Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
121 lines (99 loc) · 11.9 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

121 lines (99 loc) · 11.9 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for tonymillion/reachability

Objective: To compromise application behavior by exploiting vulnerabilities related to its reliance on Reachability's network status information, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data manipulation, or denial of service within the application's intended functionality.

Attack Tree Visualization

  • [HR] 1. Exploit Inaccurate Reachability Information [CRITICAL]
    • [HR] 1.1. Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attack (Network Level) [CRITICAL]
      • Attack Steps:
        • a. Establish MitM position (e.g., ARP poisoning, rogue Wi-Fi access point). [CRITICAL]
        • c. [HR] Manipulate network responses to falsely indicate network status changes (e.g., block connectivity checks, delay responses). [CRITICAL]
    • [HR] 1.3. Timing Attacks/Race Conditions (Application Logic)
      • Attack Steps:
        • a. Identify application code that checks Reachability and then performs a network-sensitive action. [CRITICAL]
        • b. [HR] Induce a network status change (e.g., quickly disconnect/reconnect Wi-Fi, simulate network congestion) immediately after the Reachability check but before the action is executed. [CRITICAL]
    • 1.4. Reachability Library Bugs/Vulnerabilities (Less Likely, but Possible)
      • Attack Steps:
        • a. Analyze the reachability library code for potential vulnerabilities (e.g., buffer overflows, logic errors in network status detection). [CRITICAL]
  • [HR] 2. Exploit Application Logic Flaws in Reachability Usage [CRITICAL]
    • [HR] 2.1. Over-Reliance on Reachability for Security Decisions [CRITICAL]
      • Attack Steps:
        • a. Identify application features or functionalities protected by Reachability checks. [CRITICAL]
        • b. [HR] Employ techniques from section 1 (MitM, local network manipulation, timing attacks) to influence Reachability's reported status. [CRITICAL]
        • c. [HR] Observe if the application grants access or performs actions based on the manipulated Reachability status, even when it shouldn't. [CRITICAL]
    • [HR] 2.2. Incorrect Error Handling of Reachability Status [CRITICAL]
      • Attack Steps:
        • a. Identify application's code for how it handles different Reachability status reports and potential error conditions. [CRITICAL]
        • b. [HR] Induce network conditions that might trigger unexpected Reachability states or errors (e.g., rapid network changes, unusual network configurations). [CRITICAL]
    • [HR] 2.3. Logic Bugs in Conditional Logic Based on Reachability [CRITICAL]
      • Attack Steps:
        • a. Identify application code that uses Reachability status in conditional logic. [CRITICAL]
        • b. [HR] Identify potential logic flaws (e.g., incorrect boolean operators, missing cases, off-by-one errors in thresholds). [CRITICAL]
        • c. [HR] Manipulate network conditions (or simulate them) to trigger the flawed conditional logic. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1. Exploit Inaccurate Reachability Information [CRITICAL]

1. Exploit Inaccurate Reachability Information [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Manipulating network conditions or traffic to cause Reachability to report incorrect network status to the application.
  • Goal: To make the application believe the network status is different from the actual status.
  • Description: This is the root of many Reachability-related attacks. If an attacker can control or influence the network information reported by Reachability, they can potentially manipulate application behavior.
  • Impact: Application misbehavior, disabled features, incorrect data handling, bypassed security checks if network status is used for authorization.
  • Mitigation Focus: Do not solely rely on Reachability for critical decisions. Implement server-side validation and robust application logic.

1.1. Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attack (Network Level) [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Intercepting and manipulating network traffic between the device and the network to influence Reachability's perceived network status.
  • Goal: To simulate network disconnection or a different network type than actually present by manipulating network responses.
  • Description: Attacker positions themselves in the network path and alters network communications to feed false network status information to the device, affecting Reachability's reports.
  • Attack Steps:
    • a. Establish MitM position [CRITICAL]: Gain a position to intercept network traffic (e.g., ARP poisoning, rogue Wi-Fi).
    • c. Manipulate network responses [HR, CRITICAL]: Alter network responses to falsely indicate network status changes (block connectivity checks, delay responses).
  • Impact: Application misbehavior due to incorrect network status, potentially leading to security bypasses or data manipulation.
  • Mitigation Focus: End-to-end encryption (HTTPS), certificate pinning, and most importantly, avoid relying on Reachability for security decisions.

1.3. Timing Attacks/Race Conditions (Application Logic)

  • Attack Vector: Exploiting the time gap between Reachability's status check and the application's action based on that status by inducing a network status change in that window.
  • Goal: To make the application act based on an outdated Reachability status.
  • Description: Network status can change rapidly. Attackers exploit this by causing a network change right after the application checks Reachability but before it acts on that information, leading to a TOCTOU vulnerability.
  • Attack Steps:
    • a. Identify application code that checks Reachability [CRITICAL]: Find code sections vulnerable to timing issues.
    • b. Induce a network status change [HR, CRITICAL]: Force a network status change at the precise moment to exploit the timing window.
  • Impact: Application performing actions under incorrect network assumptions (e.g., data upload over cellular when Wi-Fi was expected).
  • Mitigation Focus: Minimize the time between Reachability check and action, re-validate network status before critical operations, design application logic to be resilient to network changes.

1.4.a. Analyze the reachability library code for potential vulnerabilities [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Searching for and identifying potential vulnerabilities within the tonymillion/reachability library itself.
  • Goal: To find bugs or vulnerabilities in the library that could be exploited to cause incorrect status reports or library malfunction.
  • Description: While less likely, vulnerabilities in the library code could exist. This attack vector focuses on code analysis to uncover such vulnerabilities.
  • Attack Steps:
    • a. Analyze the reachability library code [CRITICAL]: Conduct code review and vulnerability research on the library.
  • Impact: Unpredictable application behavior due to library malfunction or incorrect status reports.
  • Mitigation Focus: Keep the library updated, monitor security advisories, consider code review (for highly sensitive applications), implement fallback mechanisms in case of Reachability failures.

Attack Tree Path: 2. Exploit Application Logic Flaws in Reachability Usage [CRITICAL]

2. Exploit Application Logic Flaws in Reachability Usage [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Exploiting weaknesses in how the application uses Reachability information in its logic, rather than directly attacking Reachability itself.
  • Goal: To manipulate application behavior by exploiting flaws in its conditional logic, error handling, or security decisions based on Reachability.
  • Description: This is a broad category focusing on vulnerabilities arising from incorrect or insecure implementation of application logic that relies on Reachability.
  • Impact: Range from minor misbehavior to significant security vulnerabilities depending on the flaw.
  • Mitigation Focus: Thoroughly review and test application logic related to Reachability, especially conditional statements, error handling, and security-sensitive code.

2.1. Over-Reliance on Reachability for Security Decisions [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Bypassing security checks by manipulating Reachability reports when the application incorrectly uses Reachability status for authorization.
  • Goal: To gain unauthorized access to features or data by making the application believe it's in a "secure" network state when it's not, or vice versa.
  • Description: This is the most critical application logic flaw. If Reachability status is used as a security gate, attackers can try to manipulate it to bypass security measures.
  • Attack Steps:
    • a. Identify application features protected by Reachability checks [CRITICAL]: Find security-sensitive features linked to Reachability.
    • b. Employ techniques from section 1 [HR, CRITICAL]: Use MitM, local network manipulation, etc., to influence Reachability.
    • c. Observe security bypass [HR, CRITICAL]: Verify if manipulated Reachability status leads to unauthorized access.
  • Impact: Unauthorized access, data breaches, privilege escalation.
  • Mitigation Focus: Never use Reachability as a primary security mechanism. Implement robust server-side authentication and authorization. Use Reachability only for user experience enhancements.

2.2. Incorrect Error Handling of Reachability Status [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Causing application errors or crashes by triggering unexpected Reachability status reports or errors that the application doesn't handle properly.
  • Goal: To induce application instability or denial of service by exploiting weaknesses in error handling related to Reachability.
  • Description: Applications might not handle all possible Reachability states or errors gracefully, leading to crashes or unexpected behavior when edge cases are triggered.
  • Attack Steps:
    • a. Identify error handling logic [CRITICAL]: Analyze how the application handles Reachability status and errors.
    • b. Induce unexpected Reachability states [HR, CRITICAL]: Trigger network conditions to cause unexpected Reachability reports or errors.
  • Impact: Application instability, denial of service, unexpected behavior.
  • Mitigation Focus: Thoroughly test error handling under various network conditions, implement comprehensive error handling for Reachability, design robust and fault-tolerant application logic.

2.3. Logic Bugs in Conditional Logic Based on Reachability [CRITICAL]

  • Attack Vector: Exploiting flaws in the application's if/else statements or other conditional logic that uses Reachability status to achieve unintended application behavior.
  • Goal: To cause incorrect feature activation/deactivation, data handling errors, or other unintended consequences by triggering logic bugs in Reachability-dependent conditional logic.
  • Description: Developers might introduce logic errors in conditional statements that rely on Reachability, leading to unintended application behavior.
  • Attack Steps:
    • a. Identify conditional logic [CRITICAL]: Find code sections with conditional logic based on Reachability.
    • b. Identify logic flaws [HR, CRITICAL]: Analyze the logic for errors (incorrect operators, missing cases, etc.).
    • c. Trigger flawed logic [HR, CRITICAL]: Manipulate network conditions to activate the logic bug.
  • Impact: Range from minor misbehavior to more significant issues depending on the bug and affected functionality, potentially security vulnerabilities.
  • Mitigation Focus: Carefully review and test conditional logic, use unit tests to verify logic correctness, employ clear and well-documented code.