Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
92 lines (64 loc) · 8.45 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

92 lines (64 loc) · 8.45 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for snaipe/libcsptr

Objective: To achieve arbitrary code execution or data breach in the application by exploiting vulnerabilities in libcsptr's memory management or reference counting mechanisms, leading to memory corruption or control-flow hijacking.

Attack Tree Visualization

Compromise Application Using libcsptr [CRITICAL NODE]
├───[AND] Exploit libcsptr Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
│   ├───[OR] Memory Corruption Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
│   │   ├───[AND] Premature Object Destruction (Use-After-Free) [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   │   ├───[AND] Reference count drops to zero prematurely due to errors
│   │   │   └───[AND] Application attempts to access the freed object
│   │   ├───[AND] Double-Free Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   │   ├───[AND] Reference count decremented multiple times incorrectly
│   │   │   └───[AND] Memory freed twice
│   │   ├───[AND] Race Conditions in Reference Counting (if multi-threaded usage) [HIGH RISK PATH START if multi-threaded]
│   │   │   ├───[AND] Application uses libcsptr in a multi-threaded context
│   │   │   └───[AND] libcsptr's reference counting is not thread-safe
│   │   ├───[AND] Bugs in custom deleters (if application uses them) [HIGH RISK PATH START if custom deleters used]
│   │   │   └───[AND] Deleter function contains vulnerabilities (e.g., double-free in deleter)
│   ├───[OR] API Misuse by Application Developer [CRITICAL NODE, HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   ├───[AND] Incorrect Usage of `csptr_t` API [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   │   ├───[AND] Improper initialization of smart pointers [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   │   ├───[AND] Incorrect handling of raw pointers alongside smart pointers [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   │   ├───[AND] Forgetting to use smart pointers where appropriate [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   │   └───[AND] Misunderstanding ownership semantics of `csptr_t` [HIGH RISK PATH START]
│   │   ├───[AND] Custom Deleter Vulnerabilities (if used incorrectly) [HIGH RISK PATH START if custom deleters used]
│   │   │   └───[AND] Deleter function contains vulnerabilities (e.g., double-free in deleter)
│   │   ├───[AND] Ignoring Return Values/Error Codes from `libcsptr` functions [HIGH RISK PATH START if libcsptr has error codes]
│   │   │   └───[AND] Application doesn't check return values of `csptr_` functions
└───[AND] Application is Vulnerable
    └───[AND] Exploitable Vulnerability in Application Logic
        └───[AND] Memory corruption or control-flow hijack can be leveraged for further exploitation
            └─── Standard exploitation techniques

Attack Tree Path: Premature Object Destruction (Use-After-Free)

Attack Vector: Exploiting errors in reference counting logic (integer overflows, race conditions, logic bugs) within libcsptr to cause an object's reference count to drop to zero prematurely. Exploitation: After premature freeing, the application attempts to access the already freed memory, leading to a use-after-free vulnerability. This can be exploited to overwrite memory, hijack control flow, or leak sensitive information.

Attack Tree Path: Double-Free Vulnerabilities

Attack Vector: Causing the memory associated with a csptr_t to be freed twice. This can be due to errors in reference counting logic, API misuse, or bugs in custom deleters. Exploitation: Double-free vulnerabilities lead to heap corruption. Attackers can manipulate the heap metadata to gain control when memory is allocated again, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution.

Attack Tree Path: Race Conditions in Reference Counting (if multi-threaded usage)

Attack Vector: If the application uses libcsptr in a multi-threaded environment and libcsptr's reference counting is not thread-safe (lacks proper synchronization mechanisms), race conditions can occur during reference count increment and decrement operations. Exploitation: Race conditions can lead to incorrect reference counts, resulting in either premature object destruction (use-after-free) or objects never being freed (memory leaks). Use-after-free in multi-threaded contexts can be particularly challenging to debug and exploit but are highly impactful.

Attack Tree Path: Bugs in custom deleters (if application uses them)

Attack Vector: If the application utilizes custom deleter functions with csptr_t, vulnerabilities within these custom deleters can be exploited. A common vulnerability is a double-free within the custom deleter itself. Exploitation: If a custom deleter contains a double-free or other memory corruption bugs, these can be triggered when the csptr_t is destroyed, leading to heap corruption and potential control-flow hijacking.

Attack Tree Path: API Misuse by Application Developer

This category focuses on vulnerabilities introduced by incorrect or insecure usage of the libcsptr API by the application developers. It is critical because developer error is a common source of vulnerabilities and often easier to exploit than vulnerabilities within the library itself.

Attack Tree Path: Incorrect Usage of csptr_t API

Attack Vectors:

Attack Tree Path: Improper initialization of smart pointers

Failing to correctly initialize csptr_t using csptr_create or other appropriate methods can lead to undefined behavior and potential crashes or memory corruption.

Attack Tree Path: Incorrect handling of raw pointers alongside smart pointers

Mixing raw pointers with csptr_t without careful consideration of ownership and lifetime can lead to double-frees, memory leaks, or use-after-free vulnerabilities. For example, manually freeing memory that is also managed by a csptr_t.

Attack Tree Path: Forgetting to use smart pointers where appropriate

Inconsistent use of csptr_t throughout the application, with some memory being managed manually and other parts using smart pointers, can create gaps in memory safety and introduce traditional memory management errors.

Attack Tree Path: Misunderstanding ownership semantics of csptr_t

Incorrectly assuming ownership transfer or shared ownership when using csptr_t can lead to unexpected reference count behavior and memory management issues.

Attack Tree Path: Custom Deleter Vulnerabilities (if used incorrectly)

Attack Vector: Similar to memory corruption vulnerabilities in custom deleters, but here the focus is on incorrect usage of custom deleters by the application developer, such as providing a deleter that itself contains vulnerabilities or doesn't properly handle resources. Exploitation: If the application provides a vulnerable custom deleter, this vulnerability will be triggered when the csptr_t is destroyed, potentially leading to memory corruption or other issues.

Attack Tree Path: Ignoring Return Values/Error Codes from libcsptr functions

Attack Vector: If libcsptr functions return error codes to indicate failures or exceptional conditions, and the application ignores these return values without proper error handling, it can lead to undefined behavior and potentially exploitable states. Exploitation: Ignoring error codes can mask underlying issues, allowing vulnerabilities to propagate and become exploitable. For example, if a csptr_create fails due to resource exhaustion and the application doesn't check for errors, it might proceed with a null pointer, leading to a crash or exploitable null pointer dereference.