Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
108 lines (80 loc) · 11.2 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

108 lines (80 loc) · 11.2 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for google/accompanist

Objective: Compromise Application Using Accompanist

Attack Tree Visualization

Attack Goal: Compromise Application Using Accompanist [CRITICAL NODE] ├───[AND] Exploit Accompanist Component Vulnerabilities │ ├───[OR] Exploit Pager Component Vulnerabilities (HorizontalPager, VerticalPager, Pager) │ │ ├───[AND] Resource Exhaustion via Pager [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE] │ ├───[OR] Exploit Insets Handling Vulnerabilities (SystemBars, InsetsController) │ │ ├───[AND] UI Overlap/Obfuscation via Insets Manipulation [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE] │ ├───[OR] Exploit Image Loading Vulnerabilities (rememberCoilPainter integration) [CRITICAL NODE] │ │ ├───[AND] SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery) via Image Loading [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE] ├───[AND] Exploit Misuse/Misconfiguration of Accompanist [CRITICAL NODE] │ ├───[OR] Incorrect Component Usage [CRITICAL NODE] │ ├───[OR] Outdated Accompanist Version [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Tree Path: Attack Goal: Compromise Application Using Accompanist [CRITICAL NODE]

Description: This is the ultimate objective of the attacker. Success means gaining unauthorized access, manipulating application functionality or data, or causing disruption.

Impact: Potentially catastrophic, ranging from data breaches and financial loss to reputational damage and service unavailability.

Mitigation: Implement comprehensive security measures across all application layers, including secure coding practices, regular security testing, dependency management, and incident response planning.

Attack Tree Path: Resource Exhaustion via Pager [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector:

  • Excessive Page Loading: Attacker triggers the application to load an extremely large number of pages within a Pager component (HorizontalPager, VerticalPager). This can be achieved by manipulating input parameters that control page counts or by exploiting logic flaws in page loading mechanisms.
  • Complex Recomposition Overload: Attacker crafts or provides data that, when rendered within Pager items, causes extremely complex and resource-intensive recompositions in Compose. This could involve deeply nested composables, inefficient rendering logic, or excessive calculations within composables.

Consequences:

  • Denial of Service (DoS): The application becomes unresponsive or crashes due to excessive resource consumption (CPU, memory, battery).
  • Poor User Experience: Significant performance degradation, making the application unusable for legitimate users.

Mitigation:

  • Pagination and Lazy Loading: Implement proper pagination or lazy loading techniques for Pager content. Load only the necessary pages and content visible to the user.
  • Composable Complexity Limits: Minimize the complexity of composables rendered within Pager items. Avoid deeply nested layouts and resource-intensive operations within recomposition scopes.
  • Resource Management: Implement proper resource management practices, including using remember and DisposableEffect effectively to optimize recompositions and prevent resource leaks.
  • Input Validation and Sanitization: Validate and sanitize any user inputs that influence the number of pages or content within the Pager.
  • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting or throttling mechanisms to prevent excessive page loading requests from a single user or source.

Attack Tree Path: UI Overlap/Obfuscation via Insets Manipulation [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector:

  • Incorrect Insets Handling: Developers might incorrectly use or configure Accompanist's insets handling components (SystemBars, InsetsController) or related modifiers. This can lead to situations where UI elements are unintentionally overlapped or obscured by system bars or other UI components.
  • Malicious Insets Values (Less Likely via Accompanist Directly): While less likely to be directly exploitable via Accompanist itself, if the application logic allows manipulation of insets values based on attacker-controlled input, it could be used to cause UI overlap.

Consequences:

  • UI Obfuscation: Legitimate UI elements can be hidden or partially obscured, making the application difficult or impossible to use correctly.
  • Malicious UI Overlay: Attacker might be able to overlay malicious UI elements on top of legitimate UI, potentially tricking users into performing unintended actions (e.g., phishing, data entry into fake fields).
  • Denial of Service (Usability DoS): The application becomes unusable due to UI rendering issues.

Mitigation:

  • Careful Insets Usage and Testing: Thoroughly review and test insets usage, especially when customizing system bar appearance. Test on various devices and screen sizes. Use preview tools to visualize UI layout with different insets.
  • UI Testing and Validation: Implement UI tests to ensure that UI elements are rendered correctly and are not overlapped or obscured in different scenarios.
  • Code Reviews: Conduct code reviews to identify potential issues in insets handling logic.
  • Avoid User-Controlled Insets (If Possible): Minimize or eliminate scenarios where user input directly controls insets values. If necessary, strictly validate and sanitize any such input.

Attack Tree Path: SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery) via Image Loading [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector:

  • Unsanitized User-Controlled URLs in rememberCoilPainter: If the application uses rememberCoilPainter to load images from URLs that are directly or indirectly controlled by user input without proper validation and sanitization, an attacker can inject malicious URLs.
  • Internal Network Scanning/Access: The attacker-controlled URL can point to internal network resources or services that are not intended to be publicly accessible. When rememberCoilPainter (via Coil) attempts to load the image from this URL, it initiates a request from the application's backend or the user's device to the attacker-specified target.

Consequences:

  • Internal Network Reconnaissance: Attacker can scan internal network infrastructure to identify open ports, services, and potentially vulnerable systems.
  • Access to Internal Services/Data: Attacker can gain unauthorized access to internal services or data that are not exposed to the public internet.
  • Data Exfiltration: Attacker might be able to exfiltrate sensitive data from internal systems if they are accessible via SSRF.
  • Remote Code Execution (in severe cases): In highly vulnerable internal systems, SSRF could potentially be chained with other vulnerabilities to achieve remote code execution.

Mitigation:

  • Strict URL Validation and Sanitization: Critically important. Sanitize and validate all user-provided URLs used with rememberCoilPainter. Use robust URL parsing and validation libraries.
  • URL Whitelisting: Implement a strict URL whitelist, allowing only images from trusted and pre-defined domains or paths.
  • Content Security Policy (CSP) - if applicable in context: While CSP is primarily a web browser security mechanism, consider if similar principles can be applied to restrict outbound network requests from the application.
  • Network Segmentation: Implement network segmentation to limit the impact of SSRF attacks by isolating internal networks and services.
  • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing to identify and address potential SSRF vulnerabilities.

Attack Tree Path: Outdated Accompanist Version [HIGH-RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector:

  • Using Vulnerable Library Version: If the application uses an outdated version of the Accompanist library that contains known security vulnerabilities, attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities. Publicly disclosed vulnerabilities in open-source libraries are often actively targeted.

Consequences:

  • Exploitation of Known Vulnerabilities: Attackers can leverage publicly available exploit code or techniques to target known vulnerabilities in the outdated Accompanist version. The impact depends on the specific vulnerability, but could range from DoS to remote code execution.

Mitigation:

  • Regular Dependency Updates: Essential. Establish a process for regularly updating all application dependencies, including Accompanist, to the latest stable versions.
  • Dependency Monitoring and Security Advisories: Monitor Accompanist release notes, security advisories, and vulnerability databases (e.g., CVE databases, GitHub Security Advisories) for reported vulnerabilities.
  • Dependency Scanning Tools: Use dependency scanning tools (e.g., OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk) to automatically identify outdated dependencies and known vulnerabilities in your project.
  • Automated Dependency Updates (with caution): Consider using automated dependency update tools, but ensure proper testing and review processes are in place to avoid introducing breaking changes.

Attack Tree Path: Incorrect Component Usage [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector:

  • Developer Misunderstanding or Errors: Developers might misuse Accompanist components due to lack of understanding, insufficient documentation, or coding errors. This can lead to unintended security vulnerabilities even if the library itself is secure. Examples include improper error handling with rememberCoilPainter, insecure state management in Pager, or incorrect insets configuration.

Consequences:

  • Vulnerability Introduction: Incorrect usage can introduce various vulnerabilities, depending on the component and the nature of the misuse. This could lead to DoS, UI manipulation, data leaks, or other security issues.

Mitigation:

  • Comprehensive Documentation and Examples: Provide clear, comprehensive, and up-to-date documentation and examples for all Accompanist components, emphasizing secure usage patterns.
  • Developer Training and Awareness: Train developers on secure coding practices and the correct usage of Accompanist components, highlighting potential security pitfalls.
  • Code Reviews: Conduct thorough code reviews to identify and correct instances of incorrect or insecure Accompanist component usage.
  • Lint Rules and Static Analysis: Develop custom lint rules or static analysis checks to detect common misuses of Accompanist components and enforce secure coding patterns.
  • Example Projects and Best Practices: Provide example projects and best practices guidelines demonstrating secure and effective use of Accompanist.