Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
68 lines (51 loc) · 7.58 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

68 lines (51 loc) · 7.58 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for fmtlib/fmt

Objective: Compromise application using fmtlib/fmt by exploiting vulnerabilities within the library itself, focusing on high-risk attack vectors.

Attack Tree Visualization

Attack Goal: Compromise Application via fmtlib/fmt [CRITICAL NODE - Root of all attacks]

└── [CRITICAL NODE - Major Vulnerability Category] Exploit fmtlib/fmt Vulnerabilities or Misuse [HIGH RISK PATH]
    ├── [CRITICAL NODE - Primary Misuse Vulnerability] 1. Exploit Format String Vulnerabilities (Misuse) [HIGH RISK PATH]
    │   ├── [CRITICAL NODE - Most Direct Misuse] 1.1. Direct Format String Injection [HIGH RISK PATH]
    │   │   └── [CRITICAL NODE - Direct User Input as Format String] 1.1.1. User-Controlled Format String Passed Directly to fmtlib [HIGH RISK PATH]
    │   └── 1.2. Indirect Format String Injection [HIGH RISK PATH]
    │       └── 1.2.1. User-Controlled Data Used in Format String Construction [HIGH RISK PATH]
    └── [CRITICAL NODE - Custom Formatters Risk] 2.4. Vulnerabilities in Custom Formatters (If Application Uses Them) [HIGH RISK PATH - Conditional]
        └── 2.4.1. Logic Errors in Custom Formatters Leading to Exploitable Behavior [HIGH RISK PATH - Conditional]
        └── 2.4.2. Memory Safety Issues in Custom Formatters (Buffer Overflows, etc.) [HIGH RISK PATH - Conditional]

Attack Tree Path: Exploit Format String Vulnerabilities (Misuse) [CRITICAL NODE - Primary Misuse Vulnerability, HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: This category focuses on the misuse of fmtlib/fmt by developers, specifically by treating format strings as data rather than code. This is the most common and easily exploitable vulnerability related to format string libraries.
  • Key Risk: If user-controlled input, or data derived from user input, influences the format string used in fmtlib functions, attackers can inject malicious format specifiers.
  • Potential Impacts:
    • Information Disclosure: Attackers can potentially leak sensitive data from the application's memory (stack or heap).
    • Denial of Service (DoS): Malicious format strings can cause the application to crash due to parsing errors or unexpected behavior within fmtlib.
    • (Theoretically) Arbitrary Code Execution (ACE): While less likely in fmtlib compared to classic printf vulnerabilities, if underlying bugs exist in fmtlib's parsing or handling, or within custom formatters, ACE could become a possibility.

Attack Tree Path: Direct Format String Injection [CRITICAL NODE - Most Direct Misuse, HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: This is the most direct form of format string vulnerability. It occurs when user-provided input is directly passed as the format string argument to fmtlib functions like fmt::format.
  • Key Risk: Complete user control over the format string allows attackers to inject any format specifiers they choose.
  • Vulnerable Scenario: Code that looks like fmt::format(user_input, ...) is highly vulnerable.
  • Example: If user_input is "%p %p %p %p %s", and this is directly used as the format string, an attacker can attempt to read memory addresses and potentially dereference pointers.

Attack Tree Path: User-Controlled Format String Passed Directly to fmtlib [CRITICAL NODE - Direct User Input as Format String, HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: This is the most specific and critical instance of direct format string injection. It pinpoints the exact vulnerability: user input being used as the format string.
  • Key Risk: Maximum exploitability due to direct control.
  • Mitigation Imperative: Absolutely avoid this pattern in code. Format strings should be statically defined or constructed in a safe, controlled manner, never directly from user input.

Attack Tree Path: Indirect Format String Injection [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Even if the entire format string is not directly user-controlled, vulnerabilities can arise if user-provided data is incorporated into the format string without proper sanitization or validation.
  • Key Risk: Attackers can manipulate user input to influence the structure or specifiers within the format string, even if they don't control the entire string.
  • Vulnerable Scenario: Code that constructs a format string by concatenating user input or using user input to select parts of a format string template. For example, fmt::format("Log message: " + user_input + " {}", some_var). If user_input can contain format specifiers, it's vulnerable.
  • Example: If user_input is "%s - ", the constructed format string becomes "Log message: %s - {}", and the %s could be exploited.

Attack Tree Path: User-Controlled Data Used in Format String Construction [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Specifically highlights the risk of using user-controlled data in the construction of the format string.
  • Key Risk: Subtle vulnerabilities can be introduced if developers are not aware that even partial user control over format string construction can be dangerous.
  • Mitigation: Carefully sanitize and validate any user data that is used to build format strings. Ideally, avoid constructing format strings dynamically based on user input altogether. Use user input only as arguments to pre-defined, safe format strings.

Attack Tree Path: Vulnerabilities in Custom Formatters (If Application Uses Them) [CRITICAL NODE - Custom Formatters Risk, HIGH RISK PATH - Conditional]

  • Attack Vector: If the application utilizes custom formatters with fmtlib, these custom formatters themselves can become a source of vulnerabilities if not implemented securely.
  • Key Risk: Custom formatters are application-specific code and may not have the same level of scrutiny and testing as the core fmtlib library. They can introduce both logic errors and memory safety issues.
  • Types of Vulnerabilities:
    • Logic Errors: Bugs in the formatter's logic that can be exploited to cause unintended behavior, information disclosure, or bypass security checks.
    • Memory Safety Issues: If custom formatters are written in C or C++, they are susceptible to memory safety problems like buffer overflows, use-after-free, etc., if not carefully coded.
  • Conditional Risk: This path is only a high risk if the application actually uses custom formatters. If not, this category is not relevant.
  • Mitigation:
    • Rigorous Code Review: Thoroughly review the code of custom formatters for logic flaws and memory safety issues.
    • Memory Safety Practices: If writing custom formatters in C/C++, use safe coding practices to prevent buffer overflows and other memory errors. Consider using memory-safe languages for custom formatters if possible.
    • Testing: Extensively test custom formatters with various inputs, including edge cases and potentially malicious inputs, to identify vulnerabilities.