Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
254 lines (212 loc) · 23.2 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

254 lines (212 loc) · 23.2 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for grpc/grpc-go

Objective: To compromise the application by exploiting vulnerabilities or weaknesses inherent in the gRPC-Go framework or its usage, leading to data breaches, service disruption, unauthorized access, or code execution.

Attack Tree Visualization

Attack Goal: Compromise Application Using gRPC-Go

AND
├── 1. Exploit gRPC-Go Specific Vulnerabilities
│   ├── 1.1. HTTP/2 Protocol Exploits (Underlying Transport)
│   │   ├── 1.1.1. HTTP/2 Implementation Vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go
│   │   │   └── 1.1.1.1. Denial of Service (DoS) via Malformed HTTP/2 Requests **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   │   ├── 1.1.2. TLS/SSL Vulnerabilities **[CRITICAL NODE]**
│   │   │   ├── 1.1.2.1. Weak TLS Configuration **[HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]**
│   │   │   └── 1.1.2.3. Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks (if TLS not enforced or improperly configured) **[HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]** (if TLS not enforced)
│   ├── 1.2. Protocol Buffer (protobuf) Exploits
│   │   ├── 1.2.2. Schema Exploitation
│   │   │   └── 1.2.2.1. Denial of Service via Large Messages **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   │   ├── 1.2.3. Input Validation Failures in Application Logic (Processing Protobuf Messages) **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   │   │   └── 1.2.3.1. Buffer Overflows/Integer Overflows in Application Code **[HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]**
│   │   │   └── 1.2.3.2. Logic Errors due to Unexpected Protobuf Message Content **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   ├── 1.3. Interceptor Exploits (Client/Server Interceptors)
│   │   ├── 1.3.1. Authentication/Authorization Bypass via Interceptor Manipulation **[CRITICAL NODE]**
│   │   │   └── 1.3.1.1. Exploiting Flaws in Custom Authentication Interceptors **[HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]**
│   │   ├── 1.3.2. Interceptor Logic Vulnerabilities
│   │   │   ├── 1.3.2.1. Information Disclosure via Interceptor Logging **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   │   │   └── 1.3.2.2. Denial of Service via Resource Intensive Interceptors **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   ├── 1.5. gRPC-Go Library Specific Bugs/Vulnerabilities
│   │   ├── 1.5.1. Known Vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go Library
│   │   │   └── 1.5.1.1. Exploiting Publicly Disclosed Vulnerabilities (CVEs) **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   ├── 1.6. Dependency Vulnerabilities
│   │   ├── 1.6.1. Vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go Dependencies
│   │   │   └── 1.6.1.1. Exploiting Vulnerabilities in Libraries Used by gRPC-Go **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│   └── 1.7. Configuration Vulnerabilities **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│       ├── 1.7.1. Insecure Server/Client Configuration **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│       │   ├── 1.7.1.1. Exposing Unnecessary gRPC Endpoints **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│       │   ├── 1.7.1.2. Weak Authentication/Authorization Configuration **[HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]**
│       │   └── 1.7.1.3. Verbose Error Handling Exposing Internal Information **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│       ├── 1.7.2. Lack of Rate Limiting/Resource Quotas **[HIGH RISK PATH]**
│       │   └── 1.7.2.1. Denial of Service via Resource Exhaustion **[HIGH RISK PATH]**

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.1.1. Denial of Service (DoS) via Malformed HTTP/2 Requests [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Attackers send specially crafted HTTP/2 requests to the gRPC server. These requests exploit vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go's HTTP/2 implementation, such as parsing flaws or resource handling issues when processing malformed headers or stream manipulations.
  • Likelihood: Medium. HTTP/2 implementations can be complex, and vulnerabilities are possible.
  • Impact: High. Successful exploitation leads to service disruption, making the application unavailable to legitimate users.
  • Effort: Medium. Requires knowledge of HTTP/2 protocol and tools to craft and send malformed requests.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Networking and HTTP/2 protocol understanding is needed.
  • Mitigation:
    • Keep gRPC-Go updated to the latest version to patch known HTTP/2 vulnerabilities.
    • Implement robust input validation and request sanitization at the application level.
    • Consider using a Web Application Firewall (WAF) with HTTP/2 support to filter malicious requests.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.2. TLS/SSL Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: This is a category encompassing vulnerabilities related to the TLS/SSL configuration and implementation used to secure gRPC communication. Exploits target weaknesses in TLS/SSL to compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
  • Likelihood: Varies depending on specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Impact: Critical. Can lead to data breaches, Man-in-the-Middle attacks, and complete compromise of secure communication.
  • Effort: Varies depending on specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Skill Level: Varies depending on specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Mitigation:
    • General Mitigation: Enforce TLS for all gRPC communication. Regularly audit and update TLS configurations. Use strong ciphers and protocols.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.2.1. Weak TLS Configuration [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: The gRPC server or client is configured with weak TLS settings, such as outdated ciphers (e.g., RC4, DES) or vulnerable protocol versions (e.g., SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1). Attackers exploit these weaknesses to downgrade encryption or use known attacks against weak ciphers.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Misconfiguration of TLS is a common issue.
  • Impact: Critical. Allows attackers to decrypt communication, perform Man-in-the-Middle attacks, and potentially steal sensitive data.
  • Effort: Low. Easy to check for weak TLS configurations using readily available tools.
  • Skill Level: Low. Basic security knowledge is sufficient.
  • Mitigation:
    • Use strong TLS configurations.
    • Disable outdated and weak ciphers and protocols.
    • Enforce TLS 1.2 or higher.
    • Regularly review and update TLS configurations based on security best practices.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.2.3. Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks (if TLS not enforced or improperly configured) [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: If TLS is not enforced for gRPC communication, or if TLS configuration is severely flawed, attackers can intercept communication between the client and server. This allows them to eavesdrop on data, modify requests and responses, and potentially impersonate either the client or the server.
  • Likelihood: High (if TLS is not enforced). Low to Medium (if TLS is misconfigured but present).
  • Impact: Critical. Complete compromise of confidentiality and integrity of communication. Data breaches, data manipulation, and unauthorized actions are possible.
  • Effort: Low (if network access is available).
  • Skill Level: Low. Basic networking knowledge is sufficient.
  • Mitigation:
    • Always enforce TLS for gRPC connections in production environments.
    • Ensure both client and server are configured to use TLS and that certificate verification is enabled and working correctly.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.2.1. Denial of Service via Large Messages [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Attackers send extremely large protobuf messages to the gRPC server. Processing these large messages consumes excessive server resources (CPU, memory, network bandwidth), leading to resource exhaustion and denial of service.
  • Likelihood: High. Easy to send large messages if no size limits are implemented.
  • Impact: High. Service disruption, making the application unavailable.
  • Effort: Low. Simple request crafting is required.
  • Skill Level: Low. Basic understanding of gRPC is sufficient.
  • Mitigation:
    • Implement message size limits on the server-side.
    • Define reasonable maximum sizes for protobuf messages in your service definition.
    • Enforce these limits using interceptors or application logic.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.3. Input Validation Failures in Application Logic (Processing Protobuf Messages) [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Vulnerabilities arise in the application code that processes the deserialized protobuf data. Lack of proper input validation on data extracted from protobuf messages can lead to various issues.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Common programming errors if input validation is neglected.
  • Impact: Varies from Medium to High depending on the specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Effort: Medium. Requires finding vulnerable input paths in the application code.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Vulnerability research and code analysis skills are needed.
  • Mitigation:
    • Implement robust input validation in your application code that processes protobuf messages.
    • Validate data types, ranges, lengths, and formats.
    • Use safe coding practices to prevent buffer overflows and integer overflows.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.3.1. Buffer Overflows/Integer Overflows in Application Code [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: Specifically within input validation failures, if application code improperly handles data lengths or sizes from protobuf messages (e.g., string lengths, array indices) without bounds checking, it can lead to buffer overflows or integer overflows. These can be exploited for code execution or denial of service.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Common programming errors if input is not validated.
  • Impact: High. Code execution, denial of service, data corruption.
  • Effort: Medium. Requires finding vulnerable input paths and crafting specific inputs.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Vulnerability research, code analysis, and exploit development skills are needed.
  • Mitigation:
    • Robust input validation and bounds checking.
    • Use safe string and memory handling functions.
    • Code review and static analysis to identify potential overflow vulnerabilities.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.3.2. Logic Errors due to Unexpected Protobuf Message Content [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Attackers send protobuf messages with unexpected or malicious content that, while not causing crashes, leads to logic errors in the application. This can result in incorrect application state, data manipulation, or bypass of intended security controls.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Depends on application complexity and the thoroughness of input validation and error handling.
  • Impact: Medium. Incorrect application state, potential data manipulation, business logic bypass.
  • Effort: Medium. Requires understanding application logic and message handling to craft malicious inputs.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Application logic analysis and functional testing skills are needed.
  • Mitigation:
    • Design application logic to handle unexpected or invalid data gracefully.
    • Implement comprehensive input validation and error handling to prevent logic errors.
    • Functional testing with various input scenarios, including edge cases and malicious inputs.

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.1. Authentication/Authorization Bypass via Interceptor Manipulation [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: This category focuses on bypassing authentication and authorization mechanisms implemented using gRPC interceptors. Exploits target flaws in custom interceptor logic or attempt to manipulate the interceptor chain.
  • Likelihood: Varies depending on specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Impact: Critical. Unauthorized access to protected resources and functionalities.
  • Effort: Varies depending on specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Skill Level: Varies depending on specific vulnerability (see sub-nodes).
  • Mitigation:
    • General Mitigation: Thoroughly review and test custom authentication and authorization interceptors. Use established authentication protocols and libraries. Follow security best practices for access control.

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.1.1. Exploiting Flaws in Custom Authentication Interceptors [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: If custom authentication interceptors are implemented with vulnerabilities, such as weak token validation, bypassable logic, or improper error handling, attackers can exploit these flaws to bypass authentication and gain unauthorized access.
  • Likelihood: Medium. If custom interceptors are poorly implemented, vulnerabilities are likely.
  • Impact: Critical. Unauthorized access to the application and its data.
  • Effort: Medium. Requires code analysis of the custom interceptor logic to find vulnerabilities.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Code review and security testing skills are needed.
  • Mitigation:
    • Thoroughly review and test custom authentication interceptors.
    • Use established authentication libraries and protocols (e.g., OAuth 2.0, JWT).
    • Follow security best practices for authentication implementation.
    • Consider using well-vetted, pre-built authentication solutions instead of custom implementations where possible.

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.2.1. Information Disclosure via Interceptor Logging [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Interceptors, especially logging interceptors, might unintentionally log sensitive data such as authentication tokens, user credentials, or other confidential information. If logs are not properly secured, attackers can gain access to these logs and extract sensitive information.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Common logging mistakes can lead to unintentional information disclosure.
  • Impact: Medium. Information disclosure, potential credential leaks, aiding further attacks.
  • Effort: Low. Requires access to application logs, which might be obtained through various means (e.g., compromised systems, log aggregation services).
  • Skill Level: Low. Basic log analysis skills are sufficient.
  • Mitigation:
    • Review interceptor logging practices.
    • Avoid logging sensitive information in interceptors.
    • Implement secure logging mechanisms and ensure logs are properly protected with access controls and encryption.

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.2.2. Denial of Service via Resource Intensive Interceptors [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Poorly designed interceptors that perform resource-intensive operations (e.g., slow database queries, blocking network calls, heavy computations) can be exploited to cause denial of service. Attackers can send requests that trigger these slow interceptors, overwhelming the server and slowing down or blocking request processing for legitimate users.
  • Likelihood: Low. Requires intentional or unintentional inefficient interceptor design.
  • Impact: High. Service disruption, making the application unavailable.
  • Effort: Medium. Requires crafting requests that specifically trigger the slow interceptor logic.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Performance analysis and understanding of gRPC internals are helpful.
  • Mitigation:
    • Design interceptors to be efficient and non-blocking.
    • Avoid performing heavy computations or I/O operations within interceptors.
    • Implement timeouts and resource limits for interceptor execution.
    • Monitor interceptor performance and identify any slow or resource-intensive interceptors.

Attack Tree Path: 1.5.1.1. Exploiting Publicly Disclosed Vulnerabilities (CVEs) in specific gRPC-Go versions [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Using outdated versions of the grpc-go library that contain publicly disclosed vulnerabilities (CVEs). Attackers can exploit these known vulnerabilities using readily available exploit code or techniques.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Depends on the organization's patch management practices and how quickly they update dependencies.
  • Impact: Varies. Depends on the specific CVE. Can range from information disclosure to remote code execution, potentially critical.
  • Effort: Low to Medium. Exploits for known CVEs may be publicly available, reducing the effort required.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Understanding CVE details and applying exploits might require some technical skill.
  • Mitigation:
    • Regularly update gRPC-Go to the latest stable version.
    • Monitor security advisories and CVE databases for gRPC-Go vulnerabilities.
    • Implement a robust patch management process to apply security updates promptly.

Attack Tree Path: 1.6.1.1. Exploiting Vulnerabilities in Libraries Used by gRPC-Go [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: gRPC-Go depends on other libraries (e.g., net/http2, crypto libraries). Vulnerabilities in these dependencies can indirectly affect gRPC-Go applications. Attackers can exploit known vulnerabilities in these dependencies to compromise the application.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Dependencies often have vulnerabilities, and the likelihood depends on how frequently dependencies are updated.
  • Impact: Varies. Depends on the specific dependency and vulnerability. Can be critical if a core dependency has a severe vulnerability.
  • Effort: Low to Medium. Exploits for dependency vulnerabilities may be publicly available.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Understanding CVE details and applying exploits might require some technical skill.
  • Mitigation:
    • Regularly audit and update dependencies of gRPC-Go.
    • Use dependency scanning tools to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
    • Follow security advisories for dependencies and apply patches promptly.
    • Implement Software Composition Analysis (SCA) in the development pipeline.

Attack Tree Path: 1.7. Configuration Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: This is a broad category encompassing vulnerabilities arising from insecure configuration of gRPC servers and clients. Misconfigurations can weaken security controls and create attack opportunities.
  • Likelihood: High. Configuration errors are common, especially in complex systems.
  • Impact: Varies from Medium to Critical depending on the specific misconfiguration (see sub-nodes).
  • Effort: Varies from Low to Medium depending on the specific misconfiguration (see sub-nodes).
  • Skill Level: Varies from Low to Medium depending on the specific misconfiguration (see sub-nodes).
  • Mitigation:
    • General Mitigation: Implement secure configuration management practices. Follow security hardening guidelines for gRPC servers and clients. Regularly audit configurations.

Attack Tree Path: 1.7.1. Insecure Server/Client Configuration [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Specific instances of insecure server or client configuration that directly introduce vulnerabilities.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Configuration errors are common.
  • Impact: Varies from Medium to Critical depending on the specific misconfiguration (see sub-nodes).
  • Effort: Varies from Low to Medium depending on the specific misconfiguration (see sub-nodes).
  • Skill Level: Varies from Low to Medium depending on the specific misconfiguration (see sub-nodes).
  • Mitigation:
    • General Mitigation: Follow secure configuration guidelines. Regularly audit configurations. Use infrastructure-as-code and configuration management tools to enforce consistent and secure configurations.

Attack Tree Path: 1.7.1.1. Exposing Unnecessary gRPC Endpoints [HIGH RISK PATH]:

  • Attack Vector: Exposing gRPC endpoints that are not required for the application's functionality increases the attack surface. Unnecessary endpoints can become targets for attackers to probe for vulnerabilities or attempt to exploit them.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Common in complex applications where not all endpoints are actively managed or reviewed.
  • Impact: Medium. Increased attack surface, potential for exploitation of exposed endpoints.
  • Effort: Low. Information gathering and port scanning can easily identify exposed endpoints.
  • Skill Level: Low. Basic reconnaissance skills are sufficient.
  • Mitigation:
    • Only expose necessary gRPC endpoints.
    • Follow the principle of least privilege.
    • Regularly review and audit exposed endpoints.
    • Implement network segmentation and firewalls to restrict access to gRPC endpoints.

Attack Tree Path: 1.7.1.2. Weak Authentication/Authorization Configuration [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]:

  • Attack Vector: Misconfiguring authentication or authorization mechanisms for gRPC services. This can include weak interceptor setup, flawed application logic for access control, or misconfigured authentication providers. Weak configuration can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive gRPC services and data.
  • Likelihood: Medium. Configuration errors in authentication and authorization are common.
  • Impact: Critical. Unauthorized access to protected resources and functionalities.
  • Effort: Medium. Requires configuration analysis and testing to identify weaknesses.
  • Skill Level: Medium. Security configuration knowledge and testing skills are needed.
  • Mitigation:
    • Properly configure and test authentication and authorization mechanisms.
    • Use strong authentication methods (e.g., mutual TLS, OAuth 2.0).