Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
66 lines (55 loc) · 7.19 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

66 lines (55 loc) · 7.19 KB

Threat Model Analysis for xtls/xray-core

Threat: Protocol Implementation Buffer Overflow (VLESS)

  • Description: An attacker sends a specially crafted VLESS packet with an overly long field (e.g., a large username or command) to the Xray-core server. The vulnerable code in the VLESS inbound handler doesn't properly check the length of this field before copying it into a fixed-size buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.
    • Impact:
      • Critical: Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the server running Xray-core. The attacker could gain full control of the server.
      • High: Denial of Service (DoS) – crashing the Xray-core process.
    • Affected Component: app/proxyman/inbound/vless.go (or similar file handling VLESS inbound traffic) – specifically, the functions responsible for parsing and processing incoming VLESS packets. This would likely be within the handleConnection or related functions.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Ensure rigorous input validation and bounds checking are performed on all fields within the VLESS packet parsing logic. Use memory-safe languages or libraries where possible. Conduct thorough code reviews and fuzz testing specifically targeting the VLESS handler.
      • User: Update to the latest Xray-core version immediately upon release of a patch addressing this type of vulnerability. Monitor for security advisories.

Threat: Timing Side-Channel Attack on VMess AEAD Decryption

  • Description: An attacker observes the time it takes for Xray-core to process VMess packets with different ciphertexts. By carefully analyzing these timing variations, the attacker might be able to extract information about the decryption key, even if the underlying cryptographic algorithm (e.g., AES-GCM) is secure.
    • Impact:
      • High: Key Compromise. The attacker could potentially decrypt VMess traffic, leading to a complete loss of confidentiality.
    • Affected Component: Xray-core's VMess implementation, specifically the functions responsible for AEAD decryption. This would likely be within proxy/vmess/encoding or similar, focusing on the Cipher interface implementations.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Ensure that the AEAD decryption implementation is constant-time, meaning that the execution time does not depend on the secret key or the ciphertext. Use cryptographic libraries that are known to be resistant to timing attacks. Thoroughly review the code for any potential timing leaks.
      • User: Update to the latest Xray-core version if a vulnerability related to timing attacks is discovered and patched.

Threat: Denial-of-Service via Connection Exhaustion

  • Description: An attacker opens a large number of connections to the Xray-core server, exceeding the configured connection limits or the system's resource limits (e.g., file descriptors). Legitimate users are unable to connect.
    • Impact:
      • High: Denial of Service (DoS). The Xray-core server becomes unavailable to legitimate users.
    • Affected Component: Xray-core's inbound connection handling logic, across all inbound protocols (VLESS, VMess, Trojan, etc.). The app/proxyman/inbound package and its sub-packages are the primary targets.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Implement robust connection limiting and resource management within Xray-core. Allow administrators to configure these limits.
      • User: Configure appropriate connection limits within Xray-core's configuration (e.g., using the inbound.settings.clients.limit setting for VMess). Use operating system-level tools (e.g., ulimit on Linux) to limit the number of file descriptors available to the Xray-core process. Deploy the application behind a load balancer or firewall that can handle a large number of connections.

Threat: Memory Leak in Trojan Protocol Handler

  • Description: A bug in the Trojan protocol handler within Xray-core causes it to allocate memory for each connection but not properly release it under certain conditions (e.g., an error during connection establishment or termination). Over time, this leads to a gradual increase in memory usage.
    • Impact:
      • High: Denial of Service (DoS) – the Xray-core process eventually crashes due to running out of memory.
    • Affected Component: proxy/trojan package, specifically the functions responsible for handling Trojan connections (e.g., handleConnection, processRequest).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer: Thoroughly review the Trojan protocol handler code for any potential memory leaks. Use memory profiling tools to identify and fix leaks. Implement robust error handling to ensure that memory is always released, even in exceptional cases.
      • User: Monitor the memory usage of the Xray-core process. If a leak is suspected, restart the process periodically as a temporary workaround. Update to the latest Xray-core version as soon as a patch is available.

Threat: Implementation Bugs in Protocol Handlers (Other Protocols)

  • Description: Similar to the VLESS buffer overflow, vulnerabilities could exist in the implementation of other protocols supported by Xray-core (Trojan, Shadowsocks, Socks, etc.). These could include various types of bugs: integer overflows, logic errors, incorrect state handling, or cryptographic weaknesses specific to the Xray-core implementation of that protocol.
    • Impact:
      • Critical: Remote Code Execution (RCE) – in the worst case, depending on the specific vulnerability.
      • High: Denial of Service (DoS), Information Disclosure, or other protocol-specific impacts.
    • Affected Component: The specific protocol handler within Xray-core. For example: proxy/trojan, proxy/shadowsocks, proxy/socks, etc. The vulnerability would reside within the functions responsible for parsing, processing, and handling traffic for that protocol.
    • Risk Severity: Critical or High (depending on the specific vulnerability)
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Developer:
        • Conduct thorough code reviews and security audits of all protocol handlers.
        • Perform fuzz testing on each protocol handler, providing a wide range of valid and invalid inputs.
        • Use memory-safe languages or techniques where possible.
        • Adhere to secure coding best practices.
      • User:
        • Update to the latest Xray-core version regularly.
        • If possible, disable any protocols that are not strictly necessary.
        • Monitor for security advisories related to Xray-core and the specific protocols in use.