Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
148 lines (101 loc) · 11.3 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

148 lines (101 loc) · 11.3 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for gleam-lang/gleam

Objective: Achieve RCE or Data Exfiltration on Gleam Application

Attack Tree Visualization

Goal: Achieve RCE or Data Exfiltration on Gleam Application

├── 1. Achieve RCE │ ├── 1.1 Exploit Gleam Compiler/Runtime Vulnerabilities │ │ ├── 1.1.1 Code Generation Bugs (e.g., buffer overflows in generated Erlang) │ │ │ ├── 1.1.1.1 Fuzz the Gleam compiler with malformed Gleam code. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ ├── 1.1.1.2 Analyze the generated Erlang code for vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.1.1.3 Craft input that triggers the vulnerability in the running application. [CRITICAL] │ │ ├── 1.1.2 Type System Circumvention │ │ │ ├── 1.1.2.1 Find edge cases where the Gleam type checker fails to prevent unsafe operations. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.1.2.2 Exploit FFI (Foreign Function Interface) to call unsafe Erlang/OTP functions. [HIGH RISK] [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.1.2.3 Combine type confusion with other vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL] │ │ ├── 1.1.3 Vulnerabilities in Gleam's Standard Library │ │ │ ├── 1.1.3.1 Identify unsafe functions/modules. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.1.3.2 Craft input that triggers the vulnerability. [CRITICAL] │ │ └── 1.1.4 Dependency Vulnerabilities (Gleam Packages) [HIGH RISK] │ │ │ ├── 1.1.4.1 Identify vulnerable Gleam packages used by the application. │ │ │ └── 1.1.4.2 Exploit known vulnerabilities in those packages. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.1.4.3 Supply Chain Attacks: Compromise a package dependency. │ │ │ ├── 1.1.4.3.1 Social engineering to gain access to a package maintainer's account. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ ├── 1.1.4.3.2 Submit malicious code to a commonly used Gleam package. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.1.4.3.3 Poison the package registry (if a custom registry is used). [CRITICAL] │ ├── 1.2 Exploit Erlang/OTP Vulnerabilities (Inherited by Gleam) │ │ ├── 1.2.1 Classic Erlang RCE vulnerabilities (e.g., erlang:binary_to_term with untrusted input). │ │ │ ├── 1.2.1.1 Identify if the Gleam application uses erlang:binary_to_term or similar functions. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.2.1.2 Craft malicious input to trigger the vulnerability. [CRITICAL] │ │ ├── 1.2.2 Erlang Distribution Protocol Vulnerabilities │ │ │ ├── 1.2.2.1 If the application uses distributed Erlang, exploit weaknesses in the distribution protocol. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── 1.2.2.2 Man-in-the-Middle attacks on Erlang node communication. [CRITICAL] │ │ └── 1.2.3 Vulnerabilities in OTP libraries used by the Gleam application. │ │ └── 1.2.3.2 Exploit known vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL] │ └── 1.3 Exploit FFI (Foreign Function Interface) [HIGH RISK] │ ├── 1.3.1 Incorrect usage of FFI to call unsafe Erlang functions. │ │ ├── 1.3.1.1 Identify FFI calls in the Gleam code. [CRITICAL] │ │ └── 1.3.1.2 Analyze the Erlang code being called for vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL] │ ├── 1.3.2 Bypassing Gleam's type safety through FFI. │ │ ├── 1.3.2.1 Craft malicious Erlang code that violates Gleam's type guarantees. [CRITICAL] │ │ └── 1.3.2.2 Use the FFI to call this malicious code. [CRITICAL] │ └── 1.3.3 Memory corruption vulnerabilities in the FFI layer. │ ├── 1.3.3.1 Fuzz the FFI with various inputs. [CRITICAL] │ └── 1.3.3.2 Analyze the memory management of the FFI for potential issues. [CRITICAL] │ └── 2. Achieve Data Exfiltration ├── 2.1 Exploit Gleam Logic Errors [HIGH RISK] │ ├── 2.1.1 Incorrect handling of sensitive data within Gleam code. │ │ ├── 2.1.1.1 Identify where sensitive data is processed. [CRITICAL] │ │ ├── 2.1.1.2 Find logic errors that leak this data (e.g., incorrect logging, error messages). [CRITICAL] │ │ └── 2.1.1.3 Craft input to trigger the data leak. [CRITICAL] │ └── 2.1.2 Side-Channel Attacks (Timing, Power Analysis) │ ├── 2.1.2.1 Analyze for side-channel leaks. [CRITICAL] │ └── 2.1.2.2 Exploit timing differences. [CRITICAL] ├── 2.2 Exploit FFI for Data Exfiltration [HIGH RISK] │ ├── 2.2.1 Use FFI to call Erlang functions that access sensitive data. [CRITICAL] │ └── 2.2.2 Send the exfiltrated data to an attacker-controlled server. [CRITICAL] └── 2.3 Exploit Erlang/OTP Vulnerabilities (Data Exfiltration) ├── 2.3.1 Access ETS tables or other data storage mechanisms. [CRITICAL] └── 2.3.2 Read sensitive data from memory. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1. Achieve RCE

Exploit Gleam Compiler/Runtime Vulnerabilities, Exploit Erlang/OTP Vulnerabilities (Inherited by Gleam), Exploit FFI (Foreign Function Interface)

Attack Tree Path: 1.1 Exploit Gleam Compiler/Runtime Vulnerabilities

Code Generation Bugs (e.g., buffer overflows in generated Erlang), Type System Circumvention, Vulnerabilities in Gleam's Standard Library, Dependency Vulnerabilities (Gleam Packages)

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.1 Code Generation Bugs (e.g., buffer overflows in generated Erlang)

Fuzz the Gleam compiler with malformed Gleam code. [CRITICAL], Analyze the generated Erlang code for vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL], Craft input that triggers the vulnerability in the running application. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.2 Type System Circumvention

Find edge cases where the Gleam type checker fails to prevent unsafe operations. [CRITICAL], Exploit FFI (Foreign Function Interface) to call unsafe Erlang/OTP functions. [HIGH RISK] [CRITICAL], Combine type confusion with other vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.3 Vulnerabilities in Gleam's Standard Library

Identify unsafe functions/modules. [CRITICAL], Craft input that triggers the vulnerability. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.4 Dependency Vulnerabilities (Gleam Packages) [HIGH RISK]

Identify vulnerable Gleam packages used by the application., Exploit known vulnerabilities in those packages. [CRITICAL], Supply Chain Attacks: Compromise a package dependency.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.4.3 Supply Chain Attacks: Compromise a package dependency.

Social engineering to gain access to a package maintainer's account. [CRITICAL], Submit malicious code to a commonly used Gleam package. [CRITICAL], Poison the package registry (if a custom registry is used). [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.2 Exploit Erlang/OTP Vulnerabilities (Inherited by Gleam)

Classic Erlang RCE vulnerabilities (e.g., erlang:binary_to_term with untrusted input)., Erlang Distribution Protocol Vulnerabilities, Vulnerabilities in OTP libraries used by the Gleam application.

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.1 Classic Erlang RCE vulnerabilities (e.g., erlang:binary_to_term with untrusted input).

Identify if the Gleam application uses erlang:binary_to_term or similar functions. [CRITICAL], Craft malicious input to trigger the vulnerability. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.2 Erlang Distribution Protocol Vulnerabilities

If the application uses distributed Erlang, exploit weaknesses in the distribution protocol. [CRITICAL], Man-in-the-Middle attacks on Erlang node communication. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.2.3 Vulnerabilities in OTP libraries used by the Gleam application.

Exploit known vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.3 Exploit FFI (Foreign Function Interface) [HIGH RISK]

Incorrect usage of FFI to call unsafe Erlang functions., Bypassing Gleam's type safety through FFI., Memory corruption vulnerabilities in the FFI layer.

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.1 Incorrect usage of FFI to call unsafe Erlang functions.

Identify FFI calls in the Gleam code. [CRITICAL], Analyze the Erlang code being called for vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.2 Bypassing Gleam's type safety through FFI.

Craft malicious Erlang code that violates Gleam's type guarantees. [CRITICAL], Use the FFI to call this malicious code. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1.3.3 Memory corruption vulnerabilities in the FFI layer.

Fuzz the FFI with various inputs. [CRITICAL], Analyze the memory management of the FFI for potential issues. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 2. Achieve Data Exfiltration

Exploit Gleam Logic Errors [HIGH RISK], Exploit FFI for Data Exfiltration [HIGH RISK], Exploit Erlang/OTP Vulnerabilities (Data Exfiltration)

Attack Tree Path: 2.1 Exploit Gleam Logic Errors [HIGH RISK]

Incorrect handling of sensitive data within Gleam code., Side-Channel Attacks (Timing, Power Analysis)

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.1 Incorrect handling of sensitive data within Gleam code.

Identify where sensitive data is processed. [CRITICAL], Find logic errors that leak this data (e.g., incorrect logging, error messages). [CRITICAL], Craft input to trigger the data leak. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.2 Side-Channel Attacks (Timing, Power Analysis)

Analyze for side-channel leaks. [CRITICAL], Exploit timing differences. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 2.2 Exploit FFI for Data Exfiltration [HIGH RISK]

Use FFI to call Erlang functions that access sensitive data. [CRITICAL], Send the exfiltrated data to an attacker-controlled server. [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 2.3 Exploit Erlang/OTP Vulnerabilities (Data Exfiltration)

Access ETS tables or other data storage mechanisms. [CRITICAL], Read sensitive data from memory. [CRITICAL]