Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
167 lines (145 loc) · 11.4 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

167 lines (145 loc) · 11.4 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for grpc/grpc-go

Objective: To achieve at least one of the following:

  1. Denial of Service (DoS): Render the gRPC service unavailable to legitimate clients.
  2. Unauthorized Data Access/Modification: Read or modify data the attacker shouldn't have access to.
  3. Remote Code Execution (RCE): Execute arbitrary code on the server hosting the gRPC service.
  4. Information Disclosure: Leak sensitive information about the service, its configuration, or its data.

Attack Tree Visualization

Compromise gRPC-Go Application
├── 1. Denial of Service (DoS) [HIGH-RISK]
│   ├── 1.1 Resource Exhaustion [HIGH-RISK]
│   │   ├── 1.1.1  Excessive Connections
│   │   │   └── 1.1.1.1 Exploit missing connection limits (e.g., MaxConcurrentStreams) [CRITICAL]
│   │   ├── 1.1.2  Excessive Message Size
│   │   │   └── 1.1.2.1 Send messages exceeding configured limits (e.g., MaxRecvMsgSize, MaxSendMsgSize) [CRITICAL]
│   │   └── 1.1.4  Memory Exhaustion
│   │       └── 1.1.4.1  Large streaming requests without proper flow control [CRITICAL]
│   └── 1.3  Exploit gRPC-Go Specific Vulnerabilities
│       └── 1.3.1  Leverage known CVEs (e.g., past vulnerabilities related to HTTP/2 handling) [CRITICAL if unpatched]
├── 2. Unauthorized Data Access/Modification [HIGH-RISK]
│   ├── 2.1  Bypass Authentication/Authorization [HIGH-RISK]
│   │   ├── 2.1.1  Exploit flaws in custom authentication interceptors [CRITICAL]
│   │   ├── 2.1.2  Improperly configured TLS (e.g., weak ciphers, expired certificates, missing client authentication) [CRITICAL]
│   │   └── 2.1.4  Exploit vulnerabilities in authorization logic within gRPC handlers [CRITICAL]
├── 3. Remote Code Execution (RCE)
│   ├── 3.1  Exploit Vulnerabilities in Protobuf (De)serialization
│   │   └── 3.1.1  Craft malicious Protobuf messages to trigger buffer overflows or other memory corruption issues [CRITICAL]
│   ├── 3.2  Exploit Vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go itself
│   │   └── 3.2.1  Leverage known or 0-day vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go's core components (e.g., HTTP/2 handling, connection management) [CRITICAL]
│   └── 3.3  Exploit Vulnerabilities in Custom Interceptors/Handlers
│       └── 3.3.1  Unsafe handling of user input within custom code, leading to code injection [CRITICAL]
└── 4. Information Disclosure
    ├── 4.1  Error Handling Issues
    │   └── 4.1.1  gRPC error messages revealing sensitive information (e.g., stack traces, internal paths) [CRITICAL]
    ├── 4.2  Logging Misconfiguration
    │   └── 4.2.1  Logging of sensitive data (e.g., credentials, request payloads) within gRPC interceptors or handlers [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1. Denial of Service (DoS) [HIGH-RISK]

  • 1.1 Resource Exhaustion [HIGH-RISK]

    • 1.1.1.1 Exploit missing connection limits (e.g., MaxConcurrentStreams) [CRITICAL]

      • Description: The attacker establishes a large number of concurrent connections to the gRPC server, exceeding its capacity to handle them. This prevents legitimate clients from connecting.
      • Likelihood: High (if limits are not set)
      • Impact: Medium to High (service unavailability)
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Script Kiddie
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (high connection count)
      • Mitigation: Use grpc.MaxConcurrentStreams() to limit concurrent streams. Implement network-level connection limits. Monitor connection counts.

    • 1.1.2.1 Send messages exceeding configured limits (e.g., MaxRecvMsgSize, MaxSendMsgSize) [CRITICAL]

      • Description: The attacker sends very large messages to the gRPC server, consuming excessive memory or processing resources.
      • Likelihood: High (if limits are not set or are too high)
      • Impact: Medium to High
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Script Kiddie
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (large message sizes in logs/monitoring)
      • Mitigation: Use grpc.MaxRecvMsgSize() and grpc.MaxSendMsgSize(). Validate message sizes in application logic.

    • 1.1.4.1 Large streaming requests without proper flow control [CRITICAL]

      • Description: The attacker initiates a large streaming request but does not consume the data, or consumes it very slowly, causing the server to buffer large amounts of data in memory.
      • Likelihood: Medium (if streaming is used without backpressure)
      • Impact: Medium to High
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Beginner
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium (high memory usage, potential OOM errors)
      • Mitigation: Implement proper flow control (backpressure) in streaming RPCs. Monitor memory usage.

  • 1.3 Exploit gRPC-Go Specific Vulnerabilities

    • 1.3.1 Leverage known CVEs (e.g., past vulnerabilities related to HTTP/2 handling) [CRITICAL if unpatched]
      • Description: The attacker exploits a known vulnerability in a specific version of gRPC-Go.
      • Likelihood: Low (if patched), High (if unpatched)
      • Impact: Varies (depends on the CVE)
      • Effort: Low to Medium (exploit code may be publicly available)
      • Skill Level: Script Kiddie to Intermediate
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard
      • Mitigation: Keep gRPC-Go up-to-date. Monitor security advisories. Use vulnerability scanners.

Attack Tree Path: 2. Unauthorized Data Access/Modification [HIGH-RISK]

  • 2.1 Bypass Authentication/Authorization [HIGH-RISK]

    • 2.1.1 Exploit flaws in custom authentication interceptors [CRITICAL]

      • Description: The attacker exploits a bug or weakness in the custom authentication logic implemented using gRPC interceptors.
      • Likelihood: Medium (depends on code quality)
      • Impact: High to Very High
      • Effort: Medium
      • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard
      • Mitigation: Thoroughly test authentication logic. Follow secure coding practices. Use established authentication libraries/frameworks.

    • 2.1.2 Improperly configured TLS (e.g., weak ciphers, expired certificates, missing client authentication) [CRITICAL]

      • Description: The attacker exploits weaknesses in the TLS configuration, such as using weak ciphers, expired certificates, or not requiring client authentication.
      • Likelihood: Medium (common misconfiguration)
      • Impact: High to Very High
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Beginner
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (using TLS scanning tools)
      • Mitigation: Use strong TLS ciphers. Enforce certificate validation. Implement mutual TLS (mTLS) where appropriate.

    • 2.1.4 Exploit vulnerabilities in authorization logic within gRPC handlers [CRITICAL]

      • Description: The attacker exploits a bug or weakness in the authorization logic within the gRPC service handlers.
      • Likelihood: Medium (depends on code quality)
      • Impact: High
      • Effort: Medium to High
      • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard
      • Mitigation: Enforce least privilege. Thoroughly test authorization logic. Use a well-defined authorization model (e.g., RBAC, ABAC).

Attack Tree Path: 3. Remote Code Execution (RCE)

  • 3.1 Exploit Vulnerabilities in Protobuf (De)serialization

    • 3.1.1 Craft malicious Protobuf messages to trigger buffer overflows or other memory corruption issues [CRITICAL]
      • Description: The attacker crafts a specially designed Protobuf message that, when parsed by the server, triggers a buffer overflow or other memory corruption vulnerability, leading to arbitrary code execution.
      • Likelihood: Low
      • Impact: Very High
      • Effort: High
      • Skill Level: Advanced to Expert
      • Detection Difficulty: Very Hard
      • Mitigation: Use well-vetted Protobuf libraries. Fuzz test (de)serialization logic. Sanitize and validate input.

  • 3.2 Exploit Vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go itself

    • 3.2.1 Leverage known or 0-day vulnerabilities in gRPC-Go's core components (e.g., HTTP/2 handling, connection management) [CRITICAL]
      • Description: The attacker exploits a vulnerability in the core gRPC-Go library to achieve RCE.
      • Likelihood: Very Low (for 0-days), Low (for known, patched CVEs)
      • Impact: Very High
      • Effort: Very High (for 0-days), Medium to High (for known CVEs)
      • Skill Level: Expert (for 0-days), Advanced to Expert (for complex CVEs)
      • Detection Difficulty: Very Hard (for 0-days), Hard (for known CVEs)
      • Mitigation: Keep gRPC-Go updated. Monitor security advisories.

  • 3.3 Exploit Vulnerabilities in Custom Interceptors/Handlers

    • 3.3.1 Unsafe handling of user input within custom code, leading to code injection [CRITICAL]
      • Description: The attacker exploits a code injection vulnerability in a custom gRPC interceptor or handler, typically due to unsafe handling of user-provided input.
      • Likelihood: Low to Medium (depends on code quality)
      • Impact: Very High
      • Effort: Medium to High
      • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard
      • Mitigation: Follow secure coding practices. Sanitize and validate all user input. Avoid using unsafe functions.

Attack Tree Path: 4. Information Disclosure

  • 4.1 Error Handling Issues

    • 4.1.1 gRPC error messages revealing sensitive information (e.g., stack traces, internal paths) [CRITICAL]
      • Description: The gRPC service returns error messages that contain sensitive information, such as stack traces, internal file paths, or database details.
      • Likelihood: Medium (common mistake)
      • Impact: Low to Medium
      • Effort: Very Low
      • Skill Level: Script Kiddie
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (visible in error responses)
      • Mitigation: Customize error messages. Return generic error codes to clients. Log detailed errors internally.

  • 4.2 Logging Misconfiguration

    • 4.2.1 Logging of sensitive data (e.g., credentials, request payloads) within gRPC interceptors or handlers [CRITICAL]
      • Description: Sensitive data, such as authentication tokens, request payloads, or personal information, is logged by the gRPC service.
      • Likelihood: Medium (common mistake)
      • Impact: Medium to High
      • Effort: Very Low
      • Skill Level: Script Kiddie
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium (requires log analysis)
      • Mitigation: Carefully configure logging. Avoid logging sensitive data. Use structured logging and redaction.