CAPEC-68

Subvert Code-signing Facilities
Low
Draft
2014-06-23
00h00 +00:00
2022-09-29
00h00 +00:00
Alerte pour un CAPEC
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CAPEC.
Notifications manage

Descriptions CAPEC

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.

Informations CAPEC

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

CWE-325

Missing Cryptographic Step
The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.

CWE-328

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).

CWE-1326

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