Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
152 lines (101 loc) · 16.6 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

152 lines (101 loc) · 16.6 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for weidai11/cryptopp

Objective: Compromise Application via CryptoPP Exploitation

Attack Tree Visualization

Sub-Tree (High-Risk Paths and Critical Nodes):

[CRITICAL NODE] Compromise Application via CryptoPP Exploitation [CRITICAL NODE]

  • [CRITICAL NODE] 1.2. API Misuse or Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
    • [HIGH RISK PATH] 1.2.3. Vulnerabilities in CryptoPP Examples or Documentation (leading to copy-paste errors) [HIGH RISK PATH]
    • [HIGH RISK PATH] 1.2.4. Outdated CryptoPP Version with Known Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK PATH]
  • [CRITICAL NODE] 2. Exploit Misuse of CryptoPP by Application Developer [CRITICAL NODE]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 2.1. Incorrect Algorithm Choice [CRITICAL NODE]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.1.1. Using Weak or Obsolete Algorithms (e.g., DES, MD5, SHA1 for sensitive data) [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.1.2. Using Algorithm Inappropriately for the Task (e.g., ECB mode encryption) [HIGH RISK PATH]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 2.2. Weak Key Management [CRITICAL NODE]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.2.1. Insecure Key Generation (e.g., weak random number generator, predictable seeds) [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.2.2. Storing Keys Insecurely (e.g., hardcoded keys, plaintext storage) [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.2.3. Weak Key Derivation (e.g., insufficient salt, weak KDF) [HIGH RISK PATH]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 2.3. Incorrect Parameter Usage [CRITICAL NODE]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.3.1. Reusing Nonces or Initialization Vectors (IVs) in Encryption [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.3.3. Incorrect Mode of Operation Usage (e.g., using ECB instead of CBC/GCM) [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.3.4. Incorrect Salt Usage in Hashing or Key Derivation [HIGH RISK PATH]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 2.4. Implementation Logic Flaws (Application-Specific) [CRITICAL NODE]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.4.1. Cryptographic Logic Errors in Application Code (e.g., incorrect signature verification, flawed encryption/decryption logic) [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 2.4.2. Data Integrity Issues (e.g., lack of message authentication, tampering vulnerabilities) [HIGH RISK PATH]
    1. Indirect Attacks Leveraging CryptoPP
    • 3.1. Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 3.1.1. Algorithmic Complexity Exploitation (e.g., computationally expensive crypto operations without proper rate limiting) [HIGH RISK PATH]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] 3.1.2. Resource Exhaustion through Crypto Operations (e.g., excessive key generation requests) [HIGH RISK PATH]

Attack Tree Path: Compromise Application via CryptoPP Exploitation

This is the overarching goal of the attacker. Success means gaining unauthorized access, control, or causing damage to the application that utilizes CryptoPP.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2. API Misuse or Vulnerabilities

This critical node focuses on vulnerabilities arising from how the CryptoPP API is used, rather than flaws within the library's core algorithms. Misuse can stem from misunderstanding the API, overlooking security implications, or relying on insecure examples.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.3. Vulnerabilities in CryptoPP Examples or Documentation (leading to copy-paste errors)

Attack Vector: Developers might blindly copy code examples from CryptoPP documentation or online resources without fully understanding their security implications. If these examples contain insecure practices (e.g., using ECB mode without warning, weak key generation in examples), applications built using these examples will inherit those vulnerabilities. Impact: Moderate to Significant, depending on the severity of the insecure practice copied. Could lead to data confidentiality breaches or integrity issues. Example: Copying an example that demonstrates encryption using ECB mode without understanding its weaknesses, leading to predictable ciphertext patterns.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.4. Outdated CryptoPP Version with Known Vulnerabilities

Attack Vector: Using an outdated version of the CryptoPP library that contains publicly known security vulnerabilities. Attackers can exploit these known vulnerabilities, for which exploits might be readily available. Impact: Significant. Could lead to various compromises depending on the nature of the vulnerability, including remote code execution, denial of service, or information disclosure. Example: Using a CryptoPP version with a known buffer overflow vulnerability in a specific algorithm implementation, allowing an attacker to trigger the overflow and potentially execute arbitrary code.

Attack Tree Path: 2. Exploit Misuse of CryptoPP by Application Developer

This critical node represents a broad category of vulnerabilities arising from mistakes made by developers when integrating and using CryptoPP in their application. These are often more common and easier to exploit than vulnerabilities within the library itself.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1. Incorrect Algorithm Choice

This critical node focuses on the selection of inappropriate or weak cryptographic algorithms for the security requirements of the application.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.1. Using Weak or Obsolete Algorithms (e.g., DES, MD5, SHA1 for sensitive data)

Attack Vector: Developers might choose to use weak or obsolete algorithms like DES, MD5, or SHA1 for security-sensitive operations (e.g., encryption, hashing passwords). These algorithms have known weaknesses and are susceptible to attacks. Impact: Significant. Using weak encryption algorithms can lead to data confidentiality breaches. Using weak hashing algorithms for passwords can lead to password compromise via brute-force or rainbow table attacks. Example: Using MD5 to hash passwords, making them vulnerable to rainbow table attacks and easier to crack.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.2. Using Algorithm Inappropriately for the Task (e.g., ECB mode encryption)

Attack Vector: Developers might use a cryptographic algorithm in a mode of operation that is not suitable for the intended purpose or security requirements. A classic example is using ECB (Electronic Codebook) mode for encryption, which is deterministic and reveals patterns in the plaintext. Impact: Significant. Using inappropriate modes can severely weaken or negate the intended security. ECB mode encryption can lead to pattern leakage and easier cryptanalysis. Example: Encrypting sensitive images using ECB mode, resulting in visually discernible patterns in the ciphertext that reveal information about the original image.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2. Weak Key Management

This critical node encompasses vulnerabilities related to the generation, storage, and handling of cryptographic keys, which are fundamental to the security of any cryptographic system.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.1. Insecure Key Generation (e.g., weak random number generator, predictable seeds)

Attack Vector: Generating cryptographic keys using weak or predictable random number generators (RNGs) or predictable seeds. This makes the generated keys predictable or easier to guess. Impact: Critical. If keys are predictable, attackers can easily compromise confidentiality and integrity by decrypting encrypted data or forging signatures. Example: Using rand() in C++ without proper seeding to generate encryption keys, leading to keys that are easily predictable and breakable.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.2. Storing Keys Insecurely (e.g., hardcoded keys, plaintext storage)

Attack Vector: Storing cryptographic keys in insecure locations, such as hardcoding them directly in the source code, storing them in plaintext configuration files, or in easily accessible locations on the file system. Impact: Critical. If keys are stored insecurely, attackers who gain access to the application's codebase or file system can easily retrieve the keys and compromise the entire cryptographic system. Example: Hardcoding an AES encryption key directly into the application's source code, making it trivial for anyone with access to the code to retrieve the key.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.3. Weak Key Derivation (e.g., insufficient salt, weak KDF)

Attack Vector: Using weak key derivation functions (KDFs) or insufficient parameters (e.g., short salts, low iteration counts) when deriving keys from passwords or other secrets. This makes the derived keys vulnerable to brute-force attacks. Impact: Significant. Weak key derivation for passwords can lead to password compromise. Weak key derivation for other secrets can weaken the overall security of the system. Example: Using a simple hash function like SHA1 without salt to derive encryption keys from a master password, making the derived keys vulnerable to brute-force attacks if the master password is weak.

Attack Tree Path: 2.3. Incorrect Parameter Usage

This critical node focuses on errors in how developers use parameters required by cryptographic algorithms, such as nonces, initialization vectors (IVs), salts, and modes of operation. Incorrect parameter usage can lead to serious security vulnerabilities.

Attack Tree Path: 2.3.1. Reusing Nonces or Initialization Vectors (IVs) in Encryption

Attack Vector: Reusing nonces or IVs in encryption modes that require unique values for each encryption operation (e.g., CBC, CTR, GCM). Reusing nonces/IVs can break the security of these modes, leading to information leakage or even key recovery in some cases. Impact: Significant. Reusing nonces/IVs can compromise confidentiality and potentially integrity, depending on the mode of operation and the extent of reuse. Example: Reusing the same IV for multiple encryptions using CBC mode with the same key, allowing attackers to XOR ciphertexts to reveal information about the plaintexts.

Attack Tree Path: 2.3.3. Incorrect Mode of Operation Usage (e.g., using ECB instead of CBC/GCM)

Attack Vector: Choosing and using an inappropriate mode of operation for encryption or other cryptographic tasks. As mentioned before, ECB mode is a prime example of an insecure mode often misused. Impact: Significant. Incorrect mode usage can negate the intended security properties, leading to confidentiality or integrity breaches. Example: Using ECB mode when confidentiality and pattern hiding are required, leading to predictable ciphertext and potential information leakage.

Attack Tree Path: 2.3.4. Incorrect Salt Usage in Hashing or Key Derivation

Attack Vector: Not using salts at all or using them incorrectly (e.g., using the same salt for all users, using predictable salts) when hashing passwords or performing key derivation. Salts are crucial to prevent rainbow table attacks and increase the resistance to brute-force attacks. Impact: Moderate to Significant. Lack of proper salting weakens password hashing and key derivation, making them more vulnerable to attacks. Example: Hashing passwords without salts, making them vulnerable to rainbow table attacks.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4. Implementation Logic Flaws (Application-Specific)

This critical node covers vulnerabilities that are not directly related to CryptoPP itself or standard cryptographic practices, but rather to flaws in the application's specific logic that utilizes CryptoPP.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.1. Cryptographic Logic Errors in Application Code (e.g., incorrect signature verification, flawed encryption/decryption logic)

Attack Vector: Errors in the application's code that implements cryptographic operations, such as incorrect signature verification logic, flawed encryption or decryption routines, or improper handling of cryptographic primitives. Impact: Significant. Logic errors can completely negate the security provided by CryptoPP, leading to vulnerabilities like signature forgery, data tampering, or confidentiality breaches. Example: Implementing signature verification logic that incorrectly accepts invalid signatures, allowing attackers to forge signatures and bypass authentication.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.2. Data Integrity Issues (e.g., lack of message authentication, tampering vulnerabilities)

Attack Vector: Failing to implement proper data integrity mechanisms, such as message authentication codes (MACs) or authenticated encryption (AEAD) modes, when integrity is a security requirement. This allows attackers to tamper with data without detection. Impact: Significant. Lack of data integrity protection can lead to data manipulation, allowing attackers to alter sensitive information or bypass security checks. Example: Encrypting sensitive data without using a MAC, allowing an attacker to modify the ciphertext without being detected, potentially leading to data corruption or security breaches upon decryption.

Attack Tree Path: 3. Indirect Attacks Leveraging CryptoPP

This branch focuses on attacks that don't directly exploit cryptographic weaknesses but leverage the computational cost or resource consumption of cryptographic operations to achieve other malicious goals, primarily Denial of Service.

Attack Tree Path: 3.1. Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks

This node focuses on attacks aimed at making the application unavailable by overloading its resources, specifically by exploiting cryptographic operations.

Attack Tree Path: 3.1.1. Algorithmic Complexity Exploitation (e.g., computationally expensive crypto operations without proper rate limiting)

Attack Vector: Exploiting the computational complexity of certain cryptographic algorithms to launch Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. Attackers send requests that trigger computationally expensive cryptographic operations (e.g., public-key operations, complex hashing) without proper rate limiting or resource management, overwhelming the server. Impact: Moderate. Can lead to temporary or prolonged unavailability of the application, disrupting services. Example: Flooding the server with requests that require computationally expensive RSA signature verification, overwhelming the CPU and making the application unresponsive.

Attack Tree Path: 3.1.2. Resource Exhaustion through Crypto Operations (e.g., excessive key generation requests)

Attack Vector: Exhausting server resources (CPU, memory, network bandwidth) by triggering excessive cryptographic operations. This could involve sending a large number of requests that initiate resource-intensive operations like key generation, encryption/decryption of large amounts of data, or repeated cryptographic handshakes. Impact: Moderate. Can lead to resource exhaustion, causing the application to slow down, crash, or become unavailable. Example: Flooding the server with requests to generate new cryptographic keys, exhausting memory and CPU resources and causing the application to become unresponsive.