Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
56 lines (49 loc) · 8.03 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

56 lines (49 loc) · 8.03 KB

Threat Model Analysis for pistondevelopers/piston

Threat: Malicious Asset Substitution (Spoofing)

  • Description: An attacker replaces legitimate game assets (textures, models, sounds, shaders loaded from external files) with crafted malicious files. The attacker might achieve this by compromising a download server, modifying files on the user's system (if they have sufficient privileges), or exploiting a vulnerability in the asset loading process that allows them to specify arbitrary file paths. The malicious asset is designed to exploit vulnerabilities in Piston's parsing or rendering code.
    • Impact:
      • Execution of arbitrary code (if the malicious asset exploits a vulnerability in the parsing/rendering code within Piston or its immediate graphics dependencies).
      • Denial of service (if the asset causes a crash or excessive resource consumption due to a bug in Piston's handling).
      • Information disclosure (if the asset is designed to leak data, exploiting a Piston-related vulnerability).
    • Affected Piston Component:
      • piston_window (or any window/graphics crate used, e.g., gfx_graphics, opengl_graphics) - Specifically, the functions related to loading and processing external resources (e.g., Texture::from_path, image loading functions provided by Piston wrappers). This is critical if Piston's wrappers around lower-level libraries introduce vulnerabilities.
    • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on whether the vulnerability exploited is in Piston's code or a closely-coupled graphics library).
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Implement strict asset validation: Use cryptographic hashing (e.g., SHA-256) to verify the integrity of all loaded assets against a known-good manifest. This is crucial even if using a seemingly "safe" Piston API.
      • Use digital signatures: Digitally sign assets and verify the signatures before loading, ensuring the signing process covers the entire asset loading pipeline within Piston.
      • Load assets from trusted sources only: Avoid loading assets from user-specified paths or untrusted network locations. Use a secure, controlled repository for assets.
      • Sandboxing: Consider sandboxing the asset loading and processing code specifically within Piston's context to limit the impact of any potential vulnerabilities. This might involve using a separate process or a restricted environment, focusing on isolating Piston's asset handling.
      • Input validation: If asset paths are derived from user input and used within Piston's API calls, thoroughly sanitize and validate the input to prevent path traversal attacks.
      • Regularly update Piston and its graphics dependencies: Keep Piston and its graphics-related dependencies up-to-date to benefit from security patches, paying close attention to changelogs for security fixes in asset handling.

Threat: Shader-Based Attacks (Tampering/Denial of Service)

  • Description: An attacker provides a malicious shader (GLSL, HLSL, etc.) that exploits vulnerabilities in the graphics driver or, critically, in Piston's shader handling and interaction with the graphics API. This could lead to crashes, and in rare, high-impact scenarios, potentially arbitrary code execution if a vulnerability exists in how Piston passes shader data to the underlying graphics library.
    • Impact:
      • Application crash (most likely).
      • System instability (if the driver is affected).
      • Potential for arbitrary code execution (low probability, but high impact if a vulnerability exists in Piston's interaction with the graphics API).
      • Information disclosure (e.g., reading from unintended memory locations, again, if Piston's handling is flawed).
    • Affected Piston Component:
      • piston_window (and the underlying graphics crate that Piston uses, e.g., gfx_graphics, opengl_graphics). Specifically, the functions related to shader loading, compilation, and execution as managed by Piston. The vulnerability would likely be in how Piston interfaces with the graphics API, not the API itself.
    • Risk Severity: High (due to the potential for code execution, even if low probability, and the direct involvement of Piston's graphics handling).
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Shader validation: If loading shaders from external sources, validate them against a known-good set or use a shader compiler with built-in security checks. This validation should occur before passing the shader to Piston's API.
      • Use a safe subset of shader features: Avoid using complex or experimental shader features that are more likely to contain vulnerabilities, especially when interacting with Piston's graphics abstraction layer.
      • Keep graphics drivers up-to-date: Driver updates often include security patches, but this is less directly related to Piston itself.
      • Sandboxing (if possible): Explore sandboxing techniques for shader execution, although this is complex and might not be feasible within Piston's architecture. The focus would be on isolating Piston's graphics context.
      • Limit shader complexity: Impose limits on shader size, instruction count, and resource usage before providing the shader to Piston.
      • Careful API Usage: Scrutinize Piston's documentation and source code for any warnings or best practices related to shader handling. Ensure you are using the API exactly as intended, as misuse could introduce vulnerabilities.

Threat: Dependency Vulnerabilities (Elevation of Privilege/Tampering) - Specifically impacting Piston's core functionality

  • Description: While all dependencies pose a risk, this threat focuses on vulnerabilities in dependencies that are tightly integrated with Piston's core functionality and are essential for its operation (e.g., gfx-rs, winit, a core graphics or windowing library that Piston directly wraps). A vulnerability here could allow an attacker to bypass Piston's intended security mechanisms.
    • Impact:
      • Arbitrary code execution (if the vulnerability is in a low-level graphics or windowing library that Piston directly uses).
      • Elevation of privilege (if the compromised dependency has higher privileges).
      • Data breaches (if the vulnerability allows access to sensitive data handled by Piston).
      • Denial of service.
    • Affected Piston Component: Any component that uses the vulnerable core dependency. This is more targeted than a general dependency vulnerability; it's about dependencies that Piston cannot function without.
    • Risk Severity: High to Critical (depending on the specific core dependency and the nature of the vulnerability).
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Prioritize Core Dependency Updates: Focus on updating dependencies that are directly and critically used by Piston's core, such as graphics and windowing libraries.
      • Use cargo audit: Regularly run cargo audit to identify known vulnerabilities in all dependencies, but pay special attention to those core to Piston.
      • Monitor Security Advisories: Actively monitor security advisories for Rust and, specifically, for the core crates that Piston relies on (check Piston's Cargo.toml for these).
      • Consider (with caution) Vendoring Critical Dependencies: For the most critical dependencies (e.g., the graphics backend), if you have the expertise and resources, consider vendoring (copying the source code) to have absolute control over the code and ensure you're using a known-good, audited version. This is a high-effort, high-responsibility option.
      • Lockfile: Use Cargo.lock to ensure consistent dependency versions.