2015-04-11 01:16:36 +00:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
layout: "docs"
|
|
|
|
page_title: "Security Model"
|
|
|
|
sidebar_current: "docs-internals-security"
|
|
|
|
description: |-
|
|
|
|
Learn about the security model of Vault.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Security Model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to the nature of Vault and the confidentiality of data it is managing,
|
|
|
|
the Vault security model is very critical. The overall goal of Vault's security
|
|
|
|
model is to provide [confidentiality, integrity, availability, accountability,
|
|
|
|
authentication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means that data at rest and in transit must be secure from eavesdropping
|
|
|
|
or tampering. Clients must be appropriately authenticated and authorized
|
|
|
|
to access data or modify policy. All interactions must be auditable and traced
|
|
|
|
uniquely back to the origin entity. The system must be robust against intentional
|
|
|
|
attempts to bypass any of its access controls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Threat Model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following are the various parts of the Vault threat model:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Eavesdropping on any Vault communication. Client communication with Vault
|
|
|
|
should be secure from eavesdropping as well as communication from Vault to
|
|
|
|
its storage backend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Tampering with data at rest or in transit. Any tampering should be detectable
|
|
|
|
and cause Vault to abort processing of the transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Access to data or controls without authentication or authorization. All requests
|
|
|
|
must be proceeded by the applicable security policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Access to data or controls without accountability. If audit logging
|
|
|
|
is enabled, requests and responses must be logged before the client receives
|
|
|
|
any secret material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Confidentiality of stored secrets. Any data that leaves Vault to rest in the
|
|
|
|
storage backend must be safe from eavesdropping. In practice, this means all
|
|
|
|
data at rest must be encrypted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Availability of secret material in the face of failure. Vault supports
|
|
|
|
running in a highly available configuration to avoid loss of availability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following are not parts of the Vault threat model:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Protecting against arbitrary control of the storage backend. An attacker
|
|
|
|
that can perform arbitrary operations against the storage backend can
|
|
|
|
undermine in any number of ways that are difficult or impossible to protect
|
|
|
|
against. As an example, an attacker could delete or corrupt all the contents
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
of the storage backend causing total data loss for Vault. The ability to controls
|
2015-04-11 01:16:36 +00:00
|
|
|
reads would allow an attacker to snapshot in a well-known state and rollback state
|
|
|
|
changes if that would be beneficial to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Protecting against the leakage of the existance of secret material. An attacker
|
|
|
|
that can read from the storage backend may observe that secret material exists
|
|
|
|
and is stored, even if it is kept confidential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Protecting against memory analysis of a running Vault. If an attacker is able
|
|
|
|
to inspect the memory state of a running Vault instance then the confidentiality
|
|
|
|
of data may be compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
# External Threat Overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given the architecture of Vault, there are 3 distinct systems we are concerned with
|
|
|
|
for Vault. There is the client, which is speaking to Vault over an API. There is Vault
|
|
|
|
or the server more accurately, which is providing an API and serving requests. Lastly,
|
|
|
|
there is the storage backend, which the server is utilizing to read and write data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no mutual trust between the Vault client and server. Clients use
|
|
|
|
[TLS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security) to verify the identity
|
|
|
|
of the server and to establish a secure communication channel. Servers require that
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
a client provides a client token for every request which is used to identify the client.
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
A client that does not provide their token is only permitted to make login requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The storage backends used by Vault are also untrusted by design. Vault uses a security
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
barrier for all requests made to the backend. The security barrier automatically encrypts
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
all data leaving Vault using the [Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard)
|
|
|
|
cipher in the [Galois Counter Mode (GCM)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois/Counter_Mode).
|
|
|
|
The nonce is randomly generated for every encrypted object. When data is read from the
|
|
|
|
security barrier the GCM authentication tag is verified prior to decryption to detect
|
|
|
|
any tampering.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
Depending on the backend used, Vault may communicate with the backend over TLS
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
to provide an added layer of security. In some cases, such as a file backend this
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
is not applicable. Because storage backends are untrusted, an eavesdropper would
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
only gain access to encrypted data even if communication with the backend was intercepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Internal Threat Overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within the Vault system, a critical security concern is an attacker attempting
|
|
|
|
to gain access to secret material they are not authorized to. This is an internal
|
|
|
|
threat if the attacker is already permitted some level of access to Vault and is
|
|
|
|
able to authenticate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a client first authenticates with Vault, a credential backend is used to
|
|
|
|
verify the identity of the client and to return a list of associated ACL policies.
|
|
|
|
This association is configured by operators of Vault ahead of time. For example,
|
|
|
|
GitHub users in the "engineering" team may be mapped to the "engineering" and "ops"
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
Vault policies. Vault then generates a client token which is a randomly generated
|
|
|
|
UUID and maps it to the policy list. This client token is then returned to the client.
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On each request a client provides this token. Vault then uses it to check that the token
|
|
|
|
is valid and has not been revoked or expired, and generates an ACL based on the associated
|
|
|
|
policies. Vault uses a strict default deny or whitelist enforcement. This means unless
|
|
|
|
an associated policy allows for a given action, it will be denied. Each policy specifies
|
|
|
|
a level of access granted to a path in Vault. When the policies are merged (if multiple
|
|
|
|
policies are associated with a client), the highest access level permitted is used.
|
|
|
|
For example, if the "engineering" policy permits read/write access to the "eng/" path,
|
|
|
|
and the "ops" policy permits read access to the "ops/" path, then the user gets the
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
union of those. Policy is matched using a longest-prefix match, which is the most
|
|
|
|
specific definied policy.
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certain operations are only permitted by "root" users, which is a distinguished
|
|
|
|
policy built into Vault. This is similar to the concept of a root user on a Unix system
|
|
|
|
or an Administrator on Windows. Although clients could be provided with root tokens
|
|
|
|
or associated with the root policy, instead Vault supports the notion of "sudo" privilege.
|
|
|
|
As part of a policy, users may be granted "sudo" privileges to certain paths, so that
|
|
|
|
they can still perform security sensitive operations without being granted global
|
|
|
|
root access to Vault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lastly, Vault supports using a [Two-man rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule) for
|
|
|
|
unsealing using [Shamir's Secret Sharing technique](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir's_Secret_Sharing).
|
|
|
|
When Vault is started, it starts in an _sealed_ state. This means that the encryption key
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
needed to read and write from the storage backend is not yet known. The process of unsealing
|
|
|
|
requires providing the master key so that the encryption key can be retrieved. The risk of distributing
|
|
|
|
the master key is that a single malicious actor with access to it can decrypt the entire
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
Vault. Instead, Shamir's technique allows us to split the master key into multiple shares or parts.
|
|
|
|
The number of shares and the threshold needed is configurable, but by default Vault generates
|
|
|
|
5 shares, any 3 of which must be provided to reconstruct the master key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By using a secret sharing technique, we avoid the need to place absolute trust in the holder
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
of the master key, and avoid storing the master key at all. The master key is only
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
retrievable by reconstructing the shares. The shares are not useful for making any requests
|
|
|
|
to Vault, and can only be used for unsealing. Once unsealed the standard ACL mechanisms
|
|
|
|
are used for all requests.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-04-14 17:33:16 +00:00
|
|
|
To make an analogy, a bank puts security deposit boxes inside of a vault.
|
2015-04-14 02:09:38 +00:00
|
|
|
Each security deposit box has a key, while the vault door has both a combination and a key.
|
|
|
|
The vault is encased in steel and concrete so that the door is the only practical entrance.
|
|
|
|
The analogy to Vault, is that the cryptosystem is the steel and concrete protecting the data.
|
|
|
|
While you could tunnel through the concrete or brute force the encryption keys, it would be
|
|
|
|
prohibitively time consuming. Opening the bank vault requires two-factors: the key and the combination.
|
|
|
|
Similarly, Vault requires multiple shares be provided to reconstruct the master key.
|
|
|
|
Once unsealed, each security deposit boxes still requires the owner provide a key, and similarly
|
|
|
|
the Vault ACL system protects all the secrets stored.
|