Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
179 lines (158 loc) · 17.4 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

179 lines (158 loc) · 17.4 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for github/scientist

Objective: Compromise Application via Scientist Exploitation

Attack Tree Visualization

Compromise Application via Scientist Exploitation [HIGH-RISK PATH] ├───[OR]─► 1. Exploit Experiment Definition/Configuration Vulnerabilities [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ ├───[OR]─► 1.1. Configuration Injection │ │ ├───[AND]─► 1.1.2. Inject Malicious Context Data [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ │ └───[Details] Application allows user-controlled data as context without validation. │ │ │ └───[Impact] Medium - Potential code execution/data manipulation within experiment branches. │ │ │ └───[Likelihood] Medium │ │ │ └───[Effort] Medium │ │ │ └───[Skill Level] Medium │ │ │ └───[Detection Difficulty] Medium │ │ │ └───[Mitigation] Strictly control and validate context data. │ │ └───[AND]─► 1.1.3. Insecure Experiment Setup Logic [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ └───[Details] Application's logic for setting up experiments is flawed (e.g., dynamic code loading based on user input). │ │ └───[Impact] High - Code execution, data breaches. │ │ └───[Likelihood] Low │ │ └───[Effort] Medium │ │ └───[Skill Level] Medium │ │ └───[Detection Difficulty] High │ │ └───[Mitigation] Thoroughly review setup logic, avoid dynamic code loading from untrusted sources. │ └───[OR]─► 1.2. Misconfiguration of Scientist Library │ ├───[AND]─► 1.2.1. Insecure Publishing/Reporting Configuration [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ └───[Details] Scientist's publishing logs sensitive info or writes to insecure locations. │ │ └───[Impact] Medium - Information Disclosure, potential for further exploitation. │ │ └───[Likelihood] Medium │ │ └───[Effort] Low │ │ └───[Skill Level] Low │ │ └───[Detection Difficulty] Low │ │ └───[Mitigation] Carefully configure publishing, avoid logging sensitive data, secure log destinations.

├───[OR]─► 2. Exploit Experiment Execution Vulnerabilities [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ ├───[OR]─► 2.1. Resource Exhaustion via Malicious Candidate [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ ├───[AND]─► 2.1.1. Introduce Resource-Intensive Candidate Code │ │ │ └───[Details] Inject/influence candidate branch to consume excessive resources. │ │ │ └───[Impact] Medium - Denial of Service (DoS). │ │ │ └───[Likelihood] Medium │ │ │ └───[Effort] Low │ │ │ └───[Skill Level] Low │ │ │ └───[Detection Difficulty] Low │ │ │ └───[Mitigation] Control candidate code complexity, resource limits, timeouts. │ └───[OR]─► 2.3. Side-Channel Attacks via Experiment Execution [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ ├───[AND]─► 2.3.1. Observe Side Effects of Candidate Execution │ │ └───[Details] Observe side effects (network requests, DB queries, etc.) of candidate. │ │ └───[Impact] Medium - Data modification, external system compromise (depending on side effects). │ │ └───[Likelihood] Medium │ │ └───[Effort] Medium │ │ └───[Skill Level] Medium │ │ └───[Detection Difficulty] Medium │ │ └───[Mitigation] Control candidate side effects, restrict access to external resources, monitor side effects.

├───[OR]─► 3. Exploit Comparison Logic Vulnerabilities │ ├───[OR]─► 3.2. Manipulation of Data Before Comparison [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ ├───[AND]─► 3.2.1. Modify Control or Candidate Results Before Comparison │ │ └───[Details] Application modifies results before Scientist's comparison, bypassing safety. │ │ └───[Impact] High - Bypass of Scientist's safety, malicious candidate promotion. │ │ └───[Likelihood] Low │ │ └───[Effort] Medium │ │ └───[Skill Level] Medium │ │ └───[Detection Difficulty] High │ │ └───[Mitigation] Pass results directly and immutably to Scientist.

└───[OR]─► 4. Indirect Exploitation via Scientist Dependencies [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH] ├───[AND]─► 4.1. Vulnerable Dependencies of Scientist │ └───[Details] Vulnerabilities in Scientist's dependencies exploited through the application. │ └───[Impact] High - Depends on dependency vulnerability (DoS, RCE). │ └───[Likelihood] Medium │ └───[Effort] Low │ └───[Skill Level] Low to High │ └───[Detection Difficulty] Low │ └───[Mitigation] Regularly update dependencies, dependency vulnerability scanning.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.2. Inject Malicious Context Data [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Context Data Injection
  • Details: An attacker injects malicious data into the context passed to Scientist experiments. If the application uses this context in a vulnerable way within the control or candidate branches (e.g., in string interpolation, dynamic code execution, or insecure data access), it can lead to code execution or data manipulation within the experiment.
  • Potential Impact: Medium - Code execution within experiment branches, data manipulation, potentially leading to broader application compromise depending on the context usage and experiment code.
  • Likelihood: Medium - Depends on how the application handles context data and whether user-controlled data can influence it.
  • Effort: Medium - Requires understanding how context is used in the application and crafting payloads that exploit this usage.
  • Skill Level: Medium - Web application attacker with knowledge of injection techniques.
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium - Requires monitoring experiment execution, context flow, and potentially anomalous behavior within experiment branches.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strictly control and validate all data used as context.
    • Treat context data as potentially untrusted, especially if derived from user input.
    • Apply input validation and sanitization to context data.
    • Use structured data types for context instead of raw strings where possible to limit injection surface.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.3. Insecure Experiment Setup Logic [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Insecure Experiment Setup
  • Details: The application's logic for setting up Scientist experiments contains vulnerabilities. This could include dynamically loading experiment code based on user input, insecurely handling experiment configurations, or other flaws in how experiments are initialized and managed.
  • Potential Impact: High - Code execution, data breaches, full application compromise if the setup logic flaws allow for arbitrary code injection or manipulation of critical application components.
  • Likelihood: Low - Less common than simple input validation issues, but highly severe if present.
  • Effort: Medium - Requires identifying specific flaws in the application's experiment setup logic, which may require code review.
  • Skill Level: Medium - Application security expert with code review and vulnerability analysis skills.
  • Detection Difficulty: High - May be subtle and require code review and deep understanding of the application's experiment setup process.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Thoroughly review and test all experiment setup logic.
    • Avoid dynamic code loading based on untrusted input.
    • Follow secure coding practices when integrating Scientist and handling experiment configurations.
    • Implement principle of least privilege for experiment setup processes.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.1. Insecure Publishing/Reporting Configuration [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Insecure Publishing Configuration
  • Details: Scientist's publishing mechanism is misconfigured in a way that exposes sensitive information or writes logs to insecure locations. This could involve logging sensitive data within experiment results or errors, or writing logs to publicly accessible directories or systems with weak access controls.
  • Potential Impact: Medium - Information Disclosure of sensitive data logged by Scientist, potential for further exploitation if logs are accessible to attackers or if insecure write locations can be compromised.
  • Likelihood: Medium - Configuration errors are common, and developers may inadvertently log sensitive information.
  • Effort: Low - Requires access to logs or configuration files, which may be achievable through various means depending on application security.
  • Skill Level: Low - Basic attacker with access to logs or configuration.
  • Detection Difficulty: Low - Log monitoring, configuration audits, and security scanning can easily detect insecure logging practices.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Carefully configure Scientist's publishing mechanism.
    • Avoid logging sensitive data in experiment results or error messages.
    • Ensure log destinations are secure and access-controlled.
    • Regularly review and audit logging configurations.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1. Resource Exhaustion via Malicious Candidate [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Resource Exhaustion (DoS) via Malicious Candidate
  • Details: An attacker introduces or influences the candidate branch of a Scientist experiment to execute resource-intensive code. If the application allows any level of dynamic candidate definition or if an attacker can manipulate the candidate code path, they can inject code that consumes excessive CPU, memory, I/O, or other resources, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) condition.
  • Potential Impact: Medium - Denial of Service (DoS) against the application, impacting availability and potentially leading to service disruption.
  • Likelihood: Medium - If the application allows any form of dynamic candidate definition or if candidate code is not strictly controlled.
  • Effort: Low - Simple resource-intensive code snippets can be used to cause DoS.
  • Skill Level: Low - Basic developer or attacker can create resource-intensive code.
  • Detection Difficulty: Low - Resource monitoring, performance alerts, and anomaly detection systems can easily identify resource exhaustion attacks.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Strictly control and limit the complexity and resource usage of candidate code.
    • Implement timeouts and resource limits for experiment execution.
    • Monitor resource consumption during experiment execution.
    • Consider running experiments in resource-constrained environments.

Attack Tree Path: 2.3. Side-Channel Attacks via Experiment Execution [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Side-Channel Attacks via Experiment Side Effects
  • Details: Even if the results of control and candidate branches are compared correctly, the side effects of their execution can be observable and exploitable. An attacker crafts a candidate branch to perform malicious side effects, such as making network requests to attacker-controlled servers, writing to shared resources, or performing other actions that can be observed or manipulated.
  • Potential Impact: Medium - Data modification if the candidate can write to shared resources, external system compromise if the candidate can make outbound requests to attacker-controlled servers, or other impacts depending on the nature of the side effects.
  • Likelihood: Medium - If candidate code has the ability to perform observable side effects and the application doesn't strictly control these.
  • Effort: Medium - Requires crafting candidate code with specific side effects and potentially setting up infrastructure to observe or interact with these side effects.
  • Skill Level: Medium - Developer or attacker with knowledge of application architecture and side-channel attack techniques.
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium - Requires monitoring application behavior, network traffic, system calls, and other potential side effects of experiment execution.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Carefully consider and control the side effects of candidate code.
    • Restrict candidate branch's access to external resources and sensitive operations.
    • Implement strict sandboxing or isolation for experiment execution environments.
    • Monitor and audit side effects of experiments, including network activity, file system access, and database interactions.

Attack Tree Path: 3.2. Manipulation of Data Before Comparison [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Result Manipulation Before Comparison
  • Details: The application's code modifies the results of the control or candidate branches before they are passed to Scientist's comparison logic. This bypasses Scientist's intended safety mechanism, allowing an attacker to manipulate the outcome of the experiment and force a "successful" result even if the candidate branch is flawed or malicious.
  • Potential Impact: High - Bypass of Scientist's safety mechanism, allowing potentially flawed or malicious candidate code to be promoted and deployed into the application, leading to bugs, vulnerabilities, or security breaches.
  • Likelihood: Low - Represents a design flaw in the application's integration with Scientist, less likely than configuration errors but highly impactful.
  • Effort: Medium - Requires finding and exploiting the point in the application code where results are manipulated before comparison.
  • Skill Level: Medium - Application security expert with code review and vulnerability analysis skills.
  • Detection Difficulty: High - Requires code review, understanding data flow within the application, and potentially dynamic analysis to identify result manipulation.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Ensure that the results of control and candidate branches are passed directly and immutably to Scientist for comparison.
    • Do not allow any modification or transformation of results before they are handed over to Scientist.
    • Enforce clear separation of concerns between experiment logic and result handling.

Attack Tree Path: 4. Indirect Exploitation via Scientist Dependencies [CRITICAL NODE] [HIGH-RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector Name: Vulnerable Dependencies
  • Details: Scientist, like any software library, relies on external dependencies. If these dependencies have known security vulnerabilities, and the application uses a vulnerable version of Scientist or its dependencies, an attacker can exploit these vulnerabilities indirectly through the application's use of Scientist. This is not a direct vulnerability in Scientist itself, but a risk introduced by dependency management.
  • Potential Impact: High - Depends on the nature of the dependency vulnerability. Could range from Denial of Service (DoS) to Remote Code Execution (RCE), depending on the specific vulnerability in the dependency.
  • Likelihood: Medium - Dependency vulnerabilities are common, and applications may inadvertently use outdated or vulnerable dependencies.
  • Effort: Low - If known vulnerabilities exist in dependencies, exploitation can be relatively easy using readily available exploits.
  • Skill Level: Low to High - Skill level depends on the complexity of the specific dependency vulnerability being exploited. Some are easily exploitable, while others require advanced skills.
  • Detection Difficulty: Low - Dependency scanning tools and vulnerability databases can easily identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Regularly update Scientist and all its dependencies to the latest versions.
    • Implement dependency vulnerability scanning as part of the application's security practices (e.g., using tools like npm audit, pip check, or dedicated dependency scanning services).
    • Establish a process for promptly patching or mitigating identified dependency vulnerabilities.