Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
69 lines (55 loc) · 6.8 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

69 lines (55 loc) · 6.8 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for humanizr/humanizer

Objective: Compromise application using given project by exploiting weaknesses or vulnerabilities within the project itself.

Attack Tree Visualization

Attack Goal: Compromise Application Using Humanizer [CRITICAL_NODE]
└───[AND] Exploit Output of Humanizer [CRITICAL_NODE, HIGH_RISK_PATH]
    └───[OR] Unsafe Usage of Humanized Output in Application [CRITICAL_NODE, HIGH_RISK_PATH]
        └───[AND] Display Humanized Output Directly in Web Pages without Encoding [CRITICAL_NODE, HIGH_RISK_PATH]
            └───[OR] Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability if humanized output contains malicious code (e.g., user-provided strings humanized and displayed). [HIGH_RISK_PATH]
                ├── Likelihood: High
                ├── Impact: High
                ├── Effort: Low
                ├── Skill Level: Low to Intermediate
                └── Detection Difficulty: Low to Medium

Attack Tree Path: 1. Attack Goal: Compromise Application Using Humanizer [CRITICAL_NODE]

  • Description: The attacker's ultimate objective is to gain unauthorized access or control over the application utilizing the humanizer library. This is the root of the attack tree and represents the overall security risk.
  • Likelihood: N/A (Goal, not an attack step)
  • Impact: Critical (Full application compromise)
  • Effort: N/A (Goal, not an attack step)
  • Skill Level: N/A (Goal, not an attack step)
  • Detection Difficulty: N/A (Goal, not an attack step)
  • Mitigation Strategy: Secure coding practices across the entire application, including secure usage of third-party libraries like humanizer.

Attack Tree Path: 2. Exploit Output of Humanizer [CRITICAL_NODE, HIGH_RISK_PATH]

  • Description: The attacker aims to exploit vulnerabilities arising from how the application handles the output generated by the humanizer library. This is a critical area because improper output handling is a common source of web application vulnerabilities.
  • Likelihood: Medium to High (Depends on application's output handling practices)
  • Impact: High (Can lead to various vulnerabilities depending on the context of output usage)
  • Effort: Low to Medium (Exploiting output handling issues is often relatively straightforward)
  • Skill Level: Low to Intermediate (Basic understanding of web application vulnerabilities)
  • Detection Difficulty: Low to Medium (Vulnerability scanners and code review can detect output handling issues)
  • Mitigation Strategy: Implement secure output handling practices, primarily focusing on output encoding and sanitization.

Attack Tree Path: 3. Unsafe Usage of Humanized Output in Application [CRITICAL_NODE, HIGH_RISK_PATH]

  • Description: This node highlights the core problem: the application uses the humanized output in a way that introduces security vulnerabilities. This is a direct consequence of developers not treating humanized output as potentially untrusted data, especially when it originates from or is derived from user-controlled input.
  • Likelihood: High (Common developer oversight)
  • Impact: High (Leads to significant vulnerabilities like XSS)
  • Effort: Low (Exploiting unsafe usage is often easy if the vulnerability exists)
  • Skill Level: Low to Intermediate (Basic understanding of web application security)
  • Detection Difficulty: Low to Medium (Code review and dynamic testing can identify unsafe usage patterns)
  • Mitigation Strategy: Educate developers on secure output handling, establish coding guidelines, and enforce secure output usage through code reviews and automated checks.

Attack Tree Path: 4. Display Humanized Output Directly in Web Pages without Encoding [CRITICAL_NODE, HIGH_RISK_PATH]

  • Description: This is the specific action that directly leads to the highest risk vulnerability. The application displays humanized output in web pages (HTML context) without proper output encoding (like HTML escaping). This allows malicious code, if present in the humanized output, to be executed by the user's browser.
  • Likelihood: High (Frequent mistake, especially when dealing with user-provided data)
  • Impact: High (Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability)
  • Effort: Low (Simple to inject malicious scripts if output is not encoded)
  • Skill Level: Low to Intermediate (Basic understanding of XSS)
  • Detection Difficulty: Low to Medium (XSS scanners and manual testing can detect this vulnerability)
  • Mitigation Strategy: Mandatory HTML Output Encoding: Always encode humanized output before displaying it in HTML context. Use context-appropriate encoding functions provided by the application framework or templating engine. Implement automated checks to ensure output encoding is consistently applied.

Attack Tree Path: 5. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability if humanized output contains malicious code (e.g., user-provided strings humanized and displayed). [HIGH_RISK_PATH]

  • Description: This is the resulting vulnerability when humanized output is displayed unencoded in web pages and contains malicious code. An attacker can inject malicious scripts (e.g., JavaScript) into the input that is humanized. If this humanized output is then displayed without encoding, the script will execute in the victim's browser, potentially leading to session hijacking, account compromise, data theft, or website defacement.
  • Likelihood: High (If output is not encoded and user input is humanized and displayed)
  • Impact: High (Full account compromise, data theft, website defacement)
  • Effort: Low (Simple to inject malicious scripts if the vulnerability exists)
  • Skill Level: Low to Intermediate (Basic understanding of XSS)
  • Detection Difficulty: Low to Medium (XSS scanners, browser developer tools, and manual testing can detect XSS)
  • Mitigation Strategy: Primary Mitigation: Output Encoding. Ensure all humanized output displayed in web pages is properly HTML encoded. Secondary Mitigation: Input Sanitization. Sanitize user input before humanization to remove or neutralize potentially malicious code, although output encoding is the more robust and reliable defense against XSS in this context.