Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
107 lines (94 loc) · 9.04 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

107 lines (94 loc) · 9.04 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for schollz/croc

Attack Surface: Relay Server Compromise (Man-in-the-Middle)

  • Description: An attacker gains full control of the relay server used for the croc file transfer.
  • How croc Contributes: croc relies on a relay server to facilitate the initial key exchange and, optionally, to relay the encrypted data. This central point, essential to croc's operation, becomes a target. The protocol design makes the relay a trusted intermediary.
  • Example: An attacker compromises the default public relay or a custom relay through a server vulnerability (e.g., unpatched software, weak SSH credentials).
  • Impact:
    • Complete data interception and decryption.
    • Data modification (attacker can alter files in transit).
    • Denial of service (attacker can shut down the relay).
    • Metadata collection (IP addresses, file sizes, etc.).
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Provide clear guidance on secure relay setup and operation. This is crucial since users may deploy their own relays.
      • Implement relay server fingerprinting/verification in the client. This allows clients to verify they are connecting to the intended relay.
      • Most importantly: Explore alternative key exchange mechanisms that reduce or eliminate the relay's role as a trusted intermediary. This could involve pre-shared keys, a separate secure channel for key exchange, or other cryptographic techniques to achieve end-to-end encryption without relay trust. This is the most impactful mitigation.
    • User: (Limited direct mitigation, as this is primarily a design issue)
      • Use a trusted relay server.
      • If high security is required, run a private relay server and follow strict security practices (regular patching, strong authentication, intrusion detection, etc.). This shifts the responsibility to the user, but is the only strong user-side mitigation.
      • Avoid using public relays for sensitive data.

Attack Surface: Weak Code Phrase Guessing

  • Description: An attacker successfully guesses the short, human-readable code phrase used for the PAKE key exchange.
  • How croc Contributes: croc's core design uses a relatively short, human-readable code phrase as the foundation of its key exchange (PAKE). This inherent design choice makes it vulnerable to brute-force or dictionary attacks. The relay facilitates these attacks by allowing multiple connection attempts.
  • Example: A user chooses "password123" as the code phrase. An attacker uses a script to try common passwords against the relay until they find a match.
  • Impact:
    • Successful Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack.
    • Data decryption.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Enforce a minimum code phrase complexity (length, character types, and entropy). This is a crucial and direct mitigation.
      • Implement robust rate limiting on code phrase attempts per IP address. This should be done both on the relay and, ideally, on the client-side (to prevent distributed guessing attacks). Client-side rate limiting is more complex but significantly strengthens security.
      • Provide an option for automatically generated, strong code phrases, and strongly encourage their use.
    • User: (Limited direct mitigation, relies on developer-provided features)
      • Use strong, randomly generated code phrases. Avoid common words, phrases, or personal information.
      • Use a password manager to generate and store unique code phrases.

Attack Surface: Code Phrase Leakage (Social Engineering/Observation)

  • Description: The code phrase is obtained by an attacker through non-technical means.
  • How croc Contributes: croc's current design necessitates the communication of the code phrase between users, creating an opportunity for interception.
  • Example: An attacker overhears the code phrase being spoken aloud, or sees it written down.
  • Impact:
    • Successful MitM attack.
    • Data decryption.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Encourage users (through documentation and UI prompts) to communicate code phrases securely.
      • Crucially: Explore alternative key exchange methods that do not require the verbal or visual communication of a shared secret. This is the most impactful long-term solution. Examples include QR code exchange (for in-person transfers) or integration with secure messaging platforms.
    • User: (Limited direct mitigation, relies on developer-provided features and secure practices)
      • Communicate the code phrase through a secure channel (e.g., encrypted messaging app, password manager).
      • Be mindful of your surroundings when sharing the code phrase. Avoid sharing it in public places or over insecure networks.

Attack Surface: Malicious croc Binary

  • Description: An attacker distributes a modified version of the croc executable containing malicious code.
  • How croc Contributes: Users must download and execute the croc binary. This is a fundamental aspect of using the software.
  • Example: An attacker creates a fake website that looks like the official croc repository and distributes a trojanized version of the binary.
  • Impact:
    • Complete system compromise (backdoor, data theft, etc.).
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Provide code signing for released binaries. This allows users to verify the authenticity and integrity of the executable.
      • Provide checksums (e.g., SHA-256) for released binaries.
      • Clearly communicate the official download location (GitHub repository) and emphasize the importance of verifying downloads.
    • User: (Limited direct mitigation, relies on developer actions)
      • Download croc only from the official GitHub repository.
      • Verify the binary's checksum or signature (if provided) before running it. This is a crucial step.
      • Use a reputable antivirus/anti-malware solution.

Attack Surface: Vulnerabilities in Dependencies

  • Description: croc relies on external libraries, and vulnerabilities in these libraries could be exploited.
  • How croc Contributes: croc's code directly incorporates and depends on these external libraries. The security of croc is intrinsically linked to the security of its dependencies.
  • Example: A vulnerability is discovered in a cryptographic library used by croc that allows for remote code execution.
  • Impact:
    • Varies depending on the vulnerability, but could range from denial of service to arbitrary code execution.
  • Risk Severity: High (Potentially Critical, depending on the specific dependency and vulnerability)
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Regularly audit and update dependencies. This is a continuous process.
      • Use a dependency vulnerability scanner (e.g., dependabot, snyk) to automatically identify vulnerable dependencies.
      • Consider using statically linked binaries to reduce the number of external dependencies (this has trade-offs, but can improve security).
      • Choose dependencies carefully, favoring well-maintained libraries with a strong security track record.
    • User: (Limited direct mitigation, relies on developer actions)
      • Keep croc updated to the latest version. This ensures that you have the latest security patches, including updates to dependencies.

Attack Surface: Relay Impersonation

  • Description: Attacker sets up a rogue relay server mimicking a legitimate one.
  • How croc Contributes: croc's reliance on a user-specified relay server address makes it inherently vulnerable to impersonation if the user is tricked into using the wrong address.
  • Example: An attacker sets up a relay at relay.croc-transfer.com (note the subtle difference) and convinces users to use it instead of the legitimate relay.croc.sh.
  • Impact: Same as Relay Server Compromise (Critical).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Implement a mechanism to verify relay identity (e.g., a public key or certificate). Display a clear warning to the user if the relay identity cannot be verified. This is a crucial mitigation.
    • User:
      • Carefully verify the relay address before using it. Double-check for typos or subtle differences.
      • Communicate the correct relay address through a secure channel.