Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
70 lines (58 loc) · 6.91 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

70 lines (58 loc) · 6.91 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for fzaninotto/faker

Objective: Compromise Application via Faker

Attack Tree Visualization

                                      [Attacker's Goal: Compromise Application via Faker]
                                                    /               \
                                                   /                 \
          [1. Data Corruption/Integrity Violation]            [2. Denial of Service (DoS)]
                 /              |                                      /
                /               |                                     /
[1.1 Invalid Data] [1.2 Seed Manipulation]                   [2.1 Resource Exhaustion]
---(High Risk)-->   ~~~(Medium Risk)~~~>                             /
                                                                    /
                                                              [2.1.1 Memory Exhaustion]
                                                              ---(High Risk)-->

Attack Tree Path: Data Corruption/Integrity Violation - Invalid Data

  • Critical Node: [1.1 Invalid Data]
    • High-Risk Path: [1. Data Corruption/Integrity Violation] ---(High Risk)--> [1.1 Invalid Data]
    • Description: The application uses data generated by Faker without performing adequate validation against its own business rules and constraints. Faker generates realistic-looking data, but it doesn't guarantee that the data is valid within the specific context of the application.
    • Likelihood: High. This is a very common oversight in development.
    • Impact: Medium to High. The impact depends on how the invalid data is used. It can range from minor UI issues to severe data corruption and business logic failures.
    • Effort: Very Low. The attacker doesn't need to do anything specific; the vulnerability exists due to the developer's failure to validate.
    • Skill Level: Script Kiddie. No specialized skills are required.
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium. The attack might be detected through testing, user reports, or error logs, but it could also go unnoticed if the invalid data doesn't immediately cause obvious problems.
    • Example:
      • Faker generates a user's age as 150. The application doesn't check for a reasonable age range, leading to incorrect calculations or data inconsistencies.
      • Faker generates an email address that passes basic format validation but is not a deliverable address. The application sends emails to this address, resulting in bounces and potential reputation damage.
      • Faker generates a product price with an invalid format (e.g., containing non-numeric characters). The application fails to process the order or calculates the price incorrectly.

Attack Tree Path: Data Corruption/Integrity Violation - Seed Manipulation

  • Critical Node: [1.2 Seed Manipulation]
    • Medium-Risk Path: [1. Data Corruption/Integrity Violation] ---(Medium Risk)~~~> [1.2 Seed Manipulation]
    • Description: The application exposes the seed used by Faker's pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) or allows user input to influence it. This allows an attacker to predict and control the output of Faker, potentially bypassing security measures that rely on randomness.
    • Likelihood: Low to Medium. Depends on whether the application exposes the seed or allows user input to influence it. Good development practices should prevent this.
    • Impact: High to Very High. If the seed is compromised, the attacker can control Faker's output, potentially leading to predictable behavior and bypassing security measures.
    • Effort: Low to Medium. Finding the exposed seed might require some reconnaissance, but exploiting it is straightforward.
    • Skill Level: Novice to Intermediate. Requires understanding of how PRNGs and seeds work.
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard. Unless the application has specific logging or monitoring for seed access, this attack might go unnoticed.
    • Example:
      • The application uses Faker to generate temporary passwords and includes the seed in a URL parameter. An attacker can use the same seed to generate the same "random" password.
      • A hidden form field contains the Faker seed, allowing an attacker to inspect the page source and obtain it.
      • The application uses a predictable algorithm to generate the seed (e.g., based on the current timestamp), making it easy for an attacker to guess.

Attack Tree Path: Denial of Service (DoS) - Resource Exhaustion

  • Critical Node: [2.1 Resource Exhaustion]
    • High-Risk Path: [2. Denial of Service (DoS)] ---(High Risk)--> [2.1 Resource Exhaustion]

Attack Tree Path: Denial of Service (DoS) - Memory Exhaustion

*   **Critical Node: [2.1.1 Memory Exhaustion]**
    *   **High-Risk Path:** `[2. Denial of Service (DoS)] ---(High Risk)--> [2.1 Resource Exhaustion] ---(High Risk)--> [2.1.1 Memory Exhaustion]`
    *   **Description:** The application uses Faker to generate a large amount of data without proper limits, especially when driven by user input. This can lead to the application consuming all available memory, causing it to crash or become unresponsive.
    *   **Likelihood:** Medium. Depends on how Faker is used and whether limits are in place. More likely if user input controls the amount of data generated.
    *   **Impact:** High. Can cause the application to crash or become unresponsive, effectively denying service to legitimate users.
    *   **Effort:** Low. The attacker simply needs to provide a large input value that triggers excessive data generation.
    *   **Skill Level:** Script Kiddie. No specialized skills are required.
    *   **Detection Difficulty:** Easy. The application will likely crash or become unresponsive, which is easily noticeable.
    *   **Example:**
        *   The application has an endpoint that generates a list of users based on a user-provided count. An attacker provides a very large number (e.g., 10 million), causing the application to try to generate millions of user objects and run out of memory.
        *   A form allows users to upload a file and uses Faker to generate a description for the file. An attacker uploads a small file but provides a very large number as input to a field that controls the length of the generated description, causing excessive memory allocation.
        *   The application uses Faker in a loop without proper bounds, and the loop condition is influenced by user input. An attacker can manipulate the input to cause the loop to run for an extremely long time, generating a massive amount of data.