Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
59 lines (48 loc) · 6.42 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

59 lines (48 loc) · 6.42 KB

Threat Model Analysis for afnetworking/afnetworking

Threat: Memory Corruption Vulnerability in AFNetworking

  • Description: An attacker could exploit a memory corruption bug within AFNetworking's code (e.g., in data parsing or memory management). This could be triggered by sending a specially crafted malicious server response or by exploiting a vulnerability in how AFNetworking handles network data. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the user's device or cause the application to crash.
  • Impact: Code execution, application crash, denial of service, potential data breach if attacker gains control.
  • Affected AFNetworking Component: Core networking modules, data parsing components (e.g., AFURLResponseSerialization), memory management within the library.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep AFNetworking updated to the latest version to benefit from bug fixes and security patches.
    • Perform regular security testing and code reviews, including fuzzing of data parsing components if feasible.
    • Implement robust error handling to prevent crashes and unexpected behavior even if memory corruption occurs.
    • Consider using memory safety tools during development and testing to detect potential memory issues.

Threat: Parsing Vulnerability in Response Deserialization

  • Description: An attacker could send a malformed or malicious server response (e.g., crafted JSON or XML) that exploits a vulnerability in AFNetworking's response deserialization logic. This could lead to denial of service, unexpected application behavior, or in more severe cases, potentially code execution if the parsing vulnerability is critical enough.
  • Impact: Denial of service, application crash, unexpected behavior, potentially code execution (depending on vulnerability).
  • Affected AFNetworking Component: AFURLResponseSerialization (specifically JSON, XML, or other deserialization classes).
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep AFNetworking updated to the latest version.
    • Use robust and well-tested server-side validation to prevent sending malformed responses in the first place.
    • Implement input validation and sanitization on the client-side even after deserialization, to handle potentially unexpected data structures.
    • Consider using safer parsing libraries or techniques if AFNetworking's deserialization is deemed insufficient for specific data formats.

Threat: Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attack due to Disabled Certificate Pinning

  • Description: An attacker positioned on the network (e.g., on a public Wi-Fi) can intercept network traffic between the application and the server. If certificate pinning is not implemented, the attacker can present a fraudulent certificate, impersonate the legitimate server, and intercept or modify sensitive data transmitted by the application.
  • Impact: Data breach (sensitive data interception), data manipulation, account compromise, malware injection (if attacker can modify responses).
  • Affected AFNetworking Component: TLS/SSL implementation within AFNetworkingOperation and related classes, specifically certificate validation.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Implement Certificate Pinning: Use AFNetworking's certificate pinning features to validate the server's certificate against a known, trusted certificate or public key. This prevents MITM attacks by ensuring communication only with the legitimate server.
    • Enforce HTTPS for all communication with sensitive servers.

Threat: Weak TLS/SSL Configuration Leading to MITM

  • Description: Developers might misconfigure AFNetworking to use weak or outdated TLS protocol versions (e.g., TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1) or insecure cipher suites. This makes the communication vulnerable to known cryptographic attacks and allows attackers to potentially decrypt or tamper with the traffic in a MITM attack.
  • Impact: Data breach (decryption of communication), data manipulation, account compromise.
  • Affected AFNetworking Component: TLS/SSL configuration within AFNetworkingOperation and related classes, specifically protocol and cipher suite selection.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Enforce Strong TLS Protocol Versions: Configure AFNetworking to use only TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 (or the latest recommended versions). Disable support for older, vulnerable protocols.
    • Use Strong Cipher Suites: Ensure that AFNetworking is configured to use strong and modern cipher suites. Avoid weak or export-grade ciphers.
    • Regularly review and update TLS/SSL configurations based on security best practices and recommendations.

Threat: Insecure Caching of Sensitive Data

  • Description: Developers might use AFNetworking's caching mechanisms to cache sensitive data (e.g., API keys, authentication tokens, personal information) without proper security considerations. If the device is compromised or the caching mechanism is insecure, this sensitive data could be exposed to unauthorized access.
  • Impact: Data breach (exposure of sensitive cached data), account compromise.
  • Affected AFNetworking Component: AFCachePolicyProtocol and related caching mechanisms within AFNetworking.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Avoid Caching Sensitive Data: Minimize or eliminate caching of highly sensitive data if possible.
    • Encrypt Cached Data: If caching sensitive data is necessary, ensure that the cached data is encrypted at rest using secure storage mechanisms provided by the operating system or a dedicated encryption library.
    • Use Secure Storage: Consider using secure storage options provided by the operating system (e.g., Keychain on iOS) for storing sensitive credentials instead of relying on AFNetworking's caching for such data.
    • Control Cache Scope and Expiration: Carefully configure cache scope (e.g., memory-only vs. disk-based) and expiration policies to minimize the risk of long-term exposure of cached data.