Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
73 lines (55 loc) · 7.24 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

73 lines (55 loc) · 7.24 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for conductor-oss/conductor

Objective: Compromise Application via Conductor Exploitation

Attack Tree Visualization

  • OR 1: Exploit Workflow Definition Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
    • [HIGH RISK PATH] AND 1.1: Inject Malicious Workflow Definition [CRITICAL NODE]
      • [HIGH RISK PATH] OR 1.1.1: Exploit API Input Validation Flaws [CRITICAL NODE]
        • [HIGH RISK PATH] 1.1.1.1: Parameter Tampering during Workflow Registration
        • [HIGH RISK PATH] 1.1.1.2: Injection Attacks in Workflow Definition (e.g., JSON/YAML injection if parsed unsafely)
  • OR 2: Exploit Task Execution Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
  • OR 3: Exploit Conductor API Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
    • AND 3.2: API Input Validation Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
      • OR 3.2.1: Injection Attacks in API Requests [CRITICAL NODE]
        • 3.2.1.1: Command Injection via API parameters (if Conductor API executes commands based on input)
        • 3.2.1.2: SQL Injection in Conductor's database queries (if API parameters are used in queries)
  • OR 4: Exploit Conductor Infrastructure Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
    • AND 4.2: Misconfiguration of Conductor Deployment [CRITICAL NODE]
      • OR 4.2.2: Inadequate Security Hardening [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Tree Path: 1. OR 1: Exploit Workflow Definition Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: Workflow definitions dictate the application's logic within Conductor. Compromising them allows attackers to control application behavior, data flow, and potentially execute arbitrary code within the task workers.

Attack Tree Path: 2. [HIGH RISK PATH] AND 1.1: Inject Malicious Workflow Definition [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: Injecting a malicious workflow is a direct and highly impactful attack. It allows attackers to introduce their own code and logic into the application's core workflow orchestration.
  • Attack Vectors:
    • Exploiting API Input Validation Flaws (OR 1.1.1):
      • Parameter Tampering during Workflow Registration (1.1.1.1):
        • Description: Attacker manipulates API parameters during workflow registration requests to bypass validation checks or inject malicious content into workflow definitions.
        • Example: Modifying request parameters to include malicious scripts or commands within workflow definition fields that are not properly validated.
      • Injection Attacks in Workflow Definition (e.g., JSON/YAML injection if parsed unsafely) (1.1.1.2):
        • Description: If workflow definitions are parsed from formats like JSON or YAML without proper sanitization, attackers can inject malicious payloads that are interpreted as code or commands during parsing.
        • Example: Injecting malicious code within JSON or YAML structures that are then parsed and executed by the Conductor engine or task workers.

Attack Tree Path: 3. OR 2: Exploit Task Execution Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: Task execution is where the actual application logic runs. Vulnerabilities here can lead to direct code execution, data manipulation, and access to sensitive resources within the application's infrastructure via compromised task workers or manipulated task data.

Attack Tree Path: 4. OR 3: Exploit Conductor API Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: The Conductor API is the primary interface for interaction. Compromising it grants attackers broad control over workflows, tasks, and potentially the Conductor engine itself.

Attack Tree Path: 5. AND 3.2: API Input Validation Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: Input validation flaws in the Conductor API are a direct entry point for attackers to interact with and potentially compromise the Conductor engine and the applications it orchestrates.
  • Attack Vectors:
    • OR 3.2.1: Injection Attacks in API Requests [CRITICAL NODE]:
      • Command Injection via API parameters (3.2.1.1):
        • Description: If the Conductor API directly executes system commands based on user-supplied input without proper sanitization, attackers can inject malicious commands into API parameters.
        • Example: Injecting shell commands into API parameters that are then executed by the Conductor server, allowing for arbitrary code execution on the server.
      • SQL Injection in Conductor's database queries (3.2.1.2):
        • Description: If the Conductor API constructs SQL queries using user-supplied input without proper sanitization (e.g., using string concatenation instead of parameterized queries), attackers can inject malicious SQL code into API parameters.
        • Example: Injecting SQL code into API parameters that are used in database queries, allowing attackers to bypass authentication, extract sensitive data, or modify database records.

Attack Tree Path: 6. OR 4: Exploit Conductor Infrastructure Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: The underlying infrastructure is the foundation of security. Compromising it can undermine all other security measures and provide attackers with broad access to the Conductor engine and the applications it supports.

Attack Tree Path: 7. AND 4.2: Misconfiguration of Conductor Deployment [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Criticality: Misconfigurations are a common source of vulnerabilities and are often easily exploited. Inadequate security hardening leaves the Conductor deployment vulnerable to known attacks.
  • Attack Vectors:
    • OR 4.2.2: Inadequate Security Hardening [CRITICAL NODE]:
      • Missing Security Patches on Conductor Server OS (4.2.2.1):
        • Description: Failure to apply security patches to the operating system of the Conductor server leaves known vulnerabilities unaddressed, which attackers can exploit using readily available exploits.
        • Example: Exploiting known vulnerabilities in outdated operating system versions to gain unauthorized access to the Conductor server.
      • Weak Firewall Rules allowing unauthorized access (4.2.2.2):
        • Description: Inadequately configured firewalls that allow unnecessary ports to be open or lack proper access control rules can expose Conductor services and infrastructure to unauthorized access from the network.
        • Example: Exploiting open ports to access Conductor services directly, bypassing intended access controls and potentially gaining unauthorized access to the Conductor engine or underlying systems.