| Name |
Subvert Code-signing Facilities |
|
| Likelyhood of attack |
Typical severity |
| Low |
Very High |
|
| Summary |
Many languages use code signing facilities to vouch for code's identity and to thus tie code to its assigned privileges within an environment. Subverting this mechanism can be instrumental in an attacker escalating privilege. Any means of subverting the way that a virtual machine enforces code signing classifies for this style of attack. |
| Prerequisites |
A framework-based language that supports code signing (such as, and most commonly, Java or .NET) Deployed code that has been signed by its authoring vendor, or a partner. The attacker will, for most circumstances, also need to be able to place code in the victim container. This does not necessarily mean that they will have to subvert host-level security, except when explicitly indicated. |
| Solutions | A given code signing scheme may be fallible due to improper use of cryptography. Developers must never roll out their own cryptography, nor should existing primitives be modified or ignored. If an attacker cannot attack the scheme directly, they might try to alter the environment that affects the signing and verification processes. A possible mitigation is to avoid reliance on flags or environment variables that are user-controllable. |
| Related Weaknesses |
|
CWE ID
|
Description
|
| CWE-325 |
Missing Cryptographic Step |
| CWE-328 |
Use of Weak Hash |
| CWE-1326 |
Missing Immutable Root of Trust in Hardware |
|
| Related CAPECS |
|
CAPEC ID
|
Description
|
| CAPEC-233 |
An adversary exploits a weakness enabling them to elevate their privilege and perform an action that they are not supposed to be authorized to perform. |
|
| Taxonomy: ATTACK |
|
Entry ID
|
Entry Name
|
| 1553.002 |
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing |
|