Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
88 lines (66 loc) · 9.58 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

88 lines (66 loc) · 9.58 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for johnlui/swift-on-ios

Objective: Execute Arbitrary Code on iOS Device via swift-on-ios

Attack Tree Visualization

Goal: Execute Arbitrary Code on iOS Device via swift-on-ios ├── 1. Exploit Network Communication Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK] │ ├── 1.1 Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attack on Custom Protocol [HIGH RISK] │ │ ├── 1.1.1 Lack of Proper Certificate Pinning/Validation in swift-on-ios [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── ACTION: Review and enforce strict certificate pinning. │ │ ├── 1.1.2 Injection of Malicious Data into Intercepted Communication [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── ACTION: Implement robust input validation. ├── 2. Exploit Deserialization/Data Handling Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK] │ ├── 2.1 Insecure Deserialization of Server Responses [HIGH RISK] │ │ ├── 2.1.1 If swift-on-ios uses a custom serialization format, vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── ACTION: Thoroughly audit the deserialization code. │ │ ├── 2.1.2 If swift-on-ios uses Codable, ensure that only expected types are decoded. [CRITICAL] │ │ │ └── ACTION: Use specific, well-defined types for decoding. │ │ └── 2.1.3 Insufficient validation of deserialized data before use. [CRITICAL] │ │ └── ACTION: Always validate the data against expected ranges.

Attack Tree Path: 1. Exploit Network Communication Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK]

  • Overall Description: This path focuses on attacking the communication channel between the iOS application and the Swift server. Since swift-on-ios likely establishes a custom communication protocol, it's crucial to ensure this protocol is secure against common network attacks.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1 Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attack on Custom Protocol [HIGH RISK]

  • Overall Description: An attacker positions themselves between the iOS app and the server, intercepting and potentially modifying the communication.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.1 Lack of Proper Certificate Pinning/Validation in swift-on-ios [CRITICAL]

  • Description: If swift-on-ios doesn't properly validate the server's certificate (e.g., by checking against a hardcoded, trusted certificate or public key – "pinning"), an attacker can present a fake certificate and successfully perform a MITM attack. The app would believe it's talking to the legitimate server, but it's actually communicating with the attacker.
  • Likelihood: Medium (If pinning is absent or weak; High if no TLS is used at all, which is unlikely but should be checked).
  • Impact: Very High (Complete compromise of communication; attacker can read and modify all data).
  • Effort: Medium (Requires network access and setting up a MITM proxy).
  • Skill Level: Intermediate (Requires understanding of TLS and MITM techniques).
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Traffic analysis might reveal unusual certificates; users might see certificate warnings if the system detects an issue, but this is often ignored).
  • Action: Review and enforce strict certificate pinning. Do not rely solely on system-level TLS validation. Test with invalid/self-signed certificates.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.2 Injection of Malicious Data into Intercepted Communication [CRITICAL]

  • Description: Once a MITM attack is established (e.g., due to failed certificate pinning), the attacker can inject malicious data into the communication stream. This could be specially crafted data designed to exploit vulnerabilities in the swift-on-ios client-side code or the application's handling of server responses.
  • Likelihood: High (If input validation is weak or absent, and MITM is successful).
  • Impact: Very High (Could lead to arbitrary code execution, data exfiltration, or other severe consequences).
  • Effort: Low (Once the MITM is in place, injecting data is relatively easy).
  • Skill Level: Intermediate (Requires understanding of the communication protocol and potential vulnerabilities).
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard (If the injected data is well-crafted to appear legitimate, it may be difficult to detect without deep packet inspection and analysis).
  • Action: Implement robust input validation and sanitization on all data received from the server, even if it's expected to be from a trusted source. Assume the channel is compromised.

Attack Tree Path: 2. Exploit Deserialization/Data Handling Vulnerabilities [HIGH RISK]

  • Overall Description: This path focuses on vulnerabilities that arise when the iOS application processes data received from the server. Specifically, it targets the deserialization process, where data from a serialized format (like JSON, Protocol Buffers, or a custom format) is converted into objects that the application can use.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1 Insecure Deserialization of Server Responses [HIGH RISK]

  • Overall Description: This is a class of vulnerabilities where the attacker can inject malicious data that, when deserialized, triggers unintended code execution or other harmful behavior.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.1 If swift-on-ios uses a custom serialization format, vulnerabilities. [CRITICAL]

  • Description: If swift-on-ios uses a custom serialization format (instead of a well-established and vetted format like JSON or Protocol Buffers), there's a higher risk of vulnerabilities in the deserialization logic. Custom formats often lack the security scrutiny and hardening of standard formats.
  • Likelihood: High (If a custom format is used and it hasn't undergone rigorous security auditing).
  • Impact: Very High (Successful exploitation often leads to arbitrary code execution).
  • Effort: Medium (Requires understanding the custom serialization format and identifying vulnerabilities in its implementation).
  • Skill Level: Advanced (Requires expertise in reverse engineering and vulnerability analysis).
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Requires code analysis, fuzzing, and potentially reverse engineering the serialization format).
  • Action: If a custom format is used, thoroughly audit the deserialization code. Prefer safer, well-vetted serialization formats like JSON (with strict schema validation) or Protocol Buffers. Avoid formats known to be prone to deserialization vulnerabilities.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.2 If swift-on-ios uses Codable, ensure that only expected types are decoded. [CRITICAL]

  • Description: Even when using Swift's built-in Codable protocol, insecure deserialization is possible if the code is not careful about the types it decodes. Using Any or overly broad types can allow an attacker to inject unexpected objects that trigger vulnerabilities.
  • Likelihood: Medium (If Any or overly broad types are used in the decoding process).
  • Impact: Very High (Can lead to arbitrary code execution).
  • Effort: Medium (Requires understanding of Codable and how to craft malicious payloads).
  • Skill Level: Intermediate to Advanced (Requires knowledge of Swift's type system and potential vulnerabilities).
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Requires careful code analysis and potentially fuzzing to identify type-related vulnerabilities).
  • Action: Use specific, well-defined types for decoding. Implement strict type checking during deserialization. Consider using a "type discriminator" field if polymorphism is required.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.3 Insufficient validation of deserialized data before use. [CRITICAL]

  • Description: Even after data has been successfully deserialized into objects, it's crucial to validate the data before using it in any sensitive operation. This means checking that values are within expected ranges, that strings have expected formats, and that any other constraints are met. Failing to do this can lead to various vulnerabilities, including logic errors, injection attacks, and potentially code execution.
  • Likelihood: High (If validation is missing, incomplete, or incorrectly implemented).
  • Impact: High to Very High (The impact depends on how the unvalidated data is used; it could range from minor logic errors to complete code execution).
  • Effort: Low (Requires crafting malicious data that violates expected constraints).
  • Skill Level: Intermediate (Requires understanding of the application's logic and data requirements).
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium to Hard (Depends on the specific vulnerability and how the data is used; may require code analysis, fuzzing, and security testing).
  • Action: Even after deserialization, always validate the data against expected ranges, formats, and constraints before using it in any sensitive operation.