sample to the MockUpResponse of the _monkeypatch() method. This serves us to provide a valid sample for testing.
  • If external libraries/packages with restrictive licenses were used, they were added in the Legal Notice section.
  • [x ] Linters (Black, Flake, Isort) gave 0 errors. If you have correctly installed pre-commit, it does these checks and adjustments on your behalf.
  • I have added tests for the feature/bug I solved (see tests folder). All the tests (new and old ones) gave 0 errors.
  • If changes were made to an existing model/serializer/view, the docs were updated and regenerated (check CONTRIBUTE.md).
  • If the GUI has been modified:
    • I have a provided a screenshot of the result in the PR.
    • I have created new frontend tests for the new component or updated existing ones.
  • After you had submitted the PR, if DeepSource, Django Doctors or other third-party linters have triggered any alerts during the CI checks, I have solved those alerts.

Important Rules

  • If you miss to compile the Checklist properly, your PR won't be reviewed by the maintainers.
  • Everytime you make changes to the PR and you think the work is done, you should explicitly ask for a review. After being reviewed and received a "change request", you should explicitly ask for a review again once you have made the requested changes.

image

Results:

report:"Found 0 potentially malicious indicators scanning flask Some rules failed to run while scanning flask: * rules-all: failed to run rule: An error occurred when running Semgrep. command: semgrep --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/shady-links.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/cmd-overwrite.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/obfuscation.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/steganography.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/silent-process-execution.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/bidirectional-characters.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/clipboard-access.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/code-execution.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/exfiltrate-sensitive-data.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/download-executable.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/exec-base64.yml --config /opt/deploy/guarddog/venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/guarddog/analyzer/sourcecode/dll-hijacking.yml --exclude='helm' --exclude='.idea' --exclude='venv' --exclude='test' --exclude='tests' --exclude='.env' --exclude='dist' --exclude='build' --exclude='semgrep' --exclude='migrations' --exclude='.github' --exclude='.semgrep_logs' --no-git-ignore --json --quiet --max-target-bytes=10000000 /tmp/tmpum2n0sfa/flask status code: 1 output: "
errors:
scan_type:"pypi"

Copy link
Member

@mlodic mlodic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thank you for your contribution!

I'll try to point out some possible changes and give you the space to do those if you have any time. If you have some problems about that, feel free to ask for help.

Comment on lines +14 to +15
# interval between http request polling (in secs)
poll_distance: int = 30
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the polling between this script in the main docker container and the malware docker container. The problem about this number is that if the analyzers finishes its computation in the middle of those 30 seconds, the client would get the results a lot later than intended. Because of this, this value can usually reduced to a lower number.
How much time does this analyzer require to be completely executed in your experience?

Comment on lines +15 to +16
"name": "GuarddogObservable_go",
"description": "GuardDog is a tool that allows to identify malicious PyPI and npm packages or Go modules. It runs a set of heuristics on the package source code (through Semgrep rules) and on the package metadata.\r\n\r\ngo modules observable. Just give the name of the package",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's enough a single migration for all the 3 cases (npm,pypi, org) and you can call it GuarddogObservable generically

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you can remove the other 2 and the merge migration

Comment on lines +15 to +16
"name": "GuarddogFile_go",
"description": "GuardDog is a tool that allows to identify malicious PyPI and npm packages or Go modules. It runs a set of heuristics on the package source code (through Semgrep rules) and on the package metadata.\r\n\r\nSubmit the go packed file to analize",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same for the "File" type of migrations, 1 python file is enough

Comment on lines +24 to +27
# Add user for guarddog
#RUN addgroup --system --gid 1000 guarddog \
# && adduser --system --shell /bin/bash --uid 1000 --ingroup guarddog guarddog

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is this necessary or is it a leftover?

Comment on lines +167 to +174
# Install Guarddog
# Not working with virutalenv
WORKDIR ${PROJECT_PATH}/guarddog

RUN pip3 install --no-cache-dir --upgrade pip \
&& pip3 install --no-cache-dir guarddog


Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the ideal thing would be to use its own python virtual environment like we did for all of the other integrations in this image to avoid conflicts. You can copy how we did that for the others

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(you can add a new file in the requirements folder with that guardog dependency and pinning a version for reproducibility)


shell2http.register_command(
endpoint="guarddog",
command_name="/usr/local/bin/guarddog",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

when adding a virtual env, this path would change. See other tools

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants