Cornucopia (CK)
Грант может занять приложение так, чтобы оно перестанет обслуживать других пользователей (часть или всех)
The key concept is that application-layer vulnerabilities and lack of rate limiting can be exploited to deny service to legitimate users, compromising system availability.
Scenario: Grant’s Exploitation for Denial of Service
Imagine a scenario where Grant utilizes an application to deny service to some or all of its users. This occurs due to:
- Vulnerabilities to Overload: The application has weaknesses that can be exploited to overload its resources, such as server bandwidth or processing capacity.
- Inadequate Rate Limiting: The lack of controls on the frequency and volume of user requests allows Grant to send an overwhelming number of requests, leading to service disruptions.
- Exploitable Functionalities: Certain features of the application can be misused to create bottlenecks or consume disproportionate resources.
Example
Grant targets an online retail platform. He identifies that the site’s search functionality is not rate-limited and requires intensive database queries. By sending rapid and numerous complex search requests, he overloads the server, causing significant slowdowns for other users and eventually leading to a denial of service. This exploitation effectively prevents legitimate users from accessing the website and making purchases.
Threat Modeling
STRIDE
The STRIDE category applicable here is Denial of Service (DoS).
Grant’s actions prevent legitimate users from accessing the application. The impact is on availability, which is exactly what Denial of Service attacks target. STRIDE explicitly associates attacks that reduce or eliminate system availability with Denial of Service.
What can go wrong?
Such vulnerabilities can lead to the application becoming unavailable or unresponsive, impacting user experience, and potentially causing financial and reputational damage to the service provider. Application-layer denial of service and other activities that adversely affect the application's users includes: Account lockout, Spamming, Excessive resource consumption, Scalping, Sniping.
These type of threats abuse the application layer in the attack and is therefor not related to common HTTP/TCP DoS like HTTP flooding, -slow attacks which in most cases are a networking concern.
For more things that can go wrong, see the Common Attack Patterns related to this card in the table below.
What are we going to do about it?
- Implement robust rate limiting on user requests, particularly for resource-intensive functionalities.
- Monitor and optimize the application’s performance to handle high volumes of traffic and processing.
- Regularly conduct stress tests to identify and address potential denial of service vulnerabilities.
- Develop and maintain an incident response plan to quickly mitigate and recover from denial of service attacks.
For detailed advice on how to mitigate threats related to the card, see the ASVS and OWASP Developer Guide requirements in the table below.
Mappings
OWASP ASVS (v5.0): 1.3.12,2.3.2,2.4.1,2.4.2,4.2.5,4.3.1,5.2.1,5.2.6,6.1.1,6.3.1,6.4.5,6.4.6,10.5.5,10.6.2,13.1.2,13.1.3,13.2.6,15.1.3,15.3.3,15.4.3,15.4.4,16.3.3,16.5.2,17.1.2,17.3.1,17.3.2
STRIDE: Denial of Service
CAPEC™: 2,25,100,125,130,227,572,607
SAFECode™: 1
CAPEC Map
| Code | Title | ASVS |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Inducing Account Lockout | 2.3.2,2.4.1,2.4.2,6.1.1,6.3.1,10.5.5,10.6.2,16.3.3 |
| 25 | Forced Deadlock | 2.3.2,4.2.5,16.3.3 |
| 100 | Overflow Buffers | 4.2.5,4.3.1,16.3.3 |
| 125 | Flooding | 2.4.1,13.1.2,13.1.3,13.2.6,16.3.3,16.5.2,17.1.2,17.3.1,17.3.2 |
| 130 | Excessive Allocation | 1.3.12,2.4.1,4.3.1,5.2.1,5.2.6,15.1.3,15.3.3,16.3.3,16.5.2 |
| 227 | Sustained Client Engagement | 2.3.2,4.2.5,13.1.2,13.1.3,13.2.6,16.3.3,16.5.2 |
| 572 | Artificially Inflate File Sizes | 5.2.1,5.2.6,16.3.3 |
| 607 | Obstruction | 6.4.5,6.4.6,13.1.3,15.4.3,15.4.4,17.3.2,16.3.3,16.5.2 |