Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
74 lines (61 loc) · 6.13 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

74 lines (61 loc) · 6.13 KB

Threat Model Analysis for ripple/rippled

Threat: Consensus Failure Exploitation

  • Description: An attacker identifies and exploits a bug in rippled's consensus algorithm implementation. This could involve crafting specific transactions or network messages to cause nodes to disagree on the ledger state, leading to a fork or acceptance of invalid transactions.
  • Impact: Network fork, invalid ledger state, transaction reversals, financial discrepancies, loss of trust in the application and XRP Ledger.
  • Affected Component: rippled Consensus Module (specifically the consensus algorithm implementation).
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep rippled updated to the latest stable version with security patches.
    • Monitor XRP Ledger network health and consensus status.
    • Participate in XRP Ledger community security discussions.
    • Implement robust error handling in the application to detect and react to potential consensus issues.

Threat: Sybil Attack for Network Influence

  • Description: An attacker deploys a large number of malicious rippled nodes to the network. These nodes attempt to overwhelm legitimate nodes, gain disproportionate influence in the consensus process, or disrupt network operations by flooding or manipulating network traffic.
  • Impact: Network instability, potential manipulation of transaction validation, reduced reliability of application's connection, delayed transactions, potential censorship.
  • Affected Component: rippled P2P Networking Module.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Configure rippled node with reasonable connection limits.
    • Rely on XRP Ledger's inherent Sybil resistance mechanisms.
    • Monitor node's peer connections for suspicious activity (large number of new connections from unknown sources).
    • Connect to a diverse set of reputable and known validators/peers.

Threat: Node Isolation via Eclipse Attack

  • Description: An attacker targets a specific rippled node, surrounding it with attacker-controlled nodes. These malicious nodes feed the target node false or manipulated ledger information, effectively isolating it from the legitimate XRP Ledger network view.
  • Impact: Application operates on an outdated or manipulated ledger view, incorrect transaction processing, data inconsistencies, potential double-spending from the application's perspective.
  • Affected Component: rippled P2P Networking Module, Ledger Synchronization.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Ensure rippled connects to a diverse and reputable set of peers.
    • Monitor peer connectivity and network health regularly.
    • Use trusted validators or well-known public rippled servers as initial peers.
    • Implement checks to verify ledger consistency with multiple sources if critical operations are performed.

Threat: Network Level DoS Attack

  • Description: An attacker floods the network connection to the rippled node with excessive traffic (e.g., SYN floods, UDP floods). This overwhelms the node's network resources, preventing it from processing legitimate requests and participating in the XRP Ledger network.
  • Impact: Application unavailability, inability to interact with XRP Ledger, service disruption, potential financial losses due to downtime.
  • Affected Component: rippled Network Listener, Operating System Network Stack.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement network firewalls and intrusion detection/prevention systems.
    • Configure rate limiting on rippled API endpoints and network connections.
    • Utilize DDoS mitigation services, especially if the application is publicly exposed.
    • Ensure sufficient network bandwidth and server resources for the rippled node.

Threat: API Vulnerability for Unauthorized Access

  • Description: An attacker discovers and exploits a vulnerability in rippled's JSON-RPC or WebSocket API endpoints (e.g., injection flaws, authentication bypass). This allows them to send malicious commands, gain unauthorized access to node functionalities, or extract sensitive information.
  • Impact: Unauthorized control over rippled node, data breaches (if sensitive data is exposed via API), disruption of application functionality, potential financial losses.
  • Affected Component: rippled JSON-RPC and WebSocket API Modules.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep rippled updated to the latest versions with security patches.
    • Implement strong authentication and authorization for API access if exposed publicly.
    • Carefully validate and sanitize all inputs to the rippled API from the application.
    • Regularly audit and pen-test application's API interactions and rippled configuration.
    • Follow secure API development best practices.

Threat: Third-Party Dependency Vulnerability

  • Description: rippled relies on various third-party libraries. An attacker exploits a known vulnerability in one of these dependencies to compromise rippled. This could involve exploiting vulnerable parsing logic, memory corruption issues, or other flaws in the dependency code.
  • Impact: Node compromise, potential data breaches, service disruption, potential for remote code execution on the rippled server.
  • Affected Component: Third-party libraries used by rippled (e.g., OpenSSL, Boost, etc.).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep rippled updated to the latest versions, which include updated dependencies with security patches.
    • Monitor security advisories for rippled and its dependencies.
    • Consider using dependency scanning tools (primarily for rippled developers, but users benefit from updated releases).