Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
98 lines (78 loc) · 8.28 KB

attack-tree.md

File metadata and controls

98 lines (78 loc) · 8.28 KB

Attack Tree Analysis for snapkit/masonry

Objective: Compromise Application via Masonry Vulnerabilities

Attack Tree Visualization

  • [CRITICAL NODE] Attack Goal: Compromise Application via Masonry Vulnerabilities [CRITICAL NODE]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 1. Exploit Misuse/Misconfiguration of Masonry API [CRITICAL NODE]
      • [CRITICAL NODE] 1.1. Logic Errors in Constraint Definition [CRITICAL NODE]
        • [CRITICAL NODE] 1.1.1. Unintended UI Overlap/Hiding [CRITICAL NODE]
          • [HIGH RISK PATH] 1.1.1.1. Bypass UI Security Controls (e.g., hidden buttons, obscured input fields) [HIGH RISK PATH]
          • [HIGH RISK PATH] 1.1.1.2. Information Disclosure via UI Overlap (e.g., sensitive data revealed under other elements) [HIGH RISK PATH]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 3.1.1.1. Backdoor in Application Code using Masonry [CRITICAL NODE]
    • [CRITICAL NODE] 3.2.1.1. Compromised Application due to Malicious Library Functionality [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.1.1. Bypass UI Security Controls (e.g., hidden buttons, obscured input fields) [HIGH RISK PATH]

Attack Vector Description:

  • Developers make errors in defining Masonry constraints, leading to critical UI elements like security control buttons or input fields being unintentionally hidden behind or overlapped by other UI elements.
  • An attacker can then potentially interact with the obscured elements through UI manipulation techniques (e.g., using accessibility features, UI debugging tools, or precise touch inputs if overlap is slight), bypassing the intended UI flow and security controls.

Estimations:

  • Likelihood: Medium
  • Impact: Medium
  • Effort: Low
  • Skill Level: Low
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium

Actionable Insights/Mitigation:

  • Rigorous UI Testing: Implement comprehensive UI testing across various devices, screen sizes, and orientations. Focus on testing critical security flows and ensure all interactive elements are always accessible and visible.
  • Accessibility Testing: Utilize accessibility tools during development and testing to identify any UI elements that are obscured or not properly accessible in the UI hierarchy.
  • Code Reviews for Constraint Logic: Conduct thorough code reviews specifically focused on the logic of Masonry constraints, looking for potential errors that could lead to UI overlap or hiding of elements, especially security-sensitive ones.
  • Automated UI Checks: Implement automated UI checks that verify the visibility and interactability of critical UI elements in different application states and scenarios.

Attack Tree Path: 1.1.1.2. Information Disclosure via UI Overlap (e.g., sensitive data revealed under other elements) [HIGH RISK PATH]

Attack Vector Description:

  • Incorrect Masonry constraint definitions result in sensitive information being placed behind or underneath other UI elements.
  • An attacker might be able to reveal this hidden sensitive data by manipulating the UI, such as resizing windows, using accessibility features to inspect the UI hierarchy, or through other UI interaction techniques that expose the underlying layers.

Estimations:

  • Likelihood: Low
  • Impact: Low to Medium (depending on data sensitivity)
  • Effort: Low
  • Skill Level: Low
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium

Actionable Insights/Mitigation:

  • Data Sensitivity Review in UI Design: Carefully review the UI design and data placement to ensure sensitive information is never positioned in a way that could be revealed by UI layout issues. Avoid placing sensitive data in background layers or under potentially overlapping elements.
  • Secure Data Handling in UI: Minimize the display of sensitive data in the UI whenever possible. If sensitive data must be displayed, use masking, truncation, or other security measures to limit potential exposure even if UI issues occur.
  • UI Inspection Prevention (if feasible and necessary): Consider techniques to make UI inspection more difficult for attackers (though this is often limited by platform accessibility requirements). However, the primary focus should be on preventing the information from being hidden in the first place.
  • Regular UI Audits: Conduct periodic UI audits, especially after significant UI changes, to check for potential information disclosure vulnerabilities due to layout issues.

Attack Tree Path: 3.1.1.1. Backdoor in Application Code using Masonry [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector Description:

  • A developer's environment is compromised by malware or an attacker.
  • The attacker injects malicious code into the application's codebase during development. This malicious code could be integrated into parts of the application that use Masonry or any other component.
  • The injected code creates a backdoor, allowing the attacker to remotely access and control the application, exfiltrate data, or perform other malicious actions.

Estimations:

  • Likelihood: Low (for targeted attacks, higher for general malware infections)
  • Impact: Critical (full application compromise)
  • Effort: Medium to High (depending on environment security)
  • Skill Level: Medium to High
  • Detection Difficulty: Hard (if well-hidden backdoor)

Actionable Insights/Mitigation:

  • Secure Development Environment Practices: Implement robust security measures for all development environments, including:
    • Strong access control and authentication.
    • Regular security updates and patching of developer machines.
    • Malware protection and intrusion detection systems.
    • Network segmentation to isolate development environments.
  • Code Review and Version Control: Enforce mandatory code reviews for all code changes to detect any suspicious or unauthorized code injections. Utilize version control systems to track changes and facilitate rollback if necessary.
  • Security Awareness Training: Provide security awareness training to developers to educate them about phishing, malware, and secure coding practices.
  • Build Pipeline Security: Secure the entire build pipeline, including build servers and artifact repositories, to prevent malicious code injection during the build and release process.

Attack Tree Path: 3.2.1.1. Compromised Application due to Malicious Library Functionality [CRITICAL NODE]

Attack Vector Description:

  • An attacker creates a malicious library with a name similar to "Masonry" or another commonly used dependency.
  • Through dependency confusion or typosquatting techniques, developers are tricked into installing this malicious library instead of the genuine Masonry library.
  • The malicious library contains harmful code that compromises the application when it is built and run.

Estimations:

  • Likelihood: Very Low (for Masonry specifically, due to its popularity)
  • Impact: Critical (full application compromise)
  • Effort: Low to Medium (setting up malicious package)
  • Skill Level: Low to Medium
  • Detection Difficulty: Medium (if not carefully checking dependencies)

Actionable Insights/Mitigation:

  • Verify Dependency Integrity: Always carefully verify the source and integrity of all dependencies. Use official package repositories and checksum verification mechanisms provided by package managers.
  • Dependency Scanning and Auditing: Implement dependency scanning tools to automatically identify known vulnerabilities in dependencies. Conduct regular dependency audits to review and update dependencies.
  • Secure Package Repositories: Use trusted and secure package repositories. If using private repositories, ensure they are properly secured and access-controlled.
  • Dependency Pinning/Locking: Use dependency pinning or lock files (e.g., Podfile.lock for CocoaPods) to ensure consistent dependency versions and prevent unexpected updates to malicious versions.
  • Developer Awareness: Educate developers about dependency confusion and typosquatting attacks and the importance of verifying dependencies.