Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
57 lines (46 loc) · 5.57 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

57 lines (46 loc) · 5.57 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for zeromq/libzmq

Attack Surface: Unauthenticated/Unencrypted Communication

  • Description: Data transmitted via ZeroMQ sockets without authentication or encryption is vulnerable to interception and manipulation.
  • How libzmq Contributes: ZeroMQ provides transport mechanisms (TCP, IPC, etc.) but doesn't enforce security by default. It offers CURVE and ZAP, but their implementation is the application's responsibility. The lack of built-in, mandatory security is the direct contribution.
  • Example: An attacker sniffs network traffic on a TCP connection used by a ZeroMQ PUB/SUB pattern, capturing sensitive data.
  • Impact: Information disclosure, data tampering, man-in-the-middle attacks.
  • Risk Severity: Critical (if sensitive data is involved), High (otherwise).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers: Implement CURVE encryption and authentication for all sensitive communication. Use ZAP for custom authentication if needed. Do not rely on transport-layer security alone (e.g., TLS) instead of CURVE, as this doesn't address ZeroMQ-specific identity issues.
    • Users: Cannot directly mitigate libzmq's lack of default security; rely on application developers to implement proper security.

Attack Surface: Denial of Service (DoS) via Connection/Message Flooding

  • Description: Attackers overwhelm the application by sending a large number of connection requests or messages, exhausting resources.
  • How libzmq Contributes: ZeroMQ's high-performance design, and the behavior of certain socket types (especially REQ/REP), make it susceptible to DoS if the application doesn't implement its own safeguards. libzmq provides the mechanisms that can be abused, even if it doesn't cause the DoS directly. The lack of built-in rate limiting or throttling is a key factor.
  • Example: An attacker opens numerous REQ connections to a REP socket and sends slow requests, blocking legitimate clients. Or, flooding a PUB socket overwhelms subscribers.
  • Impact: Service unavailability, application crash.
  • Risk Severity: High.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers: Use ZMQ_RCVTIMEO and ZMQ_SNDTIMEO for timeouts. Use ZMQ_HWM cautiously (potential message loss). Choose appropriate socket types (e.g., ROUTER/DEALER over REQ/REP for better resilience). Implement application-level rate limiting and backpressure.
    • Users: Cannot directly mitigate; rely on application developers.

Attack Surface: Identity Spoofing (Especially with ROUTER/DEALER)

  • Description: An attacker impersonates a legitimate client or server.
  • How libzmq Contributes: The ROUTER socket uses identities for routing. Without authentication (provided by CURVE or ZAP, which are part of libzmq but not enforced), these identities are easily forged. This is a direct consequence of how ROUTER is designed to function.
  • Example: An attacker connects to a ROUTER and sends messages with a forged identity, pretending to be a trusted client.
  • Impact: Unauthorized access, data manipulation, service disruption.
  • Risk Severity: High.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers: Must implement CURVE or ZAP for authentication. Verify identities before processing or forwarding messages.
    • Users: Cannot directly mitigate; rely on application developers.

Attack Surface: Buffer Overflow/Memory Corruption in Message Handling (Indirect, but libzmq's Role is Important)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities in how the application handles ZeroMQ messages.
  • How libzmq Contributes: While the vulnerability is in the application code, libzmq's role is that it delivers messages as raw byte streams. It does not perform any validation or sanitization. This places the entire burden of safe message handling on the application. This is an indirect but crucial contribution.
  • Example: An attacker sends a crafted message that exploits a buffer overflow in the application's parsing of ZeroMQ messages.
  • Impact: Arbitrary code execution, application crash, data corruption.
  • Risk Severity: Critical.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers: Validate message size before processing. Use safe string/memory handling. Employ a robust message format (e.g., Protobuf) and parsing library. Use memory safety tools (ASan, Valgrind). This is entirely the developer's responsibility, given libzmq's design.
    • Users: Cannot directly mitigate; rely on application developers.

Attack Surface: Exploitation of libzmq Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Vulnerabilities within the libzmq library itself.
  • How libzmq Contributes: This is a direct vulnerability within the library.
  • Example: A discovered vulnerability in libzmq allows remote code execution via a crafted message.
  • Impact: Varies (DoS, information disclosure, code execution).
  • Risk Severity: Varies (High to Critical).
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developers: Keep libzmq updated. Monitor security advisories. Use SCA tools.
    • Users: Ensure applications (and thus, embedded libzmq versions) are updated regularly.