Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
57 lines (45 loc) · 5.77 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

57 lines (45 loc) · 5.77 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for nodejs/string_decoder

Objective: Compromise Application using string_decoder

Attack Tree Visualization

Attack Goal: Compromise Application using string_decoder [CRITICAL NODE: Security Goal]
├───[AND] Achieve Denial of Service (DoS) [CRITICAL NODE: DoS Goal]
│   └───[OR] Resource Exhaustion [CRITICAL NODE: Resource Exhaustion]
│   └───[OR] Decoder State Manipulation (Leading to unexpected behavior/errors)
├───[AND] Achieve Data Integrity Compromise [CRITICAL NODE: Data Integrity Compromise Goal]
│   └───[OR] Character Misinterpretation/Substitution [CRITICAL NODE: Character Misinterpretation]
│       └───[AND] Encoding Mismatches [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE: Encoding Mismatches]

Attack Tree Path: Critical Node: Attack Goal: Compromise Application using string_decoder [Security Goal]

  • Description: This is the overarching objective of the attacker. Success means the attacker has managed to negatively impact the application through vulnerabilities or weaknesses related to the string_decoder module.
  • Attack Vectors (Summarized from Full Tree):
    • Denial of Service (DoS) attacks targeting resource exhaustion or decoder state manipulation.
    • Data Integrity Compromise attacks leading to character misinterpretation or substitution.

Attack Tree Path: Critical Node: Achieve Denial of Service (DoS) [DoS Goal]

  • Description: The attacker aims to make the application unavailable or significantly degrade its performance for legitimate users.
  • Attack Vectors (Summarized from Full Tree):
    • Resource Exhaustion [Critical Node]:
      • CPU Exhaustion: Sending extremely long input strings for decoding, overwhelming the CPU.
      • Memory Exhaustion: Sending a stream of incomplete multi-byte characters, causing unbounded memory growth in the decoder's buffers.
    • Decoder State Manipulation:
      • Inconsistent Encoding Declarations: Sending data with one encoding but declaring a different encoding to the decoder, potentially leading to errors or unexpected behavior that disrupts application functionality.

Attack Tree Path: Critical Node: Achieve Data Integrity Compromise [Data Integrity Compromise Goal]

  • Description: The attacker aims to corrupt or manipulate data processed by the application, leading to incorrect processing, application logic errors, or potential security bypasses.
  • Attack Vectors (Summarized from Full Tree):
    • Character Misinterpretation/Substitution [Critical Node]:
      • Encoding Mismatches [High-Risk Path, Critical Node]: Sending data in encoding A but decoding it as encoding B. This is a High-Risk Path because it is relatively easy to exploit (low effort, low skill) and can have a significant impact on data integrity and potentially lead to security bypasses.
      • Exploiting edge cases in specific encodings: Crafting input that exploits less common or complex character sequences in specific encodings, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

Attack Tree Path: High-Risk Path and Critical Node: Encoding Mismatches [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE: Encoding Mismatches]

  • Description: This is the most critical and high-risk path identified. It involves exploiting the application's handling of character encodings by providing data in one encoding while instructing the string_decoder to decode it using a different, incompatible encoding.
  • Attack Vector Details:
    • Technique: Send data in encoding A, decode as encoding B (e.g., UTF-8 data sent, but decoder instructed to use ASCII).
    • Details: This mismatch leads to incorrect character representation. For example, multi-byte characters in UTF-8 will be misinterpreted when decoded as ASCII, often resulting in replacement characters or garbled text.
    • Impact:
      • Data Corruption: Decoded strings will be incorrect, leading to data corruption if this data is stored or further processed.
      • Incorrect Application Logic: If the application logic relies on the content of the decoded strings (e.g., input validation, parsing, business logic), misinterpretation can lead to unexpected and potentially vulnerable behavior.
      • Security Bypasses: In some cases, encoding mismatches can be used to bypass input validation or filters if the validation logic is based on the incorrectly decoded string. For example, an attacker might be able to inject special characters that are misinterpreted during validation but correctly interpreted later in the application.
    • Likelihood: Medium - Common due to misconfigurations, lack of encoding validation, or attacker manipulation of encoding declarations (e.g., HTTP headers, API parameters).
    • Impact: Moderate to Significant - Can lead to data corruption, application errors, and potential security vulnerabilities.
    • Effort: Low - Easy to manipulate encoding declarations in HTTP requests or API calls.
    • Skill Level: Low - Requires basic understanding of character encodings and HTTP/API manipulation.
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium - Data corruption might be detected through data integrity checks or application errors. Incorrect character display might be noticeable. Logging encoding mismatches is crucial for detection.