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.
Skills Required
Subverting code signing is not a trivial activity. Most code signing and verification schemes are based on use of cryptography and the attacker needs to have an understanding of these cryptographic operations in good detail. Additionally the attacker also needs to be aware of the way memory is assigned and accessed by the container since, often, the only way to subvert code signing would be to patch the code in memory. Finally, a knowledge of the platform specific mechanisms of signing and verifying code is a must.
Resources Required
The Attacker needs no special resources beyond the listed prerequisites in order to conduct this style of attack.
Mitigations
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 |
Weakness Name |
|
Missing Cryptographic Step The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm. |
|
Use of Weak Hash The product uses an algorithm that produces a digest (output value) that does not meet security expectations for a hash function that allows an adversary to reasonably determine the original input (preimage attack), find another input that can produce the same hash (2nd preimage attack), or find multiple inputs that evaluate to the same hash (birthday attack). |
|
Missing Immutable Root of Trust in Hardware A missing immutable root of trust in the hardware results in the ability to bypass secure boot or execute untrusted or adversarial boot code. |
Submission
Name |
Organization |
Date |
Date release |
CAPEC Content Team |
The MITRE Corporation |
2014-06-23 +00:00 |
|
Modifications
Name |
Organization |
Date |
Comment |
CAPEC Content Team |
The MITRE Corporation |
2017-01-09 +00:00 |
Updated Related_Attack_Patterns |
CAPEC Content Team |
The MITRE Corporation |
2018-07-31 +00:00 |
Updated Attacker_Skills_or_Knowledge_Required, Description Summary |
CAPEC Content Team |
The MITRE Corporation |
2020-07-30 +00:00 |
Updated Mitigations |
CAPEC Content Team |
The MITRE Corporation |
2020-12-17 +00:00 |
Updated Related_Weaknesses |
CAPEC Content Team |
The MITRE Corporation |
2022-09-29 +00:00 |
Updated Taxonomy_Mappings |