Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
116 lines (100 loc) · 9.33 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

116 lines (100 loc) · 9.33 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for tapadoo/alerter

Objective: Degrade UX, Display Misleading Info, or Trigger Unintended Behavior via Alerter

Attack Tree Visualization

Attacker Goal: Degrade UX, Display Misleading Info, or Trigger Unintended Behavior via Alerter ├── 1. Manipulate Alert Content (Appearance) [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ ├── 1.1 Inject Malicious Text/HTML (If supported, unlikely) │ │ └── 1.1.1 Find Input Field Propagating to Alerter Unsanitized [CRITICAL NODE] │ ├── 1.2 Modify Alert Style/Color to Mimic System Alerts │ │ └── 1.2.1 Abuse Customization Options (If overly permissive) [CRITICAL NODE] │ ├── 1.3 Control Alert Duration/Dismissal │ │ └── 1.3.1 Prevent Dismissal (Make Alert Persistent) │ │ └── 1.3.1.1 Repeatedly Trigger Alert (Denial of Service on UI) [CRITICAL NODE] │ └── 1.4 Spoof Alert Origin (Make it appear from a trusted source) │ └── 1.4.1 Manipulate Text/Icon to Impersonate System/Other Apps [CRITICAL NODE] ├── 2. Manipulate Alert Actions (Behavior) │ └── 2.1 Trigger Unintended Callbacks/Delegates │ └── 2.1.1 Find Exposed Callback/Delegate Methods [CRITICAL NODE] └── 3. Exploit Alerter Implementation Vulnerabilities ├── 3.1 Memory Corruption (Buffer Overflow, Use-After-Free, etc.) │ └── 3.1.1 Identify Vulnerable Code in Alerter Library [CRITICAL NODE] ├── 3.2 Denial of Service (DoS) on Alerter Itself │ └── 3.2.1 Repeatedly Create and Show Alerts [CRITICAL NODE] └── 3.3 Logic Errors in Alerter Code └── 3.3.1 Identify Unexpected Behavior [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Tree Path: 1. Manipulate Alert Content (Appearance) [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Overall Description: This path focuses on attacks that alter the visual presentation of the alert to mislead the user or disrupt the application's UI.

    • 1.1.1 Find Input Field Propagating to Alerter Unsanitized [CRITICAL NODE]

      • Description: The attacker identifies an input field within the application (e.g., a search bar, profile update form, etc.) where user-provided data is directly used to populate the content of an Alerter alert without proper sanitization or validation.
      • Likelihood: Low (Assuming reasonable development practices)
      • Impact: Medium to High (Depending on what can be injected)
      • Effort: Medium
      • Skill Level: Intermediate
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Requires monitoring input/output)
      • Example: If a user profile field allows arbitrary text, and that text is displayed in an Alerter without escaping, an attacker could inject HTML or JavaScript (if supported, though unlikely in a native iOS alert) to alter the alert's appearance or potentially execute malicious code. Even without HTML/JS, control characters or very long strings could cause display issues.
      • Mitigation: Strict input validation and sanitization before passing data to Alerter. Whitelisting allowed characters is preferred over blacklisting.

    • 1.2.1 Abuse Customization Options (If overly permissive) [CRITICAL NODE]

      • Description: The attacker leverages overly permissive customization options within Alerter (or the application's use of Alerter) to change the alert's appearance (color, font, icons) to make it resemble a system alert or a notification from a trusted source.
      • Likelihood: Medium (Depends on Alerter's configuration)
      • Impact: Medium (User confusion, potential phishing)
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Novice
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (Visual inspection)
      • Example: If Alerter allows setting arbitrary colors, an attacker could make an alert appear red and use a system-like icon to mimic a critical error message, potentially tricking the user into taking an action they wouldn't normally take.
      • Mitigation: Restrict customization to a predefined set of styles (e.g., "info," "warning," "error"). Avoid allowing arbitrary color, font, or icon changes. Validate any custom icons.

    • 1.3.1.1 Repeatedly Trigger Alert (Denial of Service on UI) [CRITICAL NODE]

      • Description: The attacker repeatedly triggers the display of Alerter alerts, flooding the user interface and making the application unusable.
      • Likelihood: Medium
      • Impact: Medium (User frustration, app unusable)
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Novice
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (Obvious UI issue)
      • Example: If an attacker can trigger an alert through some action (e.g., submitting a form, making a network request), they could automate this process to rapidly display many alerts, overwhelming the UI.
      • Mitigation: Implement rate limiting to prevent excessive alert displays.

    • 1.4.1 Manipulate Text/Icon to Impersonate System/Other Apps [CRITICAL NODE]

      • Description: The attacker modifies the text or icon displayed within the Alerter alert to make it appear as though the alert originated from a trusted source (e.g., the operating system, another application).
      • Likelihood: Medium (If customization is allowed)
      • Impact: Medium to High (Phishing, social engineering)
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Novice to Intermediate
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Requires careful user observation)
      • Example: An attacker could craft an alert that mimics a system update notification, prompting the user to enter their credentials or download a malicious file.
      • Mitigation: Restrict customization of text and icons. Use a predefined set of icons from a trusted source. Sanitize any text displayed in the alert.

Attack Tree Path: 2. Manipulate Alert Actions (Behavior)

  • 2.1.1 Find Exposed Callback/Delegate Methods [CRITICAL NODE] * Description: The attacker identifies a way to directly invoke the callback or delegate methods associated with Alerter's buttons or actions. This could allow them to bypass normal application flow and potentially execute unintended code. * Likelihood: Low (Good coding practices should prevent this) * Impact: Medium to Very High (Depends on the callback's function) * Effort: Medium * Skill Level: Intermediate * Detection Difficulty: Medium (Requires code analysis) * Example: If an Alerter button's callback is inadvertently made public or accessible through some other means, an attacker might be able to call it directly, potentially triggering actions like deleting data, making unauthorized purchases, or accessing sensitive information. * Mitigation: Ensure that callback/delegate methods are not publicly accessible. Use appropriate access control modifiers (private, internal). Validate any parameters passed to these methods.

Attack Tree Path: 3. Exploit Alerter Implementation Vulnerabilities

  • 3.1.1 Identify Vulnerable Code in Alerter Library [CRITICAL NODE]

    • Description: The attacker finds a memory safety vulnerability (e.g., buffer overflow, use-after-free) within the Alerter library's code itself. This is a very low-level attack.
    • Likelihood: Very Low to Low (Assuming Alerter is well-maintained)
    • Impact: Very High (Potential code execution)
    • Effort: High to Very High
    • Skill Level: Expert
    • Detection Difficulty: Very Hard
    • Example: A buffer overflow in the code that handles displaying alert text could allow an attacker to overwrite memory and potentially execute arbitrary code.
    • Mitigation: Regular code reviews of the Alerter library. Use static analysis tools and fuzzing to identify potential vulnerabilities. Keep the library up-to-date.

  • 3.2.1 Repeatedly Create and Show Alerts [CRITICAL NODE]

    • Description: (Same as 1.3.1.1) This is a denial-of-service attack targeting the Alerter component itself, making it unresponsive.
    • Likelihood: Medium (If no rate limiting)
    • Impact: Medium (App becomes unresponsive)
    • Effort: Low
    • Skill Level: Novice
    • Detection Difficulty: Easy (Obvious UI issue)
    • Example: (Same as 1.3.1.1)
    • Mitigation: Implement rate limiting.

  • 3.3.1 Identify Unexpected Behavior [CRITICAL NODE]

    • Description: The attacker discovers a logic error within the Alerter library's code that leads to unexpected or unintended behavior.
    • Likelihood: Low
    • Impact: Variable (Depends on the specific logic error)
    • Effort: Medium to High
    • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard
    • Example: A flaw in how Alerter handles button taps might cause the wrong action to be executed, or an error in the dismissal logic might prevent an alert from being closed.
    • Mitigation: Thorough testing and code review of the Alerter library.