Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
50 lines (41 loc) · 7.08 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

50 lines (41 loc) · 7.08 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for skywind3000/kcp

Attack Surface: Lack of Native Encryption (Man-in-the-Middle Vulnerability) - Critical

  • Description: KCP transmits data in plaintext, offering no built-in encryption. This makes all communication vulnerable to eavesdropping and manipulation by attackers on the network path.
  • How KCP Contributes to the Attack Surface: KCP's design prioritizes speed and reliability over security, explicitly omitting encryption features. It is intended to be a transport layer protocol, and security is delegated to higher layers.
  • Example: An attacker intercepts network traffic between a KCP client and server and reads sensitive data like login credentials, game commands, or private messages. They could also modify packets to inject malicious data or disrupt communication.
  • Impact: Complete loss of confidentiality and data integrity. Sensitive information is exposed, and communication can be fully compromised.
  • Risk Severity: Critical when sensitive data is transmitted without additional encryption.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Mandatory Application-Layer Encryption: Always implement robust encryption at a higher layer on top of KCP. Use established protocols like TLS/SSL or design a secure application-specific encryption scheme. This is non-negotiable for secure communication.
    • Secure Tunneling: Encapsulate KCP traffic within a secure tunnel like a VPN that provides encryption and authentication.

Attack Surface: Implementation Vulnerabilities (Buffer Overflows, Integer Overflows, Logic Errors) - Critical to High

  • Description: Bugs within the KCP library's C implementation, such as buffer overflows, integer overflows, or flaws in protocol logic, can be exploited by attackers.
  • How KCP Contributes to the Attack Surface: As a C library, KCP is susceptible to common memory safety and logic errors inherent in C programming. Vulnerabilities in KCP code directly expose applications using it.
  • Example: A buffer overflow in KCP's packet parsing code is triggered by a maliciously crafted packet. This could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server or client, gaining full control of the system. Integer overflows or logic errors could lead to crashes or unexpected behavior exploitable for denial of service or other attacks.
  • Impact: Remote code execution, denial of service, information disclosure, complete system compromise depending on the vulnerability.
  • Risk Severity: Critical if remote code execution is possible. High for denial of service or significant data corruption.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Regularly Update KCP Library: Keep the KCP library updated to the latest version to benefit from bug fixes and security patches. Monitor for security advisories related to KCP.
    • Code Audits and Security Reviews: If possible, conduct or rely on independent security audits of the KCP library's source code to proactively identify and address potential vulnerabilities.
    • Fuzzing and Testing: Employ fuzzing and rigorous testing techniques to discover implementation flaws in KCP before deployment.
    • Memory Safety Tools (Development): When developing with or modifying KCP, utilize memory safety tools and secure coding practices to minimize the introduction of vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Denial of Service (DoS) via Congestion Control Manipulation - High

  • Description: Attackers can attempt to manipulate KCP's congestion control algorithm to degrade performance for legitimate users or cause a denial of service.
  • How KCP Contributes to the Attack Surface: KCP's congestion control mechanisms, while designed for fairness, can be targeted by attackers who send crafted packets to influence the congestion window and transmission rate, potentially unfairly consuming bandwidth or stalling connections.
  • Example: An attacker floods the KCP connection with fake acknowledgements or selectively drops packets to trick KCP into aggressively increasing its sending rate, overwhelming the server or network. Alternatively, they might manipulate feedback to force KCP to drastically reduce its rate, effectively stalling communication for legitimate users.
  • Impact: Service disruption, degraded performance for legitimate users, resource exhaustion on the server.
  • Risk Severity: High as it can lead to significant service disruption and impact availability.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Robust KCP Implementation: Use a well-maintained and vetted KCP library with a robust and less manipulable congestion control implementation. (Primarily library selection).
    • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting at the application level to restrict the number of packets or connections from a single source, limiting the impact of congestion control manipulation attempts.
    • Monitoring and Anomaly Detection: Monitor network traffic and KCP connection metrics for unusual patterns indicative of congestion control manipulation attacks.

Attack Surface: Denial of Service (DoS) via Retransmission Flooding - High

  • Description: Attackers exploit KCP's reliable retransmission mechanism to generate excessive retransmission requests, overwhelming the server with processing and bandwidth usage.
  • How KCP Contributes to the Attack Surface: KCP's reliability guarantees retransmission of lost packets. Attackers can simulate packet loss or delay acknowledgements to trigger a flood of retransmissions, exploiting this core feature.
  • Example: An attacker selectively drops or delays acknowledgements (ACKs) for KCP packets sent by the server. This forces the server to retransmit the same data repeatedly, consuming server resources (CPU, bandwidth) and potentially causing legitimate traffic to be delayed or dropped, leading to a DoS.
  • Impact: Server resource exhaustion, service disruption, bandwidth saturation, potentially rendering the service unavailable.
  • Risk Severity: High due to the potential for significant service disruption and resource exhaustion.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Reasonable Retransmission Limits (KCP Configuration): Configure KCP with appropriate retransmission timeouts and limits to prevent indefinite retransmission loops and excessive resource consumption.
    • Rate Limiting and Connection Limits: Limit the number of connections and packets processed from a single source to mitigate the impact of a retransmission flood attack.
    • Resource Monitoring and Alerting: Monitor server resource usage (CPU, bandwidth) and set up alerts to detect unusual spikes that might indicate a retransmission flood attack is in progress.