Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
57 lines (48 loc) · 6.96 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

57 lines (48 loc) · 6.96 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for libp2p/go-libp2p

Attack Surface: DHT Poisoning

  • Description: Attackers inject malicious or incorrect records into the Distributed Hash Table (DHT) used for peer and content discovery.
  • go-libp2p Contribution: go-libp2p provides DHT implementations (Kademlia-based) as a core component for peer and content routing. Applications using the DHT for critical functions are directly exposed to this attack surface.
  • Example: An attacker injects DHT records associating a malicious peer ID with content that users expect to be legitimate software updates. When a node queries the DHT for update sources, it may be directed to the attacker's malicious peer, leading to malware installation.
  • Impact: Data integrity compromise, routing to malicious peers, delivery of incorrect or malicious content, network disruption.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement DHT Record Verification: Digitally sign and verify DHT records to ensure authenticity and integrity.
    • Use DHT Security Extensions: Explore and utilize any security extensions offered by the specific DHT implementation in go-libp2p.
    • Limit DHT Usage for Critical Functions: If possible, avoid relying solely on the DHT for critical data or routing decisions. Use it as a hint or for less sensitive information.
    • Implement Reputation Systems: Track peer behavior and reputation to identify and isolate potentially malicious peers participating in the DHT.
    • Consider Alternative Discovery Mechanisms: Supplement or replace DHT with other peer discovery methods like trusted bootstrap nodes or centralized rendezvous points for critical applications.

Attack Surface: Stream Multiplexer Vulnerabilities

  • Description: Exploiting vulnerabilities within the stream multiplexer implementations (Mplex, Yamux, etc.) used to manage multiple streams over a single connection.
  • go-libp2p Contribution: go-libp2p relies on stream multiplexers to efficiently handle multiple application streams over a single network connection. Vulnerabilities in these multiplexer implementations directly impact go-libp2p applications.
  • Example: A vulnerability in the Mplex multiplexer allows an attacker to send specially crafted messages that cause a buffer overflow in the receiving node's Mplex implementation. This could lead to Denial of Service or potentially Remote Code Execution.
  • Impact: Denial of Service (DoS), stream hijacking, data corruption, potentially Remote Code Execution (RCE) depending on the vulnerability.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep go-libp2p Updated: Regularly update go-libp2p to benefit from security patches for stream multiplexers and other components.
    • Choose Secure Multiplexers: Select stream multiplexers known for their security and stability. Consider Yamux as a generally recommended option.
    • Monitor Security Advisories: Stay informed about security advisories related to go-libp2p and its dependencies, including stream multiplexers.
    • Implement Resource Limits: Configure go-libp2p with resource limits to prevent excessive resource consumption by malicious streams, mitigating some DoS risks.

Attack Surface: Protocol Handler Vulnerabilities (Application Protocols)

  • Description: Vulnerabilities in the implementation of application-specific protocols built on top of go-libp2p. This includes parsing errors, logic flaws, or buffer overflows in the protocol handlers.
  • go-libp2p Contribution: go-libp2p provides the framework for building and registering custom protocols and manages the streams used by these protocols. Vulnerabilities in handlers interacting with go-libp2p streams are part of the go-libp2p attack surface.
  • Example: An application protocol handler has a buffer overflow vulnerability when parsing incoming messages received over a go-libp2p stream. An attacker sends a crafted message exceeding the buffer size, leading to a crash or potentially Remote Code Execution on the receiving node.
  • Impact: Remote Code Execution (RCE), Denial of Service (DoS), data corruption, application-specific vulnerabilities depending on the protocol's purpose.
  • Risk Severity: High to Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Coding Practices: Follow secure coding practices when implementing protocol handlers, including input validation, output encoding, and avoiding buffer overflows.
    • Thorough Input Validation: Implement robust input validation and sanitization for all data received through protocol handlers.
    • Security Audits and Testing: Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing of application-specific protocols and their handlers.
    • Fuzzing: Use fuzzing techniques to automatically discover potential vulnerabilities in protocol handlers by feeding them with malformed inputs.
    • Minimize Protocol Complexity: Keep application protocols as simple and well-defined as possible to reduce the likelihood of implementation errors.

Attack Surface: Private Key Compromise

  • Description: Compromise of the private key used for node identity and secure communication in go-libp2p.
  • go-libp2p Contribution: go-libp2p relies on private keys for peer identity and secure channel establishment. Compromising these keys directly undermines the security of the go-libp2p node and its communications.
  • Example: An attacker gains access to the file system where the go-libp2p node's private key is stored due to weak file permissions or a separate system vulnerability. With the private key, the attacker can impersonate the legitimate node, intercept communications, and potentially perform malicious actions on the network.
  • Impact: Node impersonation, unauthorized access, complete compromise of node identity and security, potential for malicious actions attributed to the compromised node.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Secure Key Storage: Store private keys securely using appropriate key management practices. Consider using hardware security modules (HSMs), encrypted storage, or secure key vaults.
    • Access Control: Implement strict access controls to limit access to private key files or storage locations.
    • Key Rotation: Implement key rotation strategies to periodically generate and use new private keys, limiting the impact of a potential key compromise.
    • Avoid Hardcoding Keys: Never hardcode private keys directly into the application code.
    • Regular Security Audits of Key Management: Regularly audit key management procedures and storage mechanisms to identify and address potential weaknesses.