Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
119 lines (95 loc) · 7.5 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

119 lines (95 loc) · 7.5 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for flutter/packages

Objective: Execute Arbitrary Code on a user's device or server running an application that incorporates a vulnerable package from flutter/packages.

Attack Tree Visualization

[Attacker's Goal: Execute Arbitrary Code] [Compromise Developer's Machine] [Malware in IDE Plugins] [Phishing/Social Engineering (Leaked API Keys)] [Vulnerability in Package Dependency] [Dependency Hijacking (e.g., RCE via deserialization)] [Typosquatting/Dependency Confusion] [Create Package with Similar Name] [Social Engineering of Developer] [Target Developer Accounts (GitHub, Pub.dev)] [Phishing/Social Engineering]

Attack Tree Path: [Compromise Developer's Machine] (Critical Node)

  • Description: This represents the attacker gaining control over a package maintainer's development environment. This is a critical node because it allows the attacker to directly modify the source code of a package before it's published, bypassing many other security measures.
  • Impact: Very High. The attacker can inject arbitrary malicious code into a trusted package, potentially affecting a large number of users.
  • Why it's Critical: It's a single point of failure that can compromise the integrity of multiple packages.

Attack Tree Path: [Malware in IDE Plugins] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: The attacker creates a malicious IDE plugin (e.g., for VS Code) that appears legitimate but contains code to inject malware or modify the package's source code during development.
    • Likelihood: Low
    • Impact: High
    • Effort: Medium
    • Skill Level: Intermediate
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium
    • Mitigation:
      • Only install trusted IDE plugins from reputable sources.
      • Carefully review plugin permissions.
      • Use endpoint protection software.

Attack Tree Path: [Phishing/Social Engineering (Leaked API Keys)] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: The attacker uses phishing emails or other social engineering techniques to trick a package maintainer into revealing their API keys (e.g., for pub.dev). This allows the attacker to publish a malicious version of the package under the maintainer's identity.
    • Likelihood: Medium
    • Impact: High
    • Effort: Low
    • Skill Level: Intermediate
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium
    • Mitigation:
      • Use strong, unique passwords and enable 2FA for all accounts.
      • Be extremely cautious of phishing attempts.
      • Consider using hardware security keys.
      • Educate developers on phishing and social engineering tactics.

Attack Tree Path: [Vulnerability in Package Dependency] (Critical Node)

  • Description: This represents a vulnerability existing within a package that the target flutter/packages package depends on. This is critical because a single vulnerable dependency can impact many packages.
    • Impact: High. A vulnerability in a widely used dependency can have a cascading effect, compromising many applications.
    • Why it's Critical: A single vulnerable dependency can affect a large number of packages.

Attack Tree Path: [Dependency Hijacking (e.g., RCE via deserialization)] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: A dependency of the target package has a known vulnerability (e.g., a remote code execution vulnerability in a deserialization library). The attacker exploits this vulnerability to gain control of the application.
    • Likelihood: Low
    • Impact: High
    • Effort: Medium
    • Skill Level: Intermediate
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium
    • Mitigation:
      • Regularly update dependencies to their latest versions.
      • Use dependency scanning tools (like dependabot).
      • Use lockfiles (pubspec.lock).

Attack Tree Path: [Typosquatting/Dependency Confusion] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: This attack relies on developers making mistakes when typing package names or misconfiguring their build systems.
    • Impact: High. Can lead to the installation of malicious packages.

Attack Tree Path: [Create Package with Similar Name] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: The attacker creates a malicious package with a name very similar to a legitimate package (e.g., http vs. htttp), hoping developers will accidentally install the malicious one.
    • Likelihood: Medium
    • Impact: High
    • Effort: Low
    • Skill Level: Intermediate
    • Detection Difficulty: Easy (if developer is attentive)
    • Mitigation:
      • Double-check package names before installing.
      • Use tools that can detect typosquatting attempts.
      • Consider using a curated list of approved packages.

Attack Tree Path: [Social Engineering of Developer] (Critical Node)

  • Description: This represents attacks that target the human element – the developers themselves. This is critical because even the best technical defenses can be bypassed by a successful social engineering attack.
    • Impact: High. Can lead to compromised accounts, leaked credentials, and the installation of malicious packages.
    • Why it's Critical: The human factor is often the weakest link in security.

Attack Tree Path: [Target Developer Accounts (GitHub, Pub.dev)] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: Attackers attempt to compromise developer accounts (e.g., through password guessing, credential stuffing, or exploiting vulnerabilities in the platform) to gain access to code repositories or package publishing platforms.
    • Likelihood: Medium
    • Impact: High
    • Effort: Low
    • Skill Level: Intermediate
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium
    • Mitigation:
      • Use strong, unique passwords and enable 2FA for all accounts.
      • Monitor account activity for suspicious logins.

Attack Tree Path: [Phishing/Social Engineering] (High-Risk Path)

  • Description: Attackers use deceptive emails, messages, or websites to trick developers into revealing credentials, installing malware, or taking other actions that compromise security. This is a broader category than the specific "Leaked API Keys" scenario.
    • Likelihood: Medium
    • Impact: High
    • Effort: Low
    • Skill Level: Intermediate
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium
    • Mitigation:
      • Security awareness training for developers.
      • Strong email filtering and anti-phishing tools.
      • Clear reporting mechanisms for suspicious activity.