Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
52 lines (41 loc) · 5.71 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

52 lines (41 loc) · 5.71 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for snaipe/libcsptr

Attack Surface: Use-After-Free (UAF)

  • Description: Accessing memory after it has been freed, leading to unpredictable behavior, crashes, or potentially arbitrary code execution.
  • libcsptr Contribution: libcsptr aims to prevent UAF, but incorrect usage of the API (e.g., not setting raw pointers to NULL after release, misusing csptr_get, mixing cmalloc/cfree with malloc/free) can re-introduce UAF vulnerabilities. Bugs within libcsptr itself could also lead to UAF.
  • Example: A csptr is released. Later, the developer accesses the underlying raw pointer (obtained via csptr_get or stored elsewhere) without checking if it's still valid.
  • Impact: Can range from application crashes to arbitrary code execution, depending on how the freed memory is subsequently used.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer: Always set raw pointers to NULL immediately after releasing the associated csptr (using csptr_set_null if needed). Minimize the use of csptr_get and handle the returned raw pointer with extreme care. Strictly adhere to the cmalloc/cfree pairing; never mix with standard C memory management. Thorough code reviews and static analysis are crucial. Use dynamic analysis tools (Valgrind) during testing.

Attack Surface: Double-Free

  • Description: Freeing the same memory region twice, leading to heap corruption, crashes, and potentially arbitrary code execution.
  • libcsptr Contribution: libcsptr's reference counting is designed to prevent double-frees. However, incorrect usage (e.g., misunderstanding ownership, mixing memory management functions) or bugs in libcsptr's reference counting logic (e.g., integer overflows, race conditions) can lead to double-frees.
  • Example: A developer accidentally calls cfree on a raw pointer that is still managed by a csptr, or a race condition in a multi-threaded application causes the reference count to be decremented twice.
  • Impact: Similar to UAF, can range from crashes to arbitrary code execution.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer: Strictly follow libcsptr's ownership rules. Avoid manual manipulation of raw pointers obtained from csptr_get. Ensure thread safety when using libcsptr in multi-threaded applications. Use static and dynamic analysis tools. Code reviews should focus on ownership transfers and potential race conditions.

Attack Surface: Integer Overflow/Underflow in Reference Counting

  • Description: The reference count (an integer) wraps around due to excessive allocations/deallocations, leading to incorrect memory management (typically double-frees).
  • libcsptr Contribution: libcsptr's core mechanism relies on integer reference counting. If the implementation is not robust against overflows/underflows, an attacker might be able to trigger them.
  • Example: An attacker crafts a sequence of operations that causes the reference count to underflow, making it appear as if the object is no longer in use, leading to a premature free.
  • Impact: Can lead to double-frees and, consequently, crashes or arbitrary code execution.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer: (Primarily applies to libcsptr developers) The libcsptr implementation must be rigorously reviewed and tested for integer overflow/underflow vulnerabilities. Fuzz testing is highly recommended.

Attack Surface: Vulnerabilities in Custom Deleters

  • Description: Custom deleter functions provided to libcsptr can contain their own vulnerabilities (e.g., buffer overflows, format string bugs).
  • libcsptr Contribution: libcsptr allows users to specify custom deleters, which are executed when a csptr is released. The security of these deleters is entirely the responsibility of the developer.
  • Example: A custom deleter uses sprintf without bounds checking to format a string based on data associated with the object being freed. An attacker can provide crafted data to trigger a buffer overflow.
  • Impact: Depends on the vulnerability in the custom deleter, but can range from crashes to arbitrary code execution.
  • Risk Severity: High (potentially Critical, depending on the deleter's functionality)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer: Treat custom deleters as security-critical code. Apply all standard secure coding practices (e.g., bounds checking, input validation, avoiding dangerous functions). Keep deleters as simple as possible. Thoroughly review and test custom deleters for vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: Mixing csptr with other memory management

  • Description: Using csptr to manage memory that was allocated using standard C functions (malloc, calloc, realloc) or vice-versa.
  • libcsptr Contribution: libcsptr provides its own memory allocation functions (cmalloc, ccalloc, crealloc) that must be used with csptr.
  • Example: Allocating memory with malloc and then attempting to manage it with a csptr.
  • Impact: Heap corruption, crashes, undefined behavior.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies: * Developer: Enforce strict coding standards to prevent mixing memory management functions. Use linters and static analysis tools to detect violations. Code reviews should specifically check for this.