Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
106 lines (70 loc) · 13.1 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

106 lines (70 loc) · 13.1 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for krzyzanowskim/cryptoswift

Objective: To compromise an application that uses the CryptoSwift library by exploiting vulnerabilities or weaknesses related to its cryptographic functionalities.

Attack Tree Visualization

Compromise Application via CryptoSwift
└─── 2. Exploit Incorrect Usage of CryptoSwift by Developers [HIGH RISK PATH]
     ├─── 2.1. Weak Key Management [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]
     │    ├─── 2.1.1. Hardcoded Keys in Application Code [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]
     │    ├─── 2.1.2. Insecure Key Storage (e.g., Plaintext in Files, Shared Preferences) [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]
     │    ├─── 2.1.3. Weak Key Derivation from Passwords [HIGH RISK PATH]
     │    │    ├─── 2.1.3.1. Insufficient Salt Usage [HIGH RISK PATH]
     │    │    └─── 2.1.3.2. Weak Hashing Algorithms for Key Derivation [HIGH RISK PATH]
     │    └─── 2.1.4. Key Leakage through Logs or Error Messages [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]
     ├─── 2.2. Incorrect Algorithm Choice or Parameters [HIGH RISK PATH]
     │    ├─── 2.2.1. Using Insecure or Deprecated Algorithms (e.g., weak ciphers, short key lengths) [HIGH RISK PATH]
     │    ├─── 2.2.2. Incorrect Mode of Operation (e.g., ECB mode for block ciphers when CBC/CTR is needed) [HIGH RISK PATH]
     │    └─── 2.2.3. Improper Initialization Vectors (IVs) or Nonces Usage (e.g., IV reuse) [HIGH RISK PATH]
     └─── 2.4. Vulnerabilities in Surrounding Application Logic Interacting with CryptoSwift [HIGH RISK PATH]
          ├─── 2.4.1. Injection Attacks that Manipulate Data Before/After Crypto Operations [HIGH RISK PATH]
          │    └─── 2.4.1.1.  XSS to Steal Keys or Manipulate Encrypted Data [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]
          └─── 2.4.2. Logic Flaws in Authentication/Authorization relying on CryptoSwift [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Tree Path: 2. Exploit Incorrect Usage of CryptoSwift by Developers [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: This is a broad category encompassing vulnerabilities arising from how developers implement and integrate CryptoSwift into their applications, rather than flaws within the library itself.
  • Why High-Risk: Developer errors are statistically the most common source of security vulnerabilities. Even a secure library can be rendered ineffective or even harmful if used incorrectly. Likelihood is medium to high due to common developer mistakes, and impact can range from medium to critical depending on the specific misuse.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1. Weak Key Management [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Attack Vector: This focuses on vulnerabilities related to how cryptographic keys are generated, stored, protected, and managed throughout their lifecycle within the application.
  • Why High-Risk and Critical: Cryptographic keys are the foundation of security when using encryption. If keys are compromised, the entire cryptographic system collapses. Likelihood is medium due to common insecure practices, and impact is critical as key compromise often leads to complete data breach.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.1. Hardcoded Keys in Application Code [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Attack Vector: Embedding cryptographic keys directly within the application's source code (e.g., in variables, configuration files within the application package).
  • Why High-Risk and Critical: Keys become trivially accessible to anyone who can access the application's code (e.g., through decompilation, source code repository access). Likelihood is medium as it's a common mistake, especially in quick development or for "obfuscation" attempts. Impact is critical as the key is immediately exposed.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.2. Insecure Key Storage (e.g., Plaintext in Files, Shared Preferences) [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Attack Vector: Storing keys in easily accessible locations on the device or system, such as plaintext files, shared preferences, or unencrypted databases.
  • Why High-Risk and Critical: If an attacker gains even limited access to the system (e.g., through malware, physical access, or other vulnerabilities), they can easily retrieve the keys. Likelihood is medium, especially in mobile and desktop applications. Impact is critical as key compromise is straightforward.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.3. Weak Key Derivation from Passwords [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Deriving cryptographic keys directly from user passwords using insufficient or weak methods.
  • Why High-Risk: If key derivation is weak, attackers can more easily crack passwords and subsequently derive the cryptographic keys. Likelihood is medium as developers may not fully understand secure key derivation. Impact is high as it weakens password-based encryption significantly.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.3.1. Insufficient Salt Usage [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Not using salts, using the same salt for all users, or using short/predictable salts during password hashing for key derivation.
  • Why High-Risk: Salts are crucial to prevent rainbow table attacks and make password cracking more difficult. Insufficient salting weakens password security. Likelihood is medium due to misunderstanding of salting importance. Impact is high as it makes password cracking easier.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.3.2. Weak Hashing Algorithms for Key Derivation [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Using outdated or weak hashing algorithms (e.g., MD5, SHA1 directly) for key derivation from passwords.
  • Why High-Risk: Weak hashing algorithms are computationally less expensive to crack, making password-derived keys vulnerable. Likelihood is medium as outdated practices persist. Impact is high as it makes password cracking easier.

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.4. Key Leakage through Logs or Error Messages [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Attack Vector: Accidentally logging cryptographic keys in application logs, error messages, or debugging output.
  • Why High-Risk and Critical: Logs and error messages are often stored and sometimes accessible to attackers (e.g., through server compromise, log aggregation services). Accidental key logging directly exposes the keys. Likelihood is medium due to common logging practices and oversight. Impact is critical as keys are directly exposed.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2. Incorrect Algorithm Choice or Parameters [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Selecting insecure or deprecated cryptographic algorithms, or using even strong algorithms with incorrect parameters or modes of operation.
  • Why High-Risk: Using weak algorithms or incorrect parameters directly reduces the strength of the cryptography, making it easier to break. Likelihood is medium due to lack of cryptographic expertise among some developers. Impact is medium to high as it weakens or negates the intended security.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.1. Using Insecure or Deprecated Algorithms (e.g., weak ciphers, short key lengths) [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Choosing algorithms known to be weak, broken, or deprecated (e.g., DES, RC4, MD5 for encryption, short key lengths like 128-bit AES when 256-bit is recommended).
  • Why High-Risk: These algorithms have known vulnerabilities or are computationally easier to break with modern tools. Likelihood is medium due to outdated knowledge or compatibility requirements. Impact is medium to high as security is significantly reduced.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.2. Incorrect Mode of Operation (e.g., ECB mode for block ciphers when CBC/CTR is needed) [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Using inappropriate modes of operation for block ciphers, such as ECB mode, which is deterministic and reveals patterns in the plaintext.
  • Why High-Risk: Incorrect modes can lead to predictable ciphertext, information leakage, and vulnerabilities that allow attackers to decrypt or manipulate data. Likelihood is medium due to misunderstanding of modes of operation. Impact is high as it can lead to significant information disclosure.

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.3. Improper Initialization Vectors (IVs) or Nonces Usage (e.g., IV reuse) [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Reusing IVs or nonces when they should be unique, or using predictable IVs/nonces in modes of operation like CBC or CTR.
  • Why High-Risk: Incorrect IV/nonce management can break the confidentiality and integrity guarantees of certain encryption modes, leading to data compromise. Likelihood is medium as IV/nonce management can be complex. Impact is high as it can lead to confidentiality and integrity breaches.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4. Vulnerabilities in Surrounding Application Logic Interacting with CryptoSwift [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Vulnerabilities in the application's code that interacts with CryptoSwift, even if CryptoSwift itself is used correctly. This includes injection flaws, logic errors in authentication/authorization, and improper handling of data before or after cryptographic operations.
  • Why High-Risk: The overall security of the application depends not just on CryptoSwift, but on how it's integrated into the application's logic. Flaws in surrounding logic can negate the security provided by cryptography. Likelihood is medium due to complexity of application logic. Impact is medium to critical depending on the nature of the vulnerability.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.1. Injection Attacks that Manipulate Data Before/After Crypto Operations [HIGH RISK PATH]

  • Attack Vector: Exploiting injection vulnerabilities (like XSS, SQL injection, command injection - though XSS is most relevant here in the context of key theft) to manipulate data before it's encrypted or after it's decrypted by CryptoSwift, or to steal cryptographic keys.
  • Why High-Risk: Injection attacks are common web application vulnerabilities and can be leveraged to bypass or undermine cryptographic protections. Likelihood is medium due to prevalence of injection flaws. Impact is medium to critical depending on the injection type and its target.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.1.1. XSS to Steal Keys or Manipulate Encrypted Data [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Attack Vector: Using Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) to inject malicious scripts into the application's frontend, which can then be used to steal cryptographic keys from memory, manipulate encrypted data in transit, or perform actions on behalf of the user.
  • Why High-Risk and Critical: XSS is a common and potent web vulnerability. In the context of cryptography, it can directly lead to key theft, which is a critical compromise. Likelihood is medium due to commonality of XSS. Impact is critical due to potential for key theft and data manipulation.

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.2. Logic Flaws in Authentication/Authorization relying on CryptoSwift [HIGH RISK PATH] [CRITICAL NODE]

  • Attack Vector: Exploiting logic flaws in the application's authentication or authorization mechanisms that rely on CryptoSwift for cryptographic operations (e.g., password hashing, token verification).
  • Why High-Risk and Critical: Authentication and authorization are fundamental security controls. Logic flaws in these mechanisms can lead to complete application compromise and unauthorized access. Likelihood is medium due to complexity of auth/auth logic. Impact is critical as it can lead to full application compromise.