Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
127 lines (96 loc) · 9.12 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

127 lines (96 loc) · 9.12 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for schollz/croc

Mitigation Strategy: Relay Server Control (Self-Hosting or Strict Selection)

Description: 1. Self-Hosting (Strongly Preferred): * Compile and deploy the croc relay server software on a dedicated, internally managed server. This server should not be the same as the application server. * Configure the croc clients (using the -relay flag) to exclusively connect to this self-hosted relay. Example: croc -relay "your.relay.address:9009" send file.txt. * Ensure the relay server's operating system and the croc relay software are kept up-to-date with security patches. 2. Strict Public Relay Selection (If Self-Hosting is Impossible): * If self-hosting is absolutely not feasible, explicitly configure croc clients (using the -relay flag) to use a pre-vetted, trusted public relay. Do not rely on the default. * Document the rationale for choosing this specific public relay, including its security posture and provider reputation. * Regularly re-evaluate the chosen public relay's trustworthiness.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Relay Server Compromise: (Severity: High) - A compromised relay could allow interception, modification, or eavesdropping on file transfers. Self-hosting eliminates this risk from third parties. Strict selection minimizes it.
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) via Relay: (Severity: Medium) - A compromised or overloaded public relay could prevent croc from functioning. Self-hosting provides control over resources.
    • Data Leakage via Relay: (Severity: High) - Even with encryption, metadata about transfers (filenames, sizes, IP addresses) could be exposed if the relay is compromised. Self-hosting protects this metadata.

  • Impact:

    • Relay Server Compromise: Significantly reduces risk (self-hosting eliminates it).
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) via Relay: Moderately reduces risk (self-hosting provides more control).
    • Data Leakage via Relay: Significantly reduces risk (self-hosting eliminates it).

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Most likely using the default public relay, which is a high-risk configuration.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Self-hosted relay server deployment and configuration.
    • croc client configuration to use the self-hosted or strictly selected relay.

Mitigation Strategy: Code Phrase Complexity Enforcement (Requires Code Modification)

Description: 1. Source Code Modification: Modify the croc source code (specifically, the parts related to code phrase generation and validation) to enforce minimum complexity requirements. 2. Minimum Length: Set a minimum length for code phrases (e.g., 12 characters or more). 3. Character Requirements: Require a mix of character types: * Uppercase letters. * Lowercase letters. * Numbers. * Symbols. 4. Rejection of Weak Phrases: The modified croc should reject code phrases that do not meet the defined complexity requirements, providing clear error messages to the user. 5. Testing: Thoroughly test the modified code to ensure the complexity enforcement works as expected and does not introduce any bugs.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Code Phrase Guessing/Brute-Forcing: (Severity: Medium) - Makes it significantly harder for an attacker to guess or brute-force a code phrase.
    • Unauthorized Access to Files: (Severity: High) - Prevents unauthorized users from connecting and accessing files due to weak code phrases.

  • Impact:

    • Code Phrase Guessing/Brute-Forcing: Significantly reduces risk.
    • Unauthorized Access to Files: Significantly reduces risk.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Not implemented in the standard croc distribution. Relies entirely on user discretion.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • All aspects of this mitigation require source code modification.

Mitigation Strategy: Relay-Side Rate Limiting (Requires Code Modification)

Description: 1. Source Code Modification (Relay Server): Modify the croc relay server source code to implement rate limiting for connection attempts. 2. Limit Attempts per IP: Restrict the number of connection attempts allowed from a single IP address within a specific time window (e.g., 5 attempts per minute). 3. Limit Attempts per Code Phrase: Restrict the number of attempts to connect using the same code phrase within a specific time window. 4. Adjustable Thresholds: Make the rate limiting thresholds (number of attempts, time window) configurable. 5. Logging: Log all rate-limited attempts, including the IP address and code phrase (if applicable). 6. Testing: Thoroughly test the rate limiting implementation to ensure it works as expected and does not inadvertently block legitimate users.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Code Phrase Brute-Forcing: (Severity: Medium) - Significantly slows down brute-force attacks by limiting the number of attempts an attacker can make.
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) on Relay: (Severity: Medium) - Helps prevent a DoS attack that attempts to overwhelm the relay with connection requests.

  • Impact:

    • Code Phrase Brute-Forcing: Significantly reduces risk.
    • Denial-of-Service (DoS) on Relay: Moderately reduces risk.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Not implemented in the standard croc distribution.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • All aspects of this mitigation require source code modification of the relay server.

Mitigation Strategy: Display Cryptographic Fingerprints (Requires Code Modification)

Description: 1. Source Code Modification: Modify the croc source code to calculate and display the cryptographic fingerprints (e.g., SHA256 hash) of the public keys used for the encrypted connection. 2. Display on Both Ends: Display the fingerprint on both the sending and receiving clients' terminals. 3. Clear Presentation: Present the fingerprint in a clear, easily readable format (e.g., hexadecimal representation). 4. User Guidance: Provide clear instructions to users on how to use the displayed fingerprints for out-of-band verification (see previous out-of-band verification strategy). 5. Testing: Thoroughly test to ensure fingerprints are calculated and displayed correctly.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks: (Severity: High) - Enables users to verify that they are communicating with the intended party and not an attacker who has intercepted the connection. This is the most effective mitigation against MitM for croc.

  • Impact:

    • Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks: Significantly reduces risk when combined with out-of-band verification.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Not implemented in the standard croc distribution.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • All aspects of this mitigation require source code modification.

Mitigation Strategy: File Type Restrictions (Requires Code Modification)

Description: 1. Source Code Modification: Modify the croc source code to implement file type restrictions. 2. Define Allowed/Blocked Types: Create a configurable list of allowed or blocked file extensions (e.g., allow only .txt, .pdf, .docx; block .exe, .bat, .sh). 3. File Extension Check: Before initiating a transfer, croc should check the file extension against the allowed/blocked list. 4. Rejection and Error Message: If a file type is not allowed, croc should reject the transfer and display a clear error message to the user. 5. Configuration: Provide a mechanism to configure the allowed/blocked file types (e.g., through a configuration file or command-line options). 6. Testing: Thoroughly test to ensure file type restrictions are enforced correctly.

  • Threats Mitigated:

    • Malware Introduction: (Severity: High) - Reduces the risk of transferring executable files or other potentially malicious file types.
    • Accidental Transfer of Sensitive Files: (Severity: Medium) - Can be used to prevent the transfer of specific file types that might contain sensitive data (e.g., database files).

  • Impact:

    • Malware Introduction: Significantly reduces risk (depending on the restrictions implemented).
    • Accidental Transfer of Sensitive Files: Moderately reduces risk (depending on the restrictions implemented).

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Not implemented in the standard croc distribution.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • All aspects of this mitigation require source code modification.