Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
76 lines (67 loc) · 6.24 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

76 lines (67 loc) · 6.24 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for elemefe/element

Objective: Inject malicious JavaScript (XSS) or manipulate UI via elemefe/element vulnerabilities

Attack Tree Visualization

Goal: Inject malicious JavaScript (XSS) or manipulate UI via elemefe/element vulnerabilities

├── 1. Direct Injection via Unsanitized Input (XSS) [HIGH RISK] │ ├── 1.1 Exploit element objects accepting raw HTML/JS [CRITICAL] │ │ ├── 1.1.1 Div(innerHTML="<script>...</script>") (Example) [HIGH RISK] │ │ ├── 1.1.2 Input(value="<script>...</script>") (Example) [HIGH RISK] │ │ ├── 1.1.3 Any element object attribute accepting strings [CRITICAL] ├── 3. Dependency-Related Vulnerabilities ├── 3.1 Vulnerabilities in underlying libraries │ ├── 3.1.1 If elemefe/element uses a vulnerable templating engine. [CRITICAL] ├── 3.2 Vulnerabilities in the Python interpreter itself. [CRITICAL] ├── 3.2.1 Exploiting vulnerabilities in the Python interpreter to gain access to the server.

Attack Tree Path: 1. Direct Injection via Unsanitized Input (XSS) [HIGH RISK]

  • Description: This is the most critical and likely attack vector. It involves injecting malicious JavaScript code directly into the HTML generated by elemefe/element due to insufficient input sanitization. The library's core responsibility is to generate HTML, making this a fundamental area of concern.
  • Sub-Vectors:
    • 1.1 Exploit element objects accepting raw HTML/JS [CRITICAL]
      • Description: This refers to any functionality within the library that allows developers to directly insert raw HTML or JavaScript without proper escaping. This is a critical design flaw if present.
      • Sub-Vectors:
        • 1.1.1 Div(innerHTML="<script>...</script>") (Example) [HIGH RISK]
          • Description: This is a specific example using a hypothetical Div object and an innerHTML property. If the library allows setting the inner HTML of an element directly with user-provided input without escaping, it's highly vulnerable to XSS.
          • Mitigation: Escape HTML entities by default. Provide a separate, clearly documented, and opt-in mechanism for raw HTML (e.g., Div(raw_html="...")). Warn users strongly about the risks.
          • Attack Type: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) - Stored or Reflected
          • Likelihood: High (If no escaping) / Low (If escaping is default)
          • Impact: High (Data theft, session hijacking, defacement)
          • Effort: Very Low
          • Skill Level: Beginner
          • Detection Difficulty: Medium
        • 1.1.2 Input(value="<script>...</script>") (Example) [HIGH RISK]
          • Description: Similar to 1.1.1, but focusing on input fields. If the value attribute of an input element is set directly from user input without escaping, it's vulnerable to reflected XSS.
          • Mitigation: Same as 1.1.1 - escape by default, provide opt-in raw HTML.
          • Attack Type: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) - Reflected
          • Likelihood: High (If no escaping) / Low (If escaping is default)
          • Impact: High (Data theft, session hijacking)
          • Effort: Very Low
          • Skill Level: Beginner
          • Detection Difficulty: Medium
        • 1.1.3 Any element object attribute accepting strings [CRITICAL]
          • Description: This highlights the importance of escaping all string attributes, not just innerHTML or value. Attributes like title, alt, and even custom attributes can be used for XSS attacks.
          • Mitigation: Escape HTML entities in all string attributes. This is crucial for preventing attribute-based XSS.
          • Attack Type: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) - Reflected or DOM-based
          • Likelihood: Medium
          • Impact: High
          • Effort: Low
          • Skill Level: Intermediate
          • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard

Attack Tree Path: 3. Dependency-Related Vulnerabilities

  • 3.1.1 If elemefe/element uses a vulnerable templating engine. [CRITICAL] * Description: If elemefe/element relies on an external templating engine (or any other library) for HTML generation, and that dependency has a known vulnerability, the application using elemefe/element is also vulnerable. * Mitigation: Keep all dependencies up-to-date. Regularly audit dependencies for known vulnerabilities. Consider using dependency scanning tools. If a vulnerability is found in a dependency, either update the dependency or find an alternative. * Attack Type: Various, depending on the dependency vulnerability. * Likelihood: Low to Medium (Depends on dependency maintenance) * Impact: Variable (Depends on the specific vulnerability) * Effort: Variable (Depends on the vulnerability) * Skill Level: Variable (Depends on the vulnerability) * Detection Difficulty: Medium (Dependency scanners can help)
  • 3.2 Vulnerabilities in the Python interpreter itself. [CRITICAL] * 3.2.1 Exploiting vulnerabilities in the Python interpreter to gain access to the server.
    • Description: This refers to vulnerabilities within the Python interpreter itself, which could be exploited to gain control of the server running the application. While less directly related to elemefe/element, it's a critical system-level concern.
    • Mitigation: Keep the Python interpreter up-to-date. Regularly audit the Python interpreter for known vulnerabilities.
    • Attack Type: Various, depending on the Python interpreter vulnerability.
    • Likelihood: Low
    • Impact: Very High
    • Effort: High
    • Skill Level: Expert
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard