Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
99 lines (86 loc) · 7.57 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

99 lines (86 loc) · 7.57 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for slint-ui/slint

Objective: Execute Arbitrary Code or Manipulate Application State

Attack Tree Visualization

Goal: Execute Arbitrary Code or Manipulate Application State ├── 1. Exploit .slint Language Parsing/Compilation Vulnerabilities │ ├── 1.1 Buffer Overflow in Parser [CRITICAL] │ │ └── 1.1.1 Craft Malicious .slint File with Excessively Long Strings/Identifiers │ └── 1.4 Injection Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK] │ └── 1.4.1 .slint code injection (if .slint code is dynamically generated or loaded from untrusted sources) [CRITICAL] ├── 2. Exploit Runtime Vulnerabilities (After Compilation) │ ├── 2.1 Memory Corruption in Slint Runtime Library [CRITICAL] │ │ ├── 2.1.1 Trigger Use-After-Free Errors via Callback Manipulation │ │ ├── 2.1.2 Trigger Double-Free Errors via Component Lifecycle Issues │ │ └── 2.1.3 Exploit Buffer Overflows/Underflows in Data Handling (e.g., image processing) │ └── 2.4 Exploit Weaknesses in Backend Integrations (C++, Rust, JavaScript) [HIGH RISK] │ └── 2.4.1 Trigger Vulnerabilities in C++ Backend via Malformed Input from .slint [CRITICAL] └── 3. Exploit Weaknesses in Provided Examples or Default Configurations [HIGH RISK] ├── 3.1 Identify Insecure Coding Practices in Example Code │ └── 3.1.1 Copy-Paste Vulnerabilities from Examples into Production Code [CRITICAL] └── 3.2 Exploit Weak Default Settings └── 3.2.1 Leverage Default Configurations that Expose Sensitive Information or Functionality [CRITICAL]

Attack Tree Path: 1. Exploit .slint Language Parsing/Compilation Vulnerabilities

  • 1.1 Buffer Overflow in Parser [CRITICAL]

    • 1.1.1 Craft Malicious .slint File with Excessively Long Strings/Identifiers:
      • Description: The attacker crafts a .slint file containing strings or identifiers that are longer than the buffer allocated by the parser to store them. This can overwrite adjacent memory, potentially leading to code execution.
      • Likelihood: Low (Slint likely uses safe string handling, but not impossible)
      • Impact: High (Potential for code execution)
      • Effort: Medium (Requires crafting a specific payload)
      • Skill Level: Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Might be caught by fuzzing or static analysis)

  • 1.4 Injection Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK]

    • 1.4.1 .slint code injection (if .slint code is dynamically generated or loaded from untrusted sources) [CRITICAL]
      • Description: If the application allows users to input or influence the .slint code that is loaded or generated, an attacker can inject malicious .slint code. This code could then exploit other vulnerabilities or directly manipulate the application's UI and behavior. This is the most dangerous scenario.
      • Likelihood: Medium (Depends entirely on application design - avoid this)
      • Impact: High (Attacker controls the UI and potentially backend interactions)
      • Effort: Low (If dynamic loading is present, injection is often easy)
      • Skill Level: Intermediate
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (If dynamic loading is known, it's a clear target)

Attack Tree Path: 2. Exploit Runtime Vulnerabilities (After Compilation)

  • 2.1 Memory Corruption in Slint Runtime Library [CRITICAL]

    • 2.1.1 Trigger Use-After-Free Errors via Callback Manipulation:
      • Description: The attacker manipulates the timing or sequence of callbacks to cause the application to use memory that has already been freed. This can lead to crashes or, in some cases, code execution.
      • Likelihood: Low (If using Rust, very low; if C++, higher)
      • Impact: High (Potential for code execution)
      • Effort: High (Requires precise timing and understanding of callback lifecycle)
      • Skill Level: Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Often requires dynamic analysis tools)
    • 2.1.2 Trigger Double-Free Errors via Component Lifecycle Issues:
      • Description: The attacker manipulates the component lifecycle to cause the application to free the same memory region twice. This can lead to memory corruption and potentially code execution.
      • Likelihood: Low (Similar to 2.1.1)
      • Impact: High
      • Effort: High
      • Skill Level: Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard
    • 2.1.3 Exploit Buffer Overflows/Underflows in Data Handling (e.g., image processing):
      • Description: If Slint handles data like images, the attacker might provide malformed data that causes a buffer overflow or underflow during processing.
      • Likelihood: Low (If using Rust, very low; if C++, higher)
      • Impact: High
      • Effort: Medium to High
      • Skill Level: Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard

  • 2.4 Exploit Weaknesses in Backend Integrations (C++, Rust, JavaScript) [HIGH RISK]

    • 2.4.1 Trigger Vulnerabilities in C++ Backend via Malformed Input from .slint [CRITICAL]
      • Description: The attacker crafts malicious input in the .slint code that, when processed by the C++ backend, triggers a vulnerability (e.g., a buffer overflow, use-after-free) in the C++ code. This is particularly concerning because C++ is prone to memory safety issues.
      • Likelihood: Medium (C++ is prone to memory safety issues)
      • Impact: High (Potential for code execution)
      • Effort: High
      • Skill Level: Advanced
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard

Attack Tree Path: 3. Exploit Weaknesses in Provided Examples or Default Configurations [HIGH RISK]

  • 3.1 Identify Insecure Coding Practices in Example Code

    • 3.1.1 Copy-Paste Vulnerabilities from Examples into Production Code [CRITICAL]
      • Description: Developers often copy and paste code from examples. If the example code contains vulnerabilities, those vulnerabilities are directly introduced into the production application.
      • Likelihood: High (Developers often copy example code)
      • Impact: Medium to High (Depends on the vulnerability)
      • Effort: Very Low (Just copy and paste)
      • Skill Level: Novice
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (If the vulnerability is known in the example)

  • 3.2 Exploit Weak Default Settings

    • 3.2.1 Leverage Default Configurations that Expose Sensitive Information or Functionality [CRITICAL]
      • Description: The application might have default settings that are insecure, such as exposing debugging interfaces, using weak authentication, or enabling unnecessary features. An attacker can exploit these defaults without needing to find any specific vulnerabilities in the code.
      • Likelihood: Medium (Depends on the specific defaults)
      • Impact: Medium to High (Depends on what's exposed)
      • Effort: Low (Just use the default settings)
      • Skill Level: Novice
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy (If the insecure defaults are documented or easily discoverable)