Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
77 lines (65 loc) · 5.89 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

77 lines (65 loc) · 5.89 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for libp2p/go-libp2p

Objective: Compromise Application Using go-libp2p (Focus on High-Risk Paths and Critical Nodes)

Attack Tree Visualization

Compromise Application Using go-libp2p [CRITICAL NODE]
├── 3. Exploit Implementation Vulnerabilities (Implementation) [CRITICAL NODE]
│   ├── 3.1. Memory Safety Issues (Buffer Overflows, etc.) [CRITICAL NODE]
│   │   └── 3.1.1. Exploit Parsing Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE, CRITICAL PATH]
│   └── 3.3. Cryptographic Vulnerabilities (in Noise, TLS, etc. implementations) [CRITICAL NODE]
│       └── 3.3.1. Exploit Known Crypto Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE, CRITICAL PATH]
└── 4. Exploit Application Logic via libp2p Interaction (Application Logic) [CRITICAL NODE, HIGH RISK PATH]
    ├── 4.1. Data Injection/Manipulation via Pubsub or Streams [CRITICAL NODE, HIGH RISK PATH]
    │   └── 4.1.1. Unvalidated Input from Peers [CRITICAL NODE, HIGH RISK PATH]
    └── 4.2. Authentication/Authorization Bypass via Peer Identity Spoofing [HIGH RISK PATH]
        └── 4.2.1. Reliance on Unverified Peer IDs [HIGH RISK PATH]

Attack Tree Path: Exploit Parsing Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE, CRITICAL PATH] (3.1.1)

  • Attack Name: Buffer Overflow/Memory Corruption via Malformed Protocol Messages
  • Likelihood: Low
  • Impact: High (Remote Code Execution, System Compromise)
  • Effort: High
  • Skill Level: High (Advanced vulnerability research and exploit development)
  • Detection Difficulty: High (Exploits can be subtle, requiring memory monitoring and crash analysis)
  • Actionable Insight:
    • Rigorous code audits focusing on parsing logic within go-libp2p.
    • Implement robust input validation and sanitization for all incoming protocol messages.
    • Utilize fuzzing techniques to identify potential parsing vulnerabilities.
    • Employ memory-safe programming practices and tools during development.

Attack Tree Path: Exploit Known Crypto Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE, CRITICAL PATH] (3.3.1)

  • Attack Name: Cryptographic Vulnerability Exploitation (e.g., in Noise, TLS implementations within libp2p)
  • Likelihood: Very Low (If libraries are kept updated)
  • Impact: High (Confidentiality Breach, Data Interception, Authentication Bypass)
  • Effort: Medium to High (Requires vulnerability research, exploit development, potentially targeting specific crypto implementations)
  • Skill Level: High (Advanced cryptography and exploit development expertise)
  • Detection Difficulty: High (Exploits can be subtle, requiring deep crypto analysis and traffic inspection)
  • Actionable Insight:
    • Maintain up-to-date versions of go-libp2p and all underlying cryptographic libraries.
    • Regularly audit cryptographic configurations and usage within the application and go-libp2p integration.
    • Subscribe to security advisories related to cryptographic libraries used by go-libp2p.
    • Consider using static analysis tools to detect potential cryptographic misconfigurations or vulnerabilities.

Attack Tree Path: Unvalidated Input from Peers [CRITICAL NODE, HIGH RISK PATH] (4.1.1)

  • Attack Name: Data Injection/Manipulation via Unvalidated Peer Input (e.g., Command Injection, SQL Injection, Cross-Site Scripting in application context)
  • Likelihood: Medium to High (Common application security issue, especially in P2P applications)
  • Impact: High (Application Compromise, Data Breach, Command Execution, Lateral Movement)
  • Effort: Low (Requires identifying injection points and crafting malicious payloads)
  • Skill Level: Low to Medium (Basic understanding of injection vulnerabilities)
  • Detection Difficulty: Low to Medium (Input validation checks, Web Application Firewall, anomaly detection in application logs)
  • Actionable Insight:
    • Implement strict input validation and sanitization for all data received from peers via pubsub, streams, or any other libp2p communication channel.
    • Treat all peer-provided data as untrusted and potentially malicious.
    • Contextually encode or escape data before using it in application logic, especially when interacting with databases, operating system commands, or web interfaces.
    • Conduct regular penetration testing focusing on input validation vulnerabilities in the application's libp2p integration.

Attack Tree Path: Reliance on Unverified Peer IDs [HIGH RISK PATH] (4.2.1)

  • Attack Name: Authentication/Authorization Bypass via Peer Identity Spoofing
  • Likelihood: Medium (If application relies solely on peer IDs for authentication)
  • Impact: High (Access Control Bypass, Unauthorized Actions, Data Access, Privilege Escalation)
  • Effort: Low (Spoofing peer IDs is generally straightforward)
  • Skill Level: Low (Basic understanding of networking and identity concepts)
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Authentication logging, anomaly detection in access patterns, peer identity verification failures)
  • Actionable Insight:
    • Do not rely solely on peer IDs for authentication or authorization decisions.
    • Implement robust peer identity verification mechanisms beyond just checking peer IDs.
    • Utilize cryptographic signatures or other strong authentication methods to verify peer identities.
    • Consider implementing mutual authentication protocols to ensure both parties in a connection are verified.
    • Log authentication attempts and failures to detect potential spoofing attempts.