Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
37 lines (30 loc) · 4.95 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

37 lines (30 loc) · 4.95 KB

Threat Model Analysis for robbiehanson/xmppframework

Threat: Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attack due to Insecure XMPPStream TLS Configuration

  • Description: An attacker intercepts the XMPP connection between the application and the server because TLS is disabled, misconfigured, or uses weak ciphers. The attacker can eavesdrop on communication, modify messages, or inject malicious stanzas.
    • Impact: Complete compromise of communication confidentiality and integrity. The attacker can steal credentials, read messages, modify data, and potentially impersonate the user or server.
    • Affected Component: XMPPStream and its TLS-related methods/properties (e.g., startTLS, isSecure, securitySettings, delegate methods related to TLS negotiation).
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Enforce TLS: Always require TLS for all XMPP connections. Use XMPPStream's startTLS method correctly and verify that isSecure returns YES after negotiation.
      • Strong Cipher Suites: Configure XMPPStream to use only strong cipher suites (e.g., those recommended by current best practices). Avoid deprecated or weak ciphers.
      • Certificate Validation: Implement strict certificate validation. Use XMPPStreamDelegate methods (e.g., xmppStream:willSecureWithSettings:) to verify the server's certificate against a trusted certificate authority (CA) and check the hostname. Consider certificate pinning for enhanced security.
      • Reject Insecure Connections: Configure the application to immediately terminate the connection if TLS negotiation fails or if the certificate is invalid.

Threat: XML Injection/XXE Attack via Malformed Stanza Input

  • Description: An attacker sends a specially crafted XMPP stanza containing malicious XML content. If xmppframework's XML parser is vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) attacks or other XML injection flaws, the attacker could potentially read local files, access internal network resources, or cause a denial of service.
    • Impact: Information disclosure (local files, internal network data), denial of service, potential remote code execution (in severe cases).
    • Affected Component: NSXMLParser (used internally by xmppframework for XML parsing), XMPPParser, and any custom code that handles raw XML data.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Disable External Entities: Configure the underlying NSXMLParser to disable the resolution of external entities and DTDs. This is the most crucial mitigation. This can often be done through XMPPParser settings or by subclassing and customizing the parser behavior.
      • Input Validation: Implement strict input validation on all received stanzas. Reject any stanzas that contain unexpected or potentially malicious XML structures.
      • Use a Safer XML Parser (if possible): If feasible, consider using a more secure XML parsing library that is specifically designed to prevent XXE attacks. This might involve modifying xmppframework's internals.
      • Sanitize Input: Sanitize any user-provided data before including it in XML stanzas sent by the application.

Threat: JID Spoofing via Malformed XMPPJID

  • Description: An attacker crafts a malicious XMPP message with a forged from attribute, manipulating the XMPPJID object to impersonate a legitimate user. The attacker might use Unicode characters that visually resemble another user's JID, or exploit edge cases in JID parsing.
    • Impact: The application treats the message as originating from the impersonated user, potentially granting the attacker unauthorized access to data or functionality, leading to data breaches, unauthorized actions, or social engineering attacks.
    • Affected Component: XMPPJID class and related parsing/comparison methods (e.g., initWithString:, user, domain, resource, isEqual:, compare:).
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Strict JID Validation: Implement robust JID validation beyond simple string comparison. Check against a whitelist of allowed JIDs/domains, if applicable. Consider using a dedicated JID validation library to handle edge cases and Unicode normalization. Do not rely solely on visual comparison.
      • SASL Authentication: Enforce strong SASL authentication (e.g., SCRAM-SHA-256) to verify the user's identity before processing any messages. This mitigates spoofing even if the JID is manipulated.
      • Out-of-Band Verification: For highly sensitive operations, consider out-of-band verification (e.g., a separate confirmation channel) to confirm the sender's identity.