Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
111 lines (100 loc) · 6.73 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

111 lines (100 loc) · 6.73 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for swc-project/swc

Objective: Execute Arbitrary Code OR Exfiltrate Sensitive Data via swc Exploitation

Attack Tree Visualization

                                  +-------------------------------------------------+
                                  |  Attacker's Goal: Execute Arbitrary Code OR     |
                                  |  Exfiltrate Sensitive Data via swc Exploitation  |
                                  +-------------------------------------------------+
                                                   |
      +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
      |                                                                              |

+-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+ | Exploit Vulnerabilities | | Manipulate swc Input/Output | | in swc Itself | +-----------------------------------+ +-------------------------+ | | +---------+---------+ +---------+---------+---------------------+ | Craft | Inject | | Buffer | Integer | Logic Error | | Malformed| Malicious| |Overflow |Overflow | (Misuse of API) | | AST | Plugins | | [CRITICAL]| [CRITICAL]| [HIGH RISK] | | | [CRITICAL]| +---------+---------+---------------------+ +---------+---------+ | +---------+ | Rust | | Crate | | (swc) | | Issue | | [HIGH RISK]| +---------+

Attack Tree Path: 1. Exploit Vulnerabilities in swc Itself

  • Buffer Overflow [CRITICAL]

    • Description: An attacker crafts a specially designed input that causes swc (or one of its dependencies) to write data beyond the allocated buffer in memory. This can overwrite adjacent memory regions, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution.
    • Likelihood: Low (due to Rust's memory safety, but unsafe code and C dependencies are risks).
    • Impact: Very High (potential for RCE).
    • Effort: High.
    • Skill Level: Expert.
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard.
    • Mitigation:
      • Audit unsafe code blocks.
      • Fuzz swc with oversized inputs.
      • Use memory safety analysis tools.
      • Keep dependencies up-to-date.

  • Integer Overflow [CRITICAL]

    • Description: An attacker exploits an integer overflow vulnerability in swc (or its dependencies) where a calculation results in a value that exceeds the maximum (or minimum) value that can be stored in the integer type. This can lead to unexpected behavior, such as incorrect buffer size calculations, which can then be exploited.
    • Likelihood: Low (Rust's checks reduce likelihood, but unsafe code is a risk).
    • Impact: High to Very High (can lead to RCE or DoS).
    • Effort: High.
    • Skill Level: Advanced to Expert.
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard.
    • Mitigation:
      • Review code for potential integer overflows.
      • Use static analysis tools.
      • Keep dependencies up-to-date.

  • Logic Error (Misuse of API) [HIGH RISK]

    • Description: The application integrating swc uses the API incorrectly, leading to a vulnerability. This could involve failing to sanitize input before passing it to swc, trusting swc's output without validation, or misconfiguring swc's options.
    • Likelihood: Medium.
    • Impact: Medium to High.
    • Effort: Low to Medium.
    • Skill Level: Intermediate.
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium.
    • Mitigation:
      • Provide clear API documentation and examples.
      • Implement robust input validation before calling swc.
      • Treat swc's output as potentially untrusted.
      • Conduct code reviews focusing on swc API usage.
      • Fuzz test the application's interaction with the swc API.
    • Rust Crate (swc) Issue [HIGH RISK]
      • Description: A known vulnerability exists within the swc Rust crate or its dependencies, specifically related to intended API usage, making it potentially easier to exploit.
      • Likelihood: Varies (depends on the specific vulnerability).
      • Impact: Varies (depends on the specific vulnerability).
      • Effort: Varies (could be low if a public exploit exists).
      • Skill Level: Varies (could be novice if a public exploit exists).
      • Detection Difficulty: Varies (could be easy if well-known).
      • Mitigation:
        • Monitor swc's issue tracker and security advisories.
        • Apply security patches promptly.
        • Use dependency analysis tools (e.g., cargo audit).

Attack Tree Path: 2. Manipulate swc Input/Output

  • Inject Malicious Plugins [CRITICAL]

    • Description: An attacker injects a malicious plugin into swc, which then executes arbitrary code or exfiltrates data. This relies on the application using swc's plugin system and having a vulnerability in how plugins are loaded or validated.
    • Likelihood: Low to Medium (depends on plugin usage and security).
    • Impact: Very High (full control over the application).
    • Effort: Low to Medium (if plugin loading is insecure).
    • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced.
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard.
    • Mitigation:
      • Implement a secure plugin loading mechanism.
      • Use code signing for plugins.
      • Sandbox plugins.
      • Vet third-party plugins carefully.
      • Regularly update plugins.

  • Craft Malformed AST

    • Description: An attacker creates a deliberately malformed or malicious Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) that, when processed by swc, triggers unexpected behavior or exploits a vulnerability. This leverages the fact that swc operates on an AST representation of the code.
    • Likelihood: Medium
    • Impact: Medium to High
    • Effort: Medium
    • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium
    • Mitigation:
      • Implement strict validation of the AST structure.
      • Use fuzzing to generate various AST inputs.