Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
58 lines (49 loc) · 4.96 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

58 lines (49 loc) · 4.96 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for bvlc/caffe

Attack Surface: 1. Model Loading (Protobuf Deserialization)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities arising from the deserialization of Caffe model files (.caffemodel) and network definition files (.prototxt), which use the Protocol Buffers (protobuf) format.
  • Caffe Contribution: Caffe's core functionality relies on protobuf for model and network representation. The deserialization code within Caffe is the vulnerable component. Older Caffe versions and dependencies are particularly at risk.
  • Example: An attacker provides a crafted .caffemodel file that exploits a buffer overflow in Caffe's protobuf deserialization logic, leading to arbitrary code execution.
  • Impact: Complete system compromise; attacker gains control with the privileges of the Caffe application.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strict Input Validation: Validate and sanitize all data used in protobuf message construction before deserialization. Check file sizes, structure, and data types.
    • Sandboxing: Load and process models in a sandboxed environment (containers, VMs, etc.) to contain exploits.
    • Dependency Updates: Keep protobuf and all Caffe dependencies updated to the latest secure versions.
    • Integrity Checks: Use checksums or digital signatures on model files. Reject untrusted sources.
    • Least Privilege: Run Caffe with minimal necessary privileges.

Attack Surface: 2. Denial of Service (Malformed Models)

  • Description: Attacks causing Caffe to crash or become unresponsive due to excessive resource consumption.
  • Caffe Contribution: Caffe's architecture allows complex network definitions. A malicious .prototxt file can define a network that overwhelms system resources (CPU, memory).
  • Example: A .prototxt file defines a convolutional layer with an extremely large kernel or filter count, causing Caffe to allocate excessive memory and crash.
  • Impact: Denial of service, preventing legitimate use of the Caffe-based application.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Resource Limits: Enforce strict resource limits (memory, CPU time) on the Caffe process using OS tools (e.g., ulimit).
    • Input Validation (Network Architecture): Validate the .prototxt before loading, checking for unreasonable layer sizes, connections, etc.
    • Timeouts: Implement timeouts to prevent excessively long processing during model loading and inference.
    • Rate Limiting: If Caffe is exposed as a service, use rate limiting to prevent request floods.

Attack Surface: 3. Custom Layer Exploits

  • Description: Vulnerabilities within user-defined custom layers in Caffe.
  • Caffe Contribution: Caffe's extensibility allows custom layers, often written in C++, which can contain exploitable programming errors.
  • Example: A custom C++ layer has a buffer overflow. An attacker provides crafted input to trigger the overflow, achieving code execution.
  • Impact: Ranges from denial of service to arbitrary code execution (system compromise).
  • Risk Severity: High (potentially Critical if code execution is possible)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Coding: Use memory-safe languages (e.g., Rust) if possible. Avoid common C/C++ vulnerabilities.
    • Code Auditing: Thoroughly audit custom layer code for security flaws.
    • Fuzzing: Fuzz test custom layers with diverse inputs to find vulnerabilities.
    • Static Analysis: Use static analysis tools to identify potential code issues.
    • Sandboxing: Run custom layer code in a sandboxed environment.

Attack Surface: 4. Adversarial Examples

  • Description: Inputs crafted to cause misclassification, despite looking normal.
  • Caffe Contribution: Caffe models, like all deep learning models, are vulnerable. The vulnerability is inherent to how these models learn.
  • Example: A slightly modified image of a stop sign causes a Caffe-based system to misclassify it.
  • Impact: Incorrect predictions, potentially with dangerous consequences (e.g., in autonomous driving).
  • Risk Severity: High (potentially Critical in safety-critical systems)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Adversarial Training: Train the model with adversarial examples to improve robustness.
    • Input Sanitization/Preprocessing: Attempt to remove or neutralize adversarial perturbations.
    • Defensive Distillation: Train a second model to mimic the first, increasing robustness.
    • Ensemble Methods: Use multiple models and combine their predictions.
    • Input Gradient Regularization: Penalize large input gradients in the loss function.