Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
53 lines (44 loc) · 5.81 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

53 lines (44 loc) · 5.81 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for mame/quine-relay

Attack Surface: 1. Code Injection via Generation Manipulation

  • Description: Attackers inject malicious code into the program generation sequence of the quine-relay.
  • How Quine-Relay Contributes: This is the defining attack vector of quine-relay. The entire purpose of the project is to generate code, making it inherently vulnerable to injection if any part of the generation process is influenced by external input.
  • Example: If a user-supplied string is used as part of the initial seed program, an attacker could inject a string like "; system("rm -rf /"); // to execute arbitrary commands. Even seemingly harmless input could be crafted to alter the generated code in unexpected ways.
  • Impact: Complete system compromise. The attacker gains the ability to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the process running the quine-relay.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Eliminate External Influence: The only truly effective mitigation is to have a completely static, pre-defined quine-relay sequence with absolutely no external input influencing the generation. This is the most important recommendation.
    • Strict Input Validation (If Necessary): If external input must be used (strongly discouraged), implement extremely rigorous input validation and sanitization. This is a defense-in-depth measure, not a primary solution. Use whitelisting, length limits, and context-specific validation.
    • Input Encoding: Encode any user input before incorporating it, using appropriate encoding for the target language. This is also a defense-in-depth measure.
    • Principle of Least Privilege: Run the quine-relay process with the absolute minimum necessary privileges.

Attack Surface: 2. Denial of Service (DoS) via Resource Exhaustion

  • Description: Attackers craft input or manipulate the execution environment to cause one or more of the generated programs to consume excessive resources (CPU, memory), leading to a denial of service.
  • How Quine-Relay Contributes: Quine-relay's sequential execution of multiple programs, potentially in different languages, creates a direct pathway for resource exhaustion attacks. The attacker doesn't need full code execution; they just need to trigger resource-intensive behavior in one of the generated programs.
  • Example: An attacker injects code that creates an infinite loop or allocates a large amount of memory within one of the generated programs. A program that repeatedly forks (if process creation isn't limited) is another example.
  • Impact: The application becomes unresponsive or crashes, preventing legitimate users from accessing it.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Resource Limits: Impose strict resource limits on the execution of each program in the chain. This is essential. Include CPU time limits, memory limits, process limits, and file size limits.
    • Timeouts: Implement timeouts to terminate programs that run for too long.
    • Sandboxing: Execute each program in an isolated environment (e.g., a container) to prevent it from affecting the host system or other processes.
    • Monitoring: Monitor resource usage and terminate programs that exceed predefined thresholds.

Attack Surface: 3. Interpreter/Compiler Exploitation

  • Description: Attackers leverage vulnerabilities in the language interpreters or compilers used by the quine-relay to gain control of the system.
  • How Quine-Relay Contributes: Because quine-relay executes code in multiple programming languages, it directly exposes the system to vulnerabilities in any of those languages' interpreters or compilers.
  • Example: An attacker crafts a program in the chain that exploits a known buffer overflow vulnerability in a specific version of a Ruby interpreter.
  • Impact: Potential for arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the interpreter/compiler process, leading to system compromise.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Keep Interpreters/Compilers Updated: This is absolutely critical. Ensure all language interpreters and compilers are up-to-date with the latest security patches.
    • Use Minimal Set of Languages: Reduce the number of different programming languages used in the relay to minimize the attack surface.
    • Sandboxing: Isolate the execution of each program in a separate sandbox or container.
    • Vulnerability Scanning: Regularly scan for known vulnerabilities.

Attack Surface: 4. System Call Abuse

  • Description: Generated code attempts to execute unauthorized or dangerous system calls.
  • How Quine-Relay Contributes: The generated code, if compromised via injection, could contain arbitrary system calls. The quine-relay's nature of generating and executing code makes this a direct risk.
  • Example: A compromised program in the relay attempts to execute execve to run a malicious binary, or unlink to delete critical system files.
  • Impact: System compromise, data loss, denial of service.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Seccomp (Secure Computing Mode): Use seccomp or a similar system call filtering mechanism to restrict the system calls that can be made by the generated code. Create a whitelist of allowed system calls.
    • AppArmor/SELinux: Use mandatory access control systems like AppArmor or SELinux.
    • Sandboxing: Containerization provides a layer of isolation.