Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
95 lines (83 loc) · 6.82 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

95 lines (83 loc) · 6.82 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for librespot-org/librespot

Objective: To gain unauthorized access to Spotify user data, control playback, or disrupt service for legitimate users of the Librespot-based application.

Attack Tree Visualization

                                 +-------------------------------------------------+
                                 |  Gain Unauthorized Access/Control/Disruption   |
                                 |  via Librespot in Application                  |
                                 +-------------------------------------------------+ [!]
                                                    |
      +--------------------------------+-------------------------------+
      |                                |                               |

+---------------------+ +---------------------+ +---------------------+ | Authentication | | Dependency Issues | | Bypass/Hijacking | | in Librespot | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ [!] | | +---------+---------+ +---------+ | | | | | | 1b | 1c | | 4c | | Cred. | MITM |--> | Supply |--> | Stuffing| (TLS) |--> | Chain |--> +---------+---------+--> | Attacks|--> | |--> +---------+--> [!] | |--> |--> +---------+ |--> +----------------+--> | 4d |--> | Rogue/Mal. |--> | Dependency |--> +----------------+--> [!]

Attack Tree Path: 1b. Credential Stuffing

  • Description: An attacker uses automated tools to try large numbers of leaked username/password combinations (obtained from other breaches) against the application's login. If the application using Librespot doesn't have strong password policies or rate limiting, this can be highly effective.
  • Likelihood: High
  • Impact: High (Unauthorized access to user accounts)
  • Effort: Low
  • Skill Level: Script Kiddie
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium
  • Mitigation:
    • Implement strong password policies (length, complexity, disallow common passwords).
    • Enforce rate limiting on login attempts.
    • Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA).
    • Monitor for unusual login patterns (e.g., many failed attempts from the same IP).
    • Educate users about password security and the risks of credential reuse.

Attack Tree Path: 1c. Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks (TLS Issues)

  • Description: An attacker intercepts the communication between the Librespot-based application and Spotify's servers. This can happen if Librespot's TLS implementation is flawed (e.g., weak ciphers, improper certificate validation) or if the application doesn't enforce strict TLS verification. The attacker can then steal credentials or modify data in transit.
  • Likelihood: Low (if TLS is properly configured; higher if not)
  • Impact: Very High (Complete compromise of communication, including credentials)
  • Effort: Medium to High
  • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard
  • Mitigation:
    • Audit Librespot's TLS configuration and certificate validation logic.
    • Ensure Librespot uses up-to-date TLS libraries and strong cipher suites.
    • The application must enforce strict certificate validation (certificate pinning is highly recommended).
    • Regularly update Librespot and its dependencies.
    • Use network monitoring tools to detect potential MITM attacks (though this is difficult).

Attack Tree Path: 4c. Supply Chain Attacks

  • Description: An attacker compromises a legitimate dependency that Librespot uses. They inject malicious code into the dependency, which is then pulled into Librespot and the application. This is a very serious threat because it's difficult to detect and can give the attacker complete control.
  • Likelihood: Low (But increasing in frequency)
  • Impact: Very High (Complete compromise of the application)
  • Effort: Very High
  • Skill Level: Expert
  • Detection Difficulty: Very Hard
  • Mitigation:
    • Use trusted package repositories.
    • Verify the integrity of downloaded dependencies (e.g., using checksums or digital signatures).
    • Use a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) to track dependencies and their versions.
    • Employ Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools to identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
    • Consider using dependency pinning to lock down specific versions of dependencies.
    • Regularly audit dependencies for suspicious activity or updates.
    • Implement code signing for your own application and, if possible, verify signatures of dependencies.

Attack Tree Path: 4d. Rogue/Malicious Dependency

  • Description: An attacker creates a malicious package with a name similar to a legitimate Librespot dependency (typosquatting) or publishes a malicious version of a legitimate dependency. If the developer accidentally installs the malicious package, it can compromise the application.
  • Likelihood: Low (But a real threat)
  • Impact: Very High (Complete compromise of the application)
  • Effort: Medium
  • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard
  • Mitigation:
    • Carefully review dependency names and versions before installing.
    • Use a lockfile (e.g., Cargo.lock for Rust) to ensure that only specific, verified versions of dependencies are used.
    • Regularly audit dependencies for suspicious activity or unusual names.
    • Use tools that can detect typosquatting attempts.
    • Consider using a private package repository to control which dependencies are available to your developers.