attack-tree.md

Attack Tree Analysis for quick/nimble

Objective: Compromise application using Nimble by exploiting Nimble's weaknesses (Focus on High-Risk Paths).

Attack Tree Visualization

Root Goal: Compromise Application via Nimble Exploitation └───[OR]─> 1. Compromise Nimble Tool Itself [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[AND]─> 1.1. Exploit Nimble Vulnerabilities │ │ └───[OR]─> 1.1.1. Code Injection in Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ └───[OR]─> 2. Compromise Package Installation Process [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[OR]─> 2.1. Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks during Package Download [HIGH-RISK PATH if HTTP allowed] │ │ └───[OR]─> 2.1.1. Unsecured Connections (HTTP) for Package Sources [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ └───[OR]─> 2.1.3. Compromised Package Repositories [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[OR]─> 2.2. Local File System Exploitation during Installation [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ └───[OR]─> 2.2.1. Path Traversal Vulnerabilities in Nimble's Installation Logic [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ └───[OR]─> 2.2.2. Symlink Attacks during Package Extraction [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ └───[OR]─> 2.3. Exploiting Nimble's Dependency Resolution Mechanism [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ │ └───[OR]─> 2.3.1. Dependency Confusion/Typosquatting Attacks [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ └───[OR]─> 2.4. Post-Installation Exploitation via Nimble-Installed Components [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ │ └───[OR]─> 2.4.1. Backdoored Packages Installed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] │ │ └───[OR]─> 2.4.2. Vulnerable Dependencies Installed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ └───[OR]─> 3. Supply Chain Attacks via Malicious Packages (Leveraging Nimble for Distribution) [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[OR]─> 3.1. Malicious Package Upload to Package Repositories [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[OR]─> 3.2. Compromised Package Maintainer Accounts [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[OR]─> 3.3. Backdoored Package Updates Distributed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] │ └───[OR]─> 4. Social Engineering Attacks Targeting Nimble Users/Developers [HIGH-RISK PATH] [[CRITICAL NODE]] │ └───[OR]─> 4.1. Phishing Attacks to Distribute Malicious Nimble Packages or Nimble Files [HIGH-RISK PATH] │ └───[OR]─> 4.2. Social Engineering to Trick Developers into Installing Malicious Packages [HIGH-RISK PATH]

Attack Tree Path: 1. Compromise Nimble Tool Itself [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: Compromising the core Nimble tool is a critical node because it can affect all applications that rely on it. It's a central point of failure.
• High-Risk Path: 1.1.1. Code Injection in Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH]
  • Attack Vector: An attacker finds and exploits a vulnerability in Nimble's code that allows them to inject malicious code. This could be through insecure parsing of inputs, configuration files, or network responses.
  • Likelihood: Low-Medium (Depends on Nimble's code security)
  • Impact: High (Full control over Nimble, potentially system-wide impact, ability to manipulate package installations)
  • Effort: Medium-High (Requires vulnerability research and exploit development)
  • Skill Level: Medium-High (Vulnerability research, exploit development)
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Subtle code injection can be difficult to detect without thorough code audits and runtime monitoring)

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.1. Code Injection in Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: An attacker finds and exploits a vulnerability in Nimble's code that allows them to inject malicious code. This could be through insecure parsing of inputs, configuration files, or network responses.
  • Likelihood: Low-Medium (Depends on Nimble's code security)
  • Impact: High (Full control over Nimble, potentially system-wide impact, ability to manipulate package installations)
  • Effort: Medium-High (Requires vulnerability research and exploit development)
  • Skill Level: Medium-High (Vulnerability research, exploit development)
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Subtle code injection can be difficult to detect without thorough code audits and runtime monitoring)

Attack Tree Path: 2. Compromise Package Installation Process [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: Controlling the package installation process is a critical node because it allows attackers to inject malicious components directly into the application being built or deployed.

  • High-Risk Path: 2.1. Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks during Package Download [HIGH-RISK PATH if HTTP allowed]

    • Attack Vector: If Nimble allows or defaults to HTTP for package downloads, an attacker on the network can intercept the traffic and replace legitimate packages with malicious ones.

    • Likelihood: Medium (If HTTP is allowed, MITM is feasible on unsecured networks)

    • Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, application compromise)

    • Effort: Low-Medium (Setting up MITM attack is relatively easy on local networks)

    • Skill Level: Low-Medium (Basic networking knowledge, MITM tools)

    • Detection Difficulty: Hard (MITM attacks can be difficult to detect without proper network monitoring and end-to-end encryption)

    • High-Risk Path: 2.1.1. Unsecured Connections (HTTP) for Package Sources [HIGH-RISK PATH]

      • Attack Vector: Nimble uses HTTP to download packages or package metadata, making it vulnerable to MITM attacks.
      • Likelihood: Medium (If HTTP is the default or allowed option)
      • Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages)
      • Effort: Low-Medium (Exploiting existing HTTP connections)
      • Skill Level: Low-Medium (Basic networking knowledge)
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Difficult to detect without network traffic analysis)

    • High-Risk Path: 2.1.3. Compromised Package Repositories [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]]

      • Attack Vector: An attacker compromises a package repository that Nimble relies on. This allows them to distribute malicious packages to all users of that repository.
      • Likelihood: Low (Compromising a major repository is difficult but high impact)
      • Impact: Critical (Widespread distribution of malicious packages, massive application compromise)
      • Effort: High (Requires significant resources and sophistication to compromise a repository)
      • Skill Level: Expert (Advanced hacking skills, social engineering, persistence, potentially supply chain attack expertise)
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Compromise might be subtle and hard to detect initially, requiring repository integrity checks and monitoring)

  • High-Risk Path: 2.2. Local File System Exploitation during Installation [HIGH-RISK PATH]

    • Attack Vector: Vulnerabilities in Nimble's file handling during package installation allow attackers to write files to arbitrary locations or overwrite sensitive files on the local system.

    • Likelihood: Medium (Path traversal and symlink attacks are common in archive extraction and file handling)

    • Impact: High (Arbitrary file write, potential system compromise, privilege escalation)

    • Effort: Medium (Finding and exploiting these vulnerabilities is relatively common)

    • Skill Level: Medium (Web application security knowledge, path traversal and symlink techniques)

    • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Static analysis and dynamic testing can detect these vulnerabilities)

    • High-Risk Path: 2.2.1. Path Traversal Vulnerabilities in Nimble's Installation Logic [HIGH-RISK PATH]

      • Attack Vector: Nimble fails to properly sanitize file paths within package archives, allowing attackers to craft malicious packages that write files outside the intended installation directory.
      • Likelihood: Medium
      • Impact: High
      • Effort: Medium
      • Skill Level: Medium
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium

    • High-Risk Path: 2.2.2. Symlink Attacks during Package Extraction [HIGH-RISK PATH]

      • Attack Vector: Nimble doesn't handle symlinks securely during package extraction, allowing malicious packages to create symlinks pointing to sensitive files and potentially overwrite them.
      • Likelihood: Medium
      • Impact: High
      • Effort: Medium
      • Skill Level: Medium
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium

  • High-Risk Path: 2.3. Exploiting Nimble's Dependency Resolution Mechanism [HIGH-RISK PATH]

    • Attack Vector: Attackers manipulate Nimble's dependency resolution to inject malicious packages, often by exploiting naming similarities or lack of origin verification.

    • Likelihood: Medium (Dependency confusion and typosquatting are increasingly common attack vectors)

    • Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, application compromise)

    • Effort: Low (Registering similar package names or exploiting repository ambiguity is easy)

    • Skill Level: Low (Requires minimal technical skill)

    • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Can be detected by careful package name review and origin verification, but requires user vigilance)

    • High-Risk Path: 2.3.1. Dependency Confusion/Typosquatting Attacks [HIGH-RISK PATH]

      • Attack Vector: Attackers create malicious packages with names similar to legitimate dependencies (typosquatting) or with the same name in a different repository (dependency confusion), tricking Nimble into installing the malicious package.
      • Likelihood: Medium
      • Impact: High
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Low
      • Detection Difficulty: Medium

  • High-Risk Path: 2.4. Post-Installation Exploitation via Nimble-Installed Components [[CRITICAL NODE]]

    • Critical Node Rationale: This node is critical as it represents the point where the application becomes vulnerable after malicious or vulnerable components are installed via Nimble.

    • Attack Vector: Exploiting vulnerabilities or backdoors in packages installed by Nimble to compromise the application.

    • Likelihood: High (Vulnerable dependencies are common, backdoors are less frequent but highly impactful)

    • Impact: Medium-Critical (Depends on the vulnerability and the role of the compromised dependency in the application)

    • Effort: Low-Medium (Exploiting known vulnerabilities is often easy, backdoors can be harder to find but easier to exploit once found)

    • Skill Level: Low-Medium (Basic exploit knowledge for known vulnerabilities, potentially higher for exploiting backdoors)

    • Detection Difficulty: Easy-Hard (Vulnerable dependencies are easy to detect with scanners, backdoors are very hard to detect)

    • High-Risk Path: 2.4.1. Backdoored Packages Installed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT]

      • Attack Vector: Attackers insert backdoors into packages, which are then installed by Nimble, compromising applications using those packages.
      • Likelihood: Low-Medium
      • Impact: Critical
      • Effort: Medium-High
      • Skill Level: Medium-High
      • Detection Difficulty: Hard

    • High-Risk Path: 2.4.2. Vulnerable Dependencies Installed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH]

      • Attack Vector: Nimble installs packages with known security vulnerabilities, which attackers can then exploit to compromise the application.
      • Likelihood: High
      • Impact: Medium-High
      • Effort: Low
      • Skill Level: Low-Medium
      • Detection Difficulty: Easy-Medium

Attack Tree Path: 2.1. Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks during Package Download [HIGH-RISK PATH if HTTP allowed]

• Attack Vector: If Nimble allows or defaults to HTTP for package downloads, an attacker on the network can intercept the traffic and replace legitimate packages with malicious ones. * Likelihood: Medium (If HTTP is allowed, MITM is feasible on unsecured networks) * Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, application compromise) * Effort: Low-Medium (Setting up MITM attack is relatively easy on local networks) * Skill Level: Low-Medium (Basic networking knowledge, MITM tools) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (MITM attacks can be difficult to detect without proper network monitoring and end-to-end encryption)

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.1. Unsecured Connections (HTTP) for Package Sources [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Nimble uses HTTP to download packages or package metadata, making it vulnerable to MITM attacks. * Likelihood: Medium (If HTTP is the default or allowed option) * Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages) * Effort: Low-Medium (Exploiting existing HTTP connections) * Skill Level: Low-Medium (Basic networking knowledge) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (Difficult to detect without network traffic analysis)

Attack Tree Path: 2.1.3. Compromised Package Repositories [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Attack Vector: An attacker compromises a package repository that Nimble relies on. This allows them to distribute malicious packages to all users of that repository. * Likelihood: Low (Compromising a major repository is difficult but high impact) * Impact: Critical (Widespread distribution of malicious packages, massive application compromise) * Effort: High (Requires significant resources and sophistication to compromise a repository) * Skill Level: Expert (Advanced hacking skills, social engineering, persistence, potentially supply chain attack expertise) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (Compromise might be subtle and hard to detect initially, requiring repository integrity checks and monitoring)

Attack Tree Path: 2.2. Local File System Exploitation during Installation [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Vulnerabilities in Nimble's file handling during package installation allow attackers to write files to arbitrary locations or overwrite sensitive files on the local system. * Likelihood: Medium (Path traversal and symlink attacks are common in archive extraction and file handling) * Impact: High (Arbitrary file write, potential system compromise, privilege escalation) * Effort: Medium (Finding and exploiting these vulnerabilities is relatively common) * Skill Level: Medium (Web application security knowledge, path traversal and symlink techniques) * Detection Difficulty: Medium (Static analysis and dynamic testing can detect these vulnerabilities)

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.1. Path Traversal Vulnerabilities in Nimble's Installation Logic [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Nimble fails to properly sanitize file paths within package archives, allowing attackers to craft malicious packages that write files outside the intended installation directory. * Likelihood: Medium * Impact: High * Effort: Medium * Skill Level: Medium * Detection Difficulty: Medium

Attack Tree Path: 2.2.2. Symlink Attacks during Package Extraction [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Nimble doesn't handle symlinks securely during package extraction, allowing malicious packages to create symlinks pointing to sensitive files and potentially overwrite them. * Likelihood: Medium * Impact: High * Effort: Medium * Skill Level: Medium * Detection Difficulty: Medium

Attack Tree Path: 2.3. Exploiting Nimble's Dependency Resolution Mechanism [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Attackers manipulate Nimble's dependency resolution to inject malicious packages, often by exploiting naming similarities or lack of origin verification. * Likelihood: Medium (Dependency confusion and typosquatting are increasingly common attack vectors) * Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, application compromise) * Effort: Low (Registering similar package names or exploiting repository ambiguity is easy) * Skill Level: Low (Requires minimal technical skill) * Detection Difficulty: Medium (Can be detected by careful package name review and origin verification, but requires user vigilance)

Attack Tree Path: 2.3.1. Dependency Confusion/Typosquatting Attacks [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Attackers create malicious packages with names similar to legitimate dependencies (typosquatting) or with the same name in a different repository (dependency confusion), tricking Nimble into installing the malicious package. * Likelihood: Medium * Impact: High * Effort: Low * Skill Level: Low * Detection Difficulty: Medium

Attack Tree Path: 2.4. Post-Installation Exploitation via Nimble-Installed Components [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: This node is critical as it represents the point where the application becomes vulnerable after malicious or vulnerable components are installed via Nimble. * Attack Vector: Exploiting vulnerabilities or backdoors in packages installed by Nimble to compromise the application. * Likelihood: High (Vulnerable dependencies are common, backdoors are less frequent but highly impactful) * Impact: Medium-Critical (Depends on the vulnerability and the role of the compromised dependency in the application) * Effort: Low-Medium (Exploiting known vulnerabilities is often easy, backdoors can be harder to find but easier to exploit once found) * Skill Level: Low-Medium (Basic exploit knowledge for known vulnerabilities, potentially higher for exploiting backdoors) * Detection Difficulty: Easy-Hard (Vulnerable dependencies are easy to detect with scanners, backdoors are very hard to detect)

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.1. Backdoored Packages Installed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT]

• Attack Vector: Attackers insert backdoors into packages, which are then installed by Nimble, compromising applications using those packages. * Likelihood: Low-Medium * Impact: Critical * Effort: Medium-High * Skill Level: Medium-High * Detection Difficulty: Hard

Attack Tree Path: 2.4.2. Vulnerable Dependencies Installed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Nimble installs packages with known security vulnerabilities, which attackers can then exploit to compromise the application. * Likelihood: High * Impact: Medium-High * Effort: Low * Skill Level: Low-Medium * Detection Difficulty: Easy-Medium

Attack Tree Path: 3. Supply Chain Attacks via Malicious Packages (Leveraging Nimble for Distribution) [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: Supply chain attacks are critical because they can have a wide-reaching impact, affecting many users who trust the package ecosystem.

  • High-Risk Path: 3.1. Malicious Package Upload to Package Repositories [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]]

    • Critical Node Rationale: Directly injecting malicious packages into the repository is a critical point of attack in the supply chain.
    • Attack Vector: Attackers upload malicious packages to Nimble's package repositories, hoping developers will unknowingly install them.
    • Likelihood: Low-Medium (Depends on repository security measures)
    • Impact: Critical (Widespread distribution of malicious packages, affecting many applications)
    • Effort: Medium-High (Bypassing repository security measures, creating convincing malicious packages)
    • Skill Level: Medium-High (Social engineering, bypassing security controls, software development)
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Malicious packages can be disguised as legitimate and evade automated scans)

  • High-Risk Path: 3.2. Compromised Package Maintainer Accounts [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]]

    • Critical Node Rationale: Compromising maintainer accounts is a critical node because it allows attackers to distribute malicious updates under the guise of trusted maintainers.
    • Attack Vector: Attackers compromise package maintainer accounts to upload malicious package updates or new malicious packages, leveraging the trust associated with legitimate maintainers.
    • Likelihood: Low-Medium (Account compromise is a common attack vector)
    • Impact: Critical (Ability to publish malicious updates for legitimate packages, widespread impact)
    • Effort: Medium (Phishing, password cracking, social engineering to compromise accounts)
    • Skill Level: Medium (Social engineering, basic hacking techniques)
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Difficult to detect until malicious updates are distributed and analyzed)

  • High-Risk Path: 3.3. Backdoored Package Updates Distributed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT]

    • Attack Vector: Attackers compromise the package update process to inject backdoors into updates of legitimate packages, which are then distributed through Nimble.
    • Likelihood: Low-Medium (Requires compromising update infrastructure or maintainer accounts)
    • Impact: Critical (Widespread distribution of backdoored software, affecting many applications)
    • Effort: Medium-High (Requires sophisticated attack on update infrastructure or maintainer accounts)
    • Skill Level: High (Software supply chain attack expertise, advanced hacking techniques)
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Backdoors in updates can be very difficult to detect without thorough code reviews and reproducible builds)

Attack Tree Path: 3.1. Malicious Package Upload to Package Repositories [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: Directly injecting malicious packages into the repository is a critical point of attack in the supply chain. * Attack Vector: Attackers upload malicious packages to Nimble's package repositories, hoping developers will unknowingly install them. * Likelihood: Low-Medium (Depends on repository security measures) * Impact: Critical (Widespread distribution of malicious packages, affecting many applications) * Effort: Medium-High (Bypassing repository security measures, creating convincing malicious packages) * Skill Level: Medium-High (Social engineering, bypassing security controls, software development) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (Malicious packages can be disguised as legitimate and evade automated scans)

Attack Tree Path: 3.2. Compromised Package Maintainer Accounts [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT] [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: Compromising maintainer accounts is a critical node because it allows attackers to distribute malicious updates under the guise of trusted maintainers. * Attack Vector: Attackers compromise package maintainer accounts to upload malicious package updates or new malicious packages, leveraging the trust associated with legitimate maintainers. * Likelihood: Low-Medium (Account compromise is a common attack vector) * Impact: Critical (Ability to publish malicious updates for legitimate packages, widespread impact) * Effort: Medium (Phishing, password cracking, social engineering to compromise accounts) * Skill Level: Medium (Social engineering, basic hacking techniques) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (Difficult to detect until malicious updates are distributed and analyzed)

Attack Tree Path: 3.3. Backdoored Package Updates Distributed via Nimble [HIGH-RISK PATH, CRITICAL IMPACT]

• Attack Vector: Attackers compromise the package update process to inject backdoors into updates of legitimate packages, which are then distributed through Nimble. * Likelihood: Low-Medium (Requires compromising update infrastructure or maintainer accounts) * Impact: Critical (Widespread distribution of backdoored software, affecting many applications) * Effort: Medium-High (Requires sophisticated attack on update infrastructure or maintainer accounts) * Skill Level: High (Software supply chain attack expertise, advanced hacking techniques) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (Backdoors in updates can be very difficult to detect without thorough code reviews and reproducible builds)

Attack Tree Path: 4. Social Engineering Attacks Targeting Nimble Users/Developers [[CRITICAL NODE]]

• Critical Node Rationale: Social engineering is a critical node because it targets the human element, often bypassing technical security controls and exploiting user trust or lack of awareness.

  • High-Risk Path: 4.1. Phishing Attacks to Distribute Malicious Nimble Packages or Nimble Files [HIGH-RISK PATH]

    • Attack Vector: Attackers use phishing emails or websites to trick developers into downloading and installing malicious Nimble packages or Nimble files (e.g., modified package.nimble files).
    • Likelihood: Medium-High (Phishing is a common and effective attack vector)
    • Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, system compromise, application compromise)
    • Effort: Low (Setting up phishing campaigns is relatively easy)
    • Skill Level: Low (Basic social engineering and email skills)
    • Detection Difficulty: Medium (Phishing emails can be detected with user awareness and email security tools, but some are very sophisticated)

  • High-Risk Path: 4.2. Social Engineering to Trick Developers into Installing Malicious Packages [HIGH-RISK PATH]

    • Attack Vector: Attackers use social engineering tactics to convince developers to install specific malicious packages, perhaps by posing as helpful community members or creating fake tutorials or documentation.
    • Likelihood: Medium (Developers can be tricked, especially with convincing narratives and urgency)
    • Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, application compromise)
    • Effort: Low (Social engineering tactics can be low effort, relying on manipulation)
    • Skill Level: Low-Medium (Social engineering skills, communication, persuasion)
    • Detection Difficulty: Hard (Difficult to detect social engineering in package selection, relies on developer vigilance and security awareness)

Attack Tree Path: 4.1. Phishing Attacks to Distribute Malicious Nimble Packages or Nimble Files [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Attackers use phishing emails or websites to trick developers into downloading and installing malicious Nimble packages or Nimble files (e.g., modified package.nimble files). * Likelihood: Medium-High (Phishing is a common and effective attack vector) * Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, system compromise, application compromise) * Effort: Low (Setting up phishing campaigns is relatively easy) * Skill Level: Low (Basic social engineering and email skills) * Detection Difficulty: Medium (Phishing emails can be detected with user awareness and email security tools, but some are very sophisticated)

Attack Tree Path: 4.2. Social Engineering to Trick Developers into Installing Malicious Packages [HIGH-RISK PATH]

• Attack Vector: Attackers use social engineering tactics to convince developers to install specific malicious packages, perhaps by posing as helpful community members or creating fake tutorials or documentation. * Likelihood: Medium (Developers can be tricked, especially with convincing narratives and urgency) * Impact: High (Installation of malicious packages, application compromise) * Effort: Low (Social engineering tactics can be low effort, relying on manipulation) * Skill Level: Low-Medium (Social engineering skills, communication, persuasion) * Detection Difficulty: Hard (Difficult to detect social engineering in package selection, relies on developer vigilance and security awareness)