Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
25 lines (20 loc) · 4.1 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

25 lines (20 loc) · 4.1 KB

Threat Model Analysis for existentialaudio/blackhole

Threat: Audio Stream Sniffing (Information Disclosure)

  • Description: An attacker creates a malicious application that connects to the same BlackHole output channel that the target application is listening on. Because BlackHole output channels act as a broadcast medium, the attacker's application passively receives a copy of the audio stream without the knowledge of the legitimate source or the target application. This is a direct consequence of how BlackHole's output channels function.
    • Impact: The attacker gains unauthorized access to the audio data being transmitted through BlackHole. This could expose sensitive information, such as conversations, music, or other audio content. The confidentiality of the audio stream is compromised.
    • Affected BlackHole Component: BlackHole Output Channels (any channel the target application is listening on). This is a fundamental characteristic of BlackHole's design.
    • Risk Severity: High (Could be Critical if the audio is highly sensitive and unencrypted)
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Use Higher Channel Counts: Utilize BlackHole devices with a larger number of channels (e.g., BlackHole 16ch or 64ch). This makes it statistically less likely (though not impossible) for an attacker to connect to the same output channel by chance. This is a weak mitigation, providing only a small increase in difficulty for the attacker.
      • Secure IPC (Alternative): If confidentiality is critical, BlackHole is fundamentally unsuitable for the task. A secure inter-process communication (IPC) mechanism that provides encryption (e.g., encrypted named pipes, TLS-secured sockets) must be used instead of, or in addition to, BlackHole. This is the only truly effective mitigation for ensuring confidentiality.
      • Channel Randomization (Complex and Weak): Theoretically, the sending application could periodically switch to a different, randomly selected BlackHole output channel. However, this requires a secure, out-of-band mechanism to inform the receiving application of the channel change. This is complex to implement correctly and is still vulnerable if the attacker can monitor all channels or compromise the out-of-band communication. It's generally not a recommended approach.

Threat: BlackHole Driver Instability (Denial of Service)

  • Description: The attacker exploits a bug or vulnerability within the BlackHole driver itself (the kernel extension) to cause a system crash, kernel panic, or other system-wide instability. This is a direct threat to the BlackHole component, not the consuming application.
    • Impact: System-wide instability or denial of service. The entire system, not just the target application, could be affected, potentially leading to data loss or requiring a system reboot.
    • Affected BlackHole Component: The BlackHole kernel extension (driver) itself.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Keep BlackHole Updated: Always use the latest stable version of the BlackHole driver. Newer versions often include bug fixes and security patches that address known vulnerabilities. This is the primary mitigation.
      • Monitor for Updates: Regularly check the BlackHole GitHub repository (or other official distribution channel) for updates and security advisories. Be proactive in applying updates.
      • System Hardening (General): While not specific to BlackHole, following general system hardening best practices can reduce the overall attack surface and potentially mitigate the impact of a driver vulnerability.
      • Driver Sandboxing (Advanced/Impractical): In theory, running the BlackHole driver in a sandboxed environment could limit the damage if it crashes. However, this is extremely complex to implement at the kernel level and is likely impractical for most applications. It's not a realistic mitigation for typical use cases.