STRIDE is a model for identifying computer security threats. It stands for:
- Spoofing identity
- Tampering with data
- Repudiation
- Information disclosure
- Denial of service
- Elevation of privilege
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker might attempt to spoof the identity of the legitimate update source and trick devices into downloading and installing firmware from a malicious source.
- Mitigation: Use digital signatures and certificates to verify the identity of the source before accepting and applying the update. Employing cryptographic mechanisms ensures that only firmware signed by a trusted entity is installed.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could modify the firmware or software images during transmission or while they are stored on the update server, injecting malicious code.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures to ensure the integrity of firmware. Devices should verify these signatures and hashes before installation to confirm that the firmware has not been altered.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The update source could deny that it provided a particular firmware version, or a device could deny receiving and applying a particular update.
- Mitigation: Maintain secure logging and auditing mechanisms on both the update server and devices. These logs should be tamper-proof and include details of all firmware updates, including their sources and checksums.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to firmware images could lead to the disclosure of proprietary code or algorithms, potentially revealing vulnerabilities or intellectual property.
- Mitigation: Encrypt firmware images both at rest (on the server) and in transit (over the network). Access controls should restrict who can retrieve and view firmware files.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could try to disrupt the distribution of firmware updates, making it impossible for devices to receive necessary updates.
- Mitigation: Implement rate limiting and monitoring to detect and prevent DoS attacks on the update server. Use redundancy and multiple update servers to ensure availability.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If an attacker compromises firmware, they could escalate their privileges, gaining unauthorized access to device functions or data.
- Mitigation: Utilize secure boot mechanisms to ensure that only authorized firmware can be executed. Firmware should run with the least privilege necessary, and there should be mechanisms to detect and respond to unauthorized privilege escalations.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker might attempt to spoof the update server, making devices believe they are communicating with the legitimate server while connecting to a malicious one instead.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication mechanisms such as TLS certificates to verify the identity of the update server. Devices should only connect to servers with verified and trusted certificates.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could intercept and modify the data being sent to or from the update server, potentially altering the firmware images or metadata.
- Mitigation: Ensure that all communications between the device and the update server are encrypted using strong protocols like TLS. Implement integrity checks such as digital signatures to detect any tampering with firmware or metadata.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The update server could deny sending a particular firmware update, or devices could deny receiving it.
- Mitigation: Implement logging on both the server and devices to track updates. Secure logs should record details of all update transactions, including timestamps, versions, and cryptographic checksums.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Sensitive information could be exposed if an attacker gains unauthorized access to the update server, including firmware images, cryptographic keys, or update schedules.
- Mitigation: Use encryption for data storage on the server and limit access to sensitive information. Implement strict access controls and authentication to ensure only authorized personnel can access sensitive data.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could overload the update server with requests, making it unavailable to legitimate devices attempting to download updates.
- Mitigation: Implement rate limiting, traffic filtering, and load balancing to manage server traffic. Use distributed update servers and CDN (Content Delivery Network) strategies to reduce the impact of a DoS attack.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If an attacker compromises the update server, they could escalate privileges and gain control over the distribution of updates, potentially pushing malicious firmware.
- Mitigation: Isolate the server's critical functions and enforce the principle of least privilege. Regularly update and patch the server software to protect against known vulnerabilities, and use robust intrusion detection systems to monitor for unauthorized access or privilege escalation.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could steal device authentication credentials (e.g., certificates, keys, or tokens) and use them to impersonate a legitimate device, gaining unauthorized access to the update server.
- Mitigation: Store authentication credentials securely on the device, using hardware-based security modules such as TPM (Trusted Platform Module) or HSM (Hardware Security Module). Implement multi-factor authentication where possible.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might attempt to alter device authentication credentials, potentially redirecting updates or gaining unauthorized access to sensitive data.
- Mitigation: Use cryptographic techniques to protect the integrity of credentials. Employ secure storage and access control mechanisms to prevent unauthorized modification.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: A device could deny having received or presented certain authentication credentials, complicating the audit and accountability process.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging mechanisms to track the use of authentication credentials. Logs should be tamper-proof and provide evidence of credential usage and verification attempts.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to device authentication credentials could expose sensitive information, enabling an attacker to impersonate devices or intercept updates.
- Mitigation: Encrypt credentials in storage and during transmission. Use access controls and monitor access to credential storage areas. Employ secure key management practices.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could launch a DoS attack against the system managing device authentication credentials, preventing legitimate devices from authenticating and receiving updates.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for authentication servers. Use rate limiting and anomaly detection to prevent overloading authentication services.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If an attacker obtains device authentication credentials, they could potentially escalate privileges within the update system, gaining unauthorized access to restricted areas or functions.
- Mitigation: Limit the scope and permissions associated with each set of credentials. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure that devices only have access to functions and data necessary for their operation. Regularly rotate credentials and audit their use.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could steal or forge update authentication credentials (e.g., signing certificates or keys) to impersonate a legitimate update source, tricking devices into installing malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong, cryptographic digital signatures to authenticate updates. Store signing keys in secure hardware, such as HSMs (Hardware Security Modules), and implement multi-factor authentication for access.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with update authentication credentials to alter the permissions or validity of signing keys, allowing unauthorized firmware to be signed and distributed.
- Mitigation: Use secure and tamper-evident storage for authentication credentials. Implement integrity checks and cryptographic hash functions to detect any unauthorized changes to signing credentials.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity could deny signing a particular update, making it difficult to trace the origin of malicious or faulty firmware.
- Mitigation: Keep detailed, secure logs of all signing activities, including timestamped records of which keys were used to sign which updates. Use non-repudiable cryptographic mechanisms to ensure that signing actions can be traced back to specific entities.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to update authentication credentials could expose the cryptographic keys used for signing, allowing an attacker to create counterfeit updates.
- Mitigation: Encrypt credentials both in storage and during transmission. Use access controls to restrict who can view or use signing keys. Regularly audit access logs to detect any unauthorized access attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could target the systems managing update authentication credentials, making them unavailable and disrupting the signing process, thus delaying critical updates.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and high-availability solutions for authentication infrastructure. Use load balancing and failover mechanisms to ensure that signing services remain available even during high load or attack scenarios.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromised authentication credentials could allow an attacker to escalate privileges, giving them unauthorized signing capabilities to distribute malicious firmware.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access control policies, using least privilege principles. Regularly review and update access permissions. Employ multi-factor authentication for access to signing capabilities, and monitor for unusual activity.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could attempt to impersonate the legitimate communication endpoints (e.g., the update server or the device) to intercept or alter the data being transmitted over the communication channel.
- Mitigation: Use mutual authentication protocols (e.g., TLS with client certificates) to ensure that both the device and the server verify each other's identities before establishing communication.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could intercept and modify the data being transmitted over the communication channel, such as altering the firmware images or update metadata.
- Mitigation: Employ end-to-end encryption using protocols like TLS to protect data integrity and confidentiality during transmission. Use cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures to ensure data has not been tampered with.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Either party (the server or the device) could deny having sent or received certain data over the communication channel, making it difficult to trace the source of issues or attacks.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging on both the server and device sides to record all communications. Use digital signatures to provide evidence of data origin and integrity, making it possible to prove who sent or received specific data.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: An attacker might eavesdrop on the communication channel to capture sensitive information, such as firmware details, cryptographic keys, or personal data.
- Mitigation: Use strong encryption protocols (e.g., TLS) to protect the confidentiality of data transmitted over the communication channel. Implement access controls and monitor network traffic for unusual patterns indicative of eavesdropping.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could flood the communication channel with traffic, overwhelming it and preventing legitimate devices from communicating with the update server, thereby disrupting the update process.
- Mitigation: Implement rate limiting, traffic filtering, and anomaly detection to identify and mitigate DoS attacks. Use load balancing and redundancy to ensure that legitimate traffic can still reach the update server.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If an attacker can compromise the communication channel, they might gain the ability to escalate privileges, such as gaining unauthorized access to the update server or altering the update process.
- Mitigation: Segment network traffic and enforce strict firewall rules to limit communication paths. Use intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDPS) to monitor and respond to suspicious activities. Ensure that communication channels are secured using strong, up-to-date cryptographic protocols.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could create a malicious version of the update client software that impersonates the legitimate client to the update server, allowing unauthorized updates to be installed.
- Mitigation: Use cryptographic methods such as digital signatures to verify the authenticity of the update client software before installation. Devices should only run client software that has been signed by a trusted authority.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might modify the update client software on a device to alter its behavior, such as bypassing security checks or executing unauthorized commands.
- Mitigation: Implement secure boot mechanisms to verify the integrity of the update client software at startup. Use code signing and integrity verification techniques to ensure that the software has not been tampered with.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The update client software could deny having performed certain actions, such as applying an update, which could make it difficult to trace the source of a problem.
- Mitigation: Use secure, tamper-proof logging to record all actions taken by the update client software. Logs should include details about which updates were applied, when they were applied, and any errors encountered.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: An attacker could exploit vulnerabilities in the update client software to gain access to sensitive information stored on the device, such as user data, cryptographic keys, or configuration settings.
- Mitigation: Regularly update the update client software to patch vulnerabilities. Implement data encryption and access controls to protect sensitive information. Use secure coding practices to minimize the risk of exploitable vulnerabilities.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could exploit the update client software to disrupt its functionality, preventing the device from applying critical updates.
- Mitigation: Implement robustness checks and validation mechanisms to ensure that the update client can handle unexpected inputs or conditions. Use fail-safes and backup mechanisms to ensure that devices can still operate and receive updates even if the client software is disrupted.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If the update client software is compromised, an attacker could use it to escalate their privileges on the device, gaining unauthorized access to restricted functions or data.
- Mitigation: Run the update client software with the least privilege necessary. Implement access controls and role-based permissions to restrict what the update client can do. Regularly audit and monitor the behavior of the update client to detect and respond to suspicious activity.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could attempt to impersonate the backup and recovery systems, leading devices to trust and execute malicious recovery operations.
- Mitigation: Use authentication mechanisms to verify the identity of backup and recovery components. Ensure that only authenticated and authorized entities can initiate recovery processes.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could tamper with the backup files or recovery scripts, inserting malicious code that gets executed during the recovery process.
- Mitigation: Use cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures to verify the integrity of backup files and recovery scripts. Only execute recovery processes that have been validated and have integrity checks passed.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: There could be a denial of backup or recovery operations being performed, which makes it challenging to track and audit recovery processes.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all backup and recovery operations. Logs should include timestamps, source, and destination of backups, and any errors encountered during recovery.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Backup files could contain sensitive information that, if exposed, could compromise the security of the device or user privacy.
- Mitigation: Encrypt backup files both at rest and in transit to protect them from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to ensure that only authorized personnel or systems can access the backup data.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the backup and recovery process, making it impossible for the device to restore its previous state, leading to system failures or prolonged downtime.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for backup and recovery systems. Use rate limiting and anomaly detection to identify and prevent DoS attacks. Regularly test recovery procedures to ensure they are resilient to failures.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromised backup or recovery mechanisms could be exploited to gain higher privileges on the device, allowing unauthorized access to sensitive functions or data.
- Mitigation: Use access control policies to restrict what backup and recovery processes can access and modify. Implement least privilege principles and regularly audit the use of backup and recovery mechanisms to detect unauthorized use.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could create fake update metadata to impersonate a legitimate source, tricking devices into accepting malicious or incorrect updates.
- Mitigation: Use digital signatures to authenticate update metadata. Devices should verify the signature against trusted certificates before accepting and applying updates.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might modify update metadata, altering information such as version numbers, cryptographic hashes, or update instructions, potentially leading to the installation of malicious firmware.
- Mitigation: Use cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures to ensure the integrity of update metadata. Devices should validate these hashes and signatures before processing updates.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The source of update metadata could deny having provided certain metadata, making it challenging to trace the origin of an update and verify its legitimacy.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to track the creation and distribution of update metadata. Logs should include information about who signed the metadata, when it was signed, and its contents.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to update metadata could expose sensitive information, such as details about device vulnerabilities or the timing of future updates.
- Mitigation: Encrypt update metadata during transmission and use access controls to restrict who can access metadata files. Regularly audit access to ensure that only authorized entities are viewing the metadata.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to update metadata, preventing devices from receiving necessary updates or forcing them to operate without current information.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and caching mechanisms to ensure the availability of update metadata. Use rate limiting and monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting metadata servers.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If update metadata is compromised, an attacker might be able to escalate privileges on the device by instructing it to install firmware that grants unauthorized access or capabilities.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict validation checks on update metadata before it is accepted by the device. Use role-based access controls to restrict who can create and sign update metadata. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect the current security posture.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate administrator or system process to alter device configuration data, leading to unauthorized changes in device behavior.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication and access control mechanisms to ensure that only authorized users or processes can access and modify device configuration data. Implement role-based access controls to manage who can change different types of configurations.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could tamper with device configuration data, altering settings to weaken security, enable unauthorized access, or disrupt normal device operation.
- Mitigation: Implement integrity checks, such as cryptographic hashes, to detect any unauthorized changes to configuration data. Use secure storage solutions to protect configuration data from unauthorized modification.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An administrator or system process could deny having made specific configuration changes, complicating the audit and accountability process.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging that records all changes to device configuration data, including who made the change, what was changed, and when the change occurred. Use tamper-evident logging to ensure the integrity of audit trails.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to device configuration data could expose sensitive settings, such as network configurations, authentication details, or security parameters.
- Mitigation: Encrypt configuration data both in storage and during transmission. Use access controls to restrict who can view or retrieve configuration data. Regularly audit access to configuration data to detect unauthorized access attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could alter or corrupt configuration data to disrupt device functionality, causing it to malfunction or become unresponsive.
- Mitigation: Implement validation checks to ensure configuration data is correct and within expected parameters before applying it. Use backup and recovery mechanisms to quickly restore configuration data to a known good state in case of corruption.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By modifying device configuration data, an attacker could gain unauthorized access to higher-privilege functions or data, effectively escalating their privileges.
- Mitigation: Enforce the principle of least privilege in managing configuration settings, limiting access to critical configurations. Use secure boot and runtime integrity checks to detect unauthorized changes to configuration data. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect security requirements.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate user or process to gain unauthorized access to user data stored on the device, potentially leading to data theft or manipulation.
- Mitigation: Implement strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication, to verify user identities before granting access to sensitive data. Use role-based access control to limit access based on user roles and permissions.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could modify user data, either by directly accessing it or by exploiting vulnerabilities in the system, leading to data corruption or unauthorized changes.
- Mitigation: Use integrity checks, such as cryptographic hashes, to detect unauthorized changes to user data. Implement secure storage solutions to protect data from tampering. Regularly back up user data to allow for recovery in case of tampering.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: A user could deny having performed certain actions or accessing certain data, making it difficult to trace activities or hold users accountable.
- Mitigation: Implement secure, tamper-proof logging to record user activities and access to data. Logs should include details about who accessed the data, what actions were performed, and timestamps to create a reliable audit trail.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to user data could lead to the exposure of sensitive information, such as personal details, passwords, or financial data, potentially resulting in privacy violations or identity theft.
- Mitigation: Encrypt user data both at rest and in transit to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls and regularly audit who has access to sensitive data. Use data masking or anonymization techniques where applicable.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to user data, making it unavailable or causing data loss, which could impact device functionality or user experience.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and backup mechanisms to ensure the availability of user data. Use rate limiting and traffic monitoring to detect and prevent DoS attacks that target data access.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If user data is compromised, an attacker could potentially escalate privileges by gaining unauthorized access to administrative or sensitive functions.
- Mitigation: Enforce the principle of least privilege, ensuring that users and processes have only the minimum necessary access to data. Use access control policies to restrict data access based on user roles. Regularly audit access logs to detect and respond to unauthorized access attempts.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate system or user to insert false log entries or access the logging system, potentially covering up malicious activities or generating misleading information.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication methods to ensure that only authorized systems and users can write to or access the logs. Implement mutual authentication for any communication between devices and logging systems.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might modify log files to hide evidence of an attack or to inject false data, misleading administrators or security systems.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic techniques such as hashing and digital signatures to ensure the integrity of log files. Store logs in a secure, tamper-evident environment and use append-only logs where possible.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity might deny having performed certain actions recorded in the logs, making it difficult to attribute actions and hold parties accountable.
- Mitigation: Use secure logging mechanisms that include non-repudiation features, such as digital signatures. Timestamp log entries and include sufficient contextual information to prove the authenticity of logged actions.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Logs could contain sensitive information, such as user credentials, IP addresses, or internal system details, which could be exposed if accessed by unauthorized parties.
- Mitigation: Encrypt logs to protect sensitive information. Implement access controls to restrict who can read logs and ensure that logs are only accessible to authorized personnel. Regularly audit access to logging systems.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could overwhelm the logging system with excessive data, making it difficult to store or analyze logs, thereby disrupting monitoring and incident response efforts.
- Mitigation: Implement rate limiting and log rotation to manage the volume of logging data. Use scalable storage solutions and ensure that logging systems are distributed and redundant to handle high loads. Monitor for abnormal logging patterns.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising logging and monitoring systems, an attacker could potentially gain access to sensitive information or escalate their privileges within the system, bypassing security controls.
- Mitigation: Use role-based access control (RBAC) to limit who can access and manage the logging systems. Ensure logging systems run with the least privilege necessary. Regularly audit the access and configuration of logging systems to detect unauthorized changes.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could introduce malicious third-party libraries by impersonating legitimate sources, tricking developers or systems into including them in the software.
- Mitigation: Use package signing and verification to ensure that only libraries from trusted sources are integrated. Implement dependency management tools that can verify the authenticity of third-party libraries before they are used.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could tamper with third-party libraries, injecting malicious code that could be executed when the library is used by the device.
- Mitigation: Use checksums and cryptographic hashes to verify the integrity of third-party libraries. Regularly audit and update libraries to the latest secure versions. Utilize automated tools to scan for known vulnerabilities in libraries.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: A third-party provider could deny that a specific library version was released by them, making it difficult to trace back the origin of a vulnerability or issue.
- Mitigation: Maintain secure logs of third-party library usage, including version numbers and the source from which they were obtained. Use signed manifests to track and verify the origin of all third-party code.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Third-party libraries might inadvertently expose sensitive information, such as API keys, internal algorithms, or user data, if not properly secured.
- Mitigation: Conduct regular security audits and code reviews of third-party libraries to identify potential information disclosure risks. Use sandboxing techniques to limit the access and exposure of third-party code. Ensure libraries follow best practices for data handling and security.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: Vulnerabilities in third-party libraries could be exploited to cause denial of service, either by crashing the application or exhausting system resources.
- Mitigation: Monitor for updates and patches for third-party libraries, and apply them promptly. Use automated tools to test and identify vulnerabilities in dependencies that could lead to DoS attacks. Implement error handling and resource management to mitigate the impact of library failures.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Exploiting vulnerabilities in third-party libraries could allow an attacker to escalate privileges within the application or system, gaining unauthorized access to sensitive functions or data.
- Mitigation: Use the principle of least privilege when integrating third-party libraries, ensuring they run with minimal permissions. Regularly update and patch libraries to protect against known vulnerabilities. Use runtime application self-protection (RASP) and application security testing to detect and prevent exploitation of vulnerable libraries.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could attempt to use stolen or forged cryptographic keys to impersonate a legitimate source during the secure boot process, allowing unauthorized or malicious firmware to run.
- Mitigation: Use strong key management practices, including hardware security modules (HSMs) or trusted platform modules (TPMs) to store keys securely. Implement certificate-based authentication to verify the legitimacy of the keys being used.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could attempt to tamper with cryptographic keys or the secure boot process to bypass security checks, enabling the execution of unauthorized firmware.
- Mitigation: Protect keys using hardware-based storage to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Use digital signatures to verify the integrity of firmware before execution. Implement secure update mechanisms to ensure that only authorized updates to keys or boot processes can occur.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity could deny the use or compromise of specific cryptographic keys, making it difficult to trace the source of unauthorized actions or breaches.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all use of cryptographic keys, including successful and failed boot attempts. Use digital signatures and time stamps to create an audit trail that can be reviewed for accountability.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: If cryptographic keys are exposed, an attacker could gain access to sensitive information, including the ability to decrypt communications or sign malicious firmware.
- Mitigation: Use encryption to protect cryptographic keys both in storage and in transit. Implement access controls to limit who can access keys. Regularly audit access to key management systems to detect and respond to unauthorized access attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the secure boot process by targeting cryptographic keys or the mechanisms that use them, preventing devices from booting securely.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy in secure boot infrastructure to prevent single points of failure. Use backup keys and mechanisms to ensure that devices can still boot securely in case of an issue. Monitor for signs of tampering or attack on boot processes and respond promptly.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising cryptographic keys could allow an attacker to bypass security controls, enabling unauthorized access to system functions or sensitive data.
- Mitigation: Use the principle of least privilege to restrict access to cryptographic keys. Implement multi-factor authentication and strong access control policies for key management. Regularly review and rotate cryptographic keys to minimize the impact of potential compromises.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the update rollout mechanism, misleading devices into downloading and installing unauthorized or malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication to verify the identity of the update rollout server. Implement mutual authentication protocols (e.g., TLS with certificates) to ensure that devices only communicate with trusted rollout servers.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the update rollout mechanism or the data it transmits, such as altering the update schedule or changing which updates are deployed to specific devices.
- Mitigation: Use digital signatures and cryptographic hashes to protect the integrity of the rollout data. Ensure that any changes to the rollout mechanism are logged and can be verified. Implement strict access controls to prevent unauthorized modifications.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The entity responsible for the update rollout mechanism could deny sending certain updates or could deny having made specific decisions about rollout schedules, complicating audit and accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging that records all update rollout activities, including which updates were sent, when, and to which devices. Use non-repudiable digital signatures to ensure that all actions can be traced back to a responsible entity.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Sensitive information about the update process, such as the content of updates, device vulnerabilities, or deployment schedules, could be exposed if the update rollout mechanism is compromised.
- Mitigation: Encrypt all communications related to the update rollout process. Use access controls to limit who can view or modify rollout plans. Regularly audit access to the rollout mechanism to detect unauthorized access.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the update rollout mechanism, preventing devices from receiving critical updates or causing delays in the rollout process.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of the update rollout service. Use rate limiting and monitoring to detect and mitigate DoS attacks. Deploy distributed update servers to balance the load and increase resilience.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising the update rollout mechanism could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges, enabling them to push unauthorized updates or control the update process.
- Mitigation: Use role-based access control (RBAC) to limit who can modify the update rollout mechanism. Enforce the principle of least privilege to restrict access to only what is necessary. Regularly review and update access policies to ensure they reflect current security needs.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the rollback mechanism to trick the system into accepting unauthorized or malicious rollbacks, potentially reverting to a vulnerable or compromised state.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication to verify the identity of the entity initiating the rollback. Ensure that rollback commands are digitally signed by a trusted authority before they are executed by the device.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the rollback mechanism to change the criteria or conditions under which rollbacks are performed, or alter the firmware versions that devices are rolled back to.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic checks, such as digital signatures and hashes, to ensure the integrity of rollback scripts and configurations. Use secure storage for rollback data to prevent unauthorized modifications.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity responsible for initiating a rollback could deny having done so, making it difficult to trace the origin of the rollback and understand why it occurred.
- Mitigation: Implement secure, tamper-proof logging to record all rollback actions, including who initiated the rollback, when it occurred, and the specific firmware versions involved. Use digital signatures to ensure that logs cannot be repudiated.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: If the rollback mechanism is compromised, sensitive information about previous firmware versions, system states, or vulnerabilities might be exposed, potentially aiding attackers.
- Mitigation: Encrypt rollback-related data both in storage and during transmission. Implement access controls to restrict who can access rollback information. Regularly audit access to rollback mechanisms to detect unauthorized access.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could exploit the rollback mechanism to repeatedly revert systems to a previous state, disrupting normal operations and preventing devices from using the latest secure firmware.
- Mitigation: Implement safeguards that limit the number of rollbacks allowed or require additional authentication for multiple rollback attempts. Monitor for unusual rollback activity and use rate limiting to prevent abuse.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If an attacker can manipulate the rollback mechanism, they could potentially gain unauthorized access to higher-privilege functions by reverting to a firmware version with known vulnerabilities.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the rollback mechanism. Use the principle of least privilege to limit who can initiate rollbacks. Regularly review and update security policies related to rollbacks to ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the Director Repository, tricking devices into connecting to a malicious server and receiving unauthorized or malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong mutual authentication methods, such as TLS with client and server certificates, to verify the identity of the Director Repository. Devices should be configured to accept updates only from authenticated and trusted repositories.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the data in the Director Repository, altering update metadata, version information, or cryptographic checksums, potentially leading to the distribution of malicious or unauthorized updates.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to ensure the integrity of all data stored and distributed by the Director Repository. Use secure storage solutions and encrypt data both at rest and in transit. Regularly audit and verify the integrity of repository data.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities managing the Director Repository could deny having distributed specific updates or metadata, making it difficult to trace the origin of changes and maintain accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure, tamper-proof logging to record all actions related to the creation, modification, and distribution of data from the Director Repository. Use digital signatures to ensure that logs are reliable and can be used as evidence in audits.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to the Director Repository could expose sensitive information, including update schedules, cryptographic keys, and metadata, potentially aiding attackers in compromising the update process.
- Mitigation: Encrypt all sensitive data within the Director Repository, both in storage and during transmission. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify repository data. Regularly audit access logs to detect and respond to unauthorized access attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could target the Director Repository with a DoS attack, making it unavailable to devices and preventing the distribution of critical updates.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of the Director Repository. Use load balancing to manage incoming traffic and rate limiting to prevent abuse. Monitor the repository for signs of DoS attacks and respond promptly.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising the Director Repository could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges, enabling unauthorized modifications to update metadata or the distribution of malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use role-based access control (RBAC) to limit who can access and modify the Director Repository. Enforce the principle of least privilege to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to critical functions. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect current security requirements.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the Image Repository, tricking devices into downloading and installing unauthorized or malicious firmware images.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication methods, such as TLS with server certificates, to verify the identity of the Image Repository. Devices should only accept updates from authenticated and trusted repositories, employing mutual authentication where possible.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with firmware images or metadata stored in the Image Repository, injecting malicious code or altering cryptographic hashes to bypass security checks.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to protect the integrity of all firmware images and metadata. Use secure storage solutions to prevent unauthorized modifications and ensure data integrity. Devices should verify the signatures and hashes of images before installation.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities responsible for managing the Image Repository could deny having distributed specific firmware images or metadata, complicating the ability to trace the origin of changes and enforce accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all actions related to the storage, modification, and distribution of firmware images and metadata. Use tamper-evident logging mechanisms, including digital signatures, to ensure the reliability and authenticity of logs.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to the Image Repository could expose sensitive information, such as firmware images, cryptographic keys, and metadata, potentially aiding attackers in compromising devices.
- Mitigation: Encrypt firmware images and metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect them from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify repository data. Regularly audit access logs to detect and respond to unauthorized access attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could target the Image Repository with a DoS attack, making it unavailable to devices and preventing the distribution of critical firmware updates.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of the Image Repository. Use load balancing to manage incoming traffic and rate limiting to prevent abuse. Monitor the repository for signs of DoS attacks and respond promptly.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising the Image Repository could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges, enabling unauthorized modifications to firmware images or the distribution of malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use role-based access control (RBAC) to limit who can access and modify the Image Repository. Enforce the principle of least privilege to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to critical functions. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect current security requirements.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the root authority, tricking the system into accepting forged or malicious metadata, potentially leading to unauthorized updates or actions.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication and cryptographic certificates to verify the identity of the root authority. Implement digital signatures to ensure that only metadata signed by the trusted root authority is accepted.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with root metadata, altering key information, trust anchors, or cryptographic material, which could compromise the entire security framework.
- Mitigation: Use cryptographic signatures and hash functions to ensure the integrity of root metadata. Implement secure storage and transmission protocols to protect the metadata from unauthorized modifications.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The root authority could deny issuing certain root metadata or making specific changes, complicating the ability to trace actions and enforce accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all actions related to the creation, modification, and distribution of root metadata. Use digital signatures on logs to ensure they are tamper-proof and can serve as reliable records of actions.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to root metadata could expose sensitive information, such as cryptographic keys, trust policies, and system configurations, potentially aiding attackers in compromising the security system.
- Mitigation: Encrypt root metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify root metadata. Regularly audit access to root metadata to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to root metadata, preventing the system from verifying the integrity and authenticity of other metadata, potentially halting operations or allowing unauthorized actions.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for root metadata storage and distribution to ensure availability. Use monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting root metadata systems.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising root metadata, an attacker could potentially escalate privileges, enabling unauthorized access to critical functions or the ability to sign malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of root metadata. Use role-based access control to limit who can manage root metadata. Regularly review and update root metadata and associated policies to ensure they reflect current security requirements.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate entity responsible for signing targets metadata, tricking devices into accepting unauthorized or malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong cryptographic signatures to authenticate the source of targets metadata. Ensure that only recognized, trusted keys are used for signing. Implement certificate-based authentication to verify the identity of entities involved in signing targets metadata.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with targets metadata to alter the list of authorized updates, version information, or cryptographic hashes, allowing the distribution of unauthorized or malicious firmware.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to ensure the integrity of targets metadata. Devices should verify these signatures and hashes before accepting and processing the metadata. Use secure storage and transmission channels to protect metadata from tampering.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities responsible for creating or modifying targets metadata could deny their involvement, making it difficult to trace changes and enforce accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure, tamper-proof logging to record all actions related to the creation, modification, and distribution of targets metadata. Use digital signatures to ensure that logs are reliable and can serve as evidence of actions taken.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to targets metadata could expose information about available updates, cryptographic hashes, or device configurations, potentially aiding attackers in planning targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt targets metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify targets metadata. Regularly audit access to metadata to detect and respond to unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to targets metadata, preventing devices from verifying and downloading authorized updates, potentially leaving them vulnerable or outdated.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for targets metadata storage and distribution to ensure availability. Use monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting metadata systems.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising targets metadata, an attacker could escalate privileges, enabling the distribution of unauthorized updates that could grant access to sensitive functions or data.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of targets metadata. Use the principle of least privilege to limit who can manage and sign targets metadata. Regularly review and update security policies related to targets metadata to reflect current threats.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the entity responsible for creating snapshot metadata, misleading devices into accepting tampered or outdated metadata, which could facilitate malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong cryptographic signatures to authenticate the source of snapshot metadata. Ensure that devices verify the signatures before accepting metadata, using trusted certificates to verify identity.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with snapshot metadata to alter information about which versions of files are the latest and legitimate, potentially allowing outdated or malicious files to be accepted.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures to protect the integrity of snapshot metadata. Devices should verify these signatures and hashes to ensure that metadata has not been altered.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The entity responsible for generating snapshot metadata could deny having provided certain metadata, making it difficult to trace the source of updates and maintain accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record the creation, distribution, and use of snapshot metadata. Logs should include timestamps and digital signatures to ensure non-repudiation and provide a reliable audit trail.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to snapshot metadata could expose sensitive information about the update process, such as version histories or file names, potentially aiding attackers in planning targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt snapshot metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify the metadata. Regularly audit access to the metadata to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the creation or distribution of snapshot metadata, preventing devices from accurately assessing which updates are current and valid, leading to potential security vulnerabilities.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of snapshot metadata services. Use load balancing and monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting metadata systems.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising snapshot metadata could allow an attacker to manipulate the update process, potentially installing unauthorized software or gaining access to restricted areas of the system.
- Mitigation: Use strict access controls to limit who can create and modify snapshot metadata. Implement role-based access control to restrict the ability to manipulate snapshot information. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect current security needs.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate signer of the timestamp metadata, leading devices to accept incorrect or outdated metadata, potentially enabling rollback attacks or delaying critical updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong cryptographic signatures to authenticate the source of timestamp metadata. Ensure that only recognized, trusted keys are used to sign timestamp metadata. Implement certificate-based authentication to verify the identity of entities responsible for signing.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with timestamp metadata to alter timestamps or version information, which could cause devices to trust outdated or unauthorized metadata and updates.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to protect the integrity of timestamp metadata. Devices should verify these signatures before using the metadata. Use secure transmission protocols to protect metadata from tampering during distribution.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity responsible for generating or signing timestamp metadata could deny having done so, complicating the ability to trace actions and maintain accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all actions related to the creation, modification, and distribution of timestamp metadata. Use tamper-evident logging mechanisms, including digital signatures, to ensure the reliability and integrity of logs.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to timestamp metadata could reveal information about the timing and versions of updates, potentially aiding attackers in planning targeted attacks or exploiting timing-based vulnerabilities.
- Mitigation: Encrypt timestamp metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify timestamp metadata. Regularly audit access to timestamp metadata to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to timestamp metadata, preventing devices from verifying the freshness of updates, potentially leaving them vulnerable or outdated.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of timestamp metadata. Use monitoring and alerting to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting timestamp metadata systems.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising timestamp metadata, an attacker could manipulate timestamps to bypass security checks, potentially allowing unauthorized updates or gaining access to restricted functions.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of timestamp metadata. Use the principle of least privilege to limit who can manage and sign timestamp metadata. Regularly review and update security policies related to timestamp metadata to ensure they address potential vulnerabilities.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate entity authorized to delegate certain roles or permissions, potentially gaining unauthorized control over aspects of the update or security process.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication methods, such as cryptographic certificates, to verify the identity of entities involved in delegating roles or permissions. Implement digital signatures to ensure that only authorized entities can issue delegation metadata.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with delegation metadata to alter roles, permissions, or authorized actions, potentially enabling unauthorized access or bypassing security controls.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures to protect the integrity of delegation metadata. Use hash functions to detect any unauthorized changes. Ensure that delegation metadata is stored and transmitted securely to prevent tampering.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity involved in creating or modifying delegation metadata could deny having done so, complicating the ability to trace actions and enforce accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all actions related to delegation metadata, including creation, modification, and usage. Use digital signatures to ensure that logs are tamper-proof and can serve as reliable records of actions.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to delegation metadata could expose sensitive information about roles, permissions, and organizational structure, potentially aiding attackers in planning targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt delegation metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify delegation metadata. Regularly audit access to the metadata to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the creation, distribution, or processing of delegation metadata, preventing the proper assignment of roles and permissions and hindering operations.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of delegation metadata systems. Use monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting delegation processes.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising delegation metadata, an attacker could assign themselves or others elevated roles or permissions, enabling unauthorized access to sensitive functions or data.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of delegation metadata. Use role-based access control to limit who can assign roles and permissions. Regularly review and update delegation policies to reflect current security needs.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could use stolen or forged keys to impersonate a legitimate entity, such as a device or server, allowing unauthorized access to systems or data.
- Mitigation: Use strong cryptographic key management practices, including multi-factor authentication and hardware security modules (HSMs) to protect keys from unauthorized access. Regularly update and rotate keys to minimize the impact of key compromise.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with compromise-resilient keys or the data they protect, potentially bypassing security measures or altering sensitive information.
- Mitigation: Use hardware-based storage for keys to prevent tampering. Implement cryptographic signatures and integrity checks to detect unauthorized changes to keys and the data they protect. Use secure key exchange protocols to ensure key integrity during distribution.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities could deny having used specific keys for encryption, decryption, or signing, making it difficult to trace actions and ensure accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all usage of compromise-resilient keys, including timestamps, the purpose of use, and the entity responsible. Use tamper-evident logging mechanisms to ensure that logs are reliable and cannot be altered.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: If compromise-resilient keys are exposed, an attacker could gain access to sensitive information, decrypt communications, or impersonate legitimate entities.
- Mitigation: Encrypt keys both in storage and during transmission to protect them from unauthorized access. Use access controls to restrict who can access keys. Regularly audit key access logs to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to compromise-resilient keys, preventing legitimate encryption, decryption, or signing operations and causing a failure in security functions.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for key storage and management systems to ensure availability. Use load balancing to manage access and prevent overload. Monitor key usage for signs of DoS attacks and respond promptly.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising compromise-resilient keys could allow an attacker to escalate privileges, enabling unauthorized access to sensitive functions, data, or systems.
- Mitigation: Enforce the principle of least privilege in key management systems, ensuring that only authorized personnel have access to sensitive keys. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect current security requirements. Use multi-factor authentication for accessing key management functions.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate ECU manifest, misleading the Primary ECU or other systems into trusting incorrect or malicious information about the ECU’s software or hardware state.
- Mitigation: Use digital signatures to authenticate ECU manifests. Each manifest should be signed by a trusted authority to verify its origin. Employ mutual authentication protocols to ensure that ECUs and the Primary ECU can verify each other’s identity.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the data in the ECU manifest, altering version information, configuration details, or other critical data, potentially leading to security vulnerabilities or operational issues.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures to ensure the integrity of the ECU manifest. Secure storage and transmission of the manifest are essential to prevent unauthorized modifications.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities responsible for generating or using the ECU manifest could deny having provided or acted upon specific manifest information, making it difficult to track and audit updates and configurations.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record the creation, distribution, and use of ECU manifests. Logs should include timestamps, origin details, and actions taken based on the manifest. Use tamper-evident logging mechanisms to ensure the reliability of logs.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to ECU manifests could expose sensitive information about the vehicle’s software, hardware configurations, and operational state, potentially aiding attackers in planning targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt ECU manifests both in storage and during transmission to protect them from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify the manifest. Regularly audit access to the manifest to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the creation, distribution, or processing of ECU manifests, preventing the vehicle from accurately assessing its configuration and receiving necessary updates.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for manifest generation and distribution processes to ensure availability. Use monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting the manifest system.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising the ECU manifest, an attacker could manipulate version or configuration information to bypass security checks, potentially gaining unauthorized access or control over vehicle functions.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of ECU manifests. Use the principle of least privilege to limit who can interact with the manifest. Regularly review and update security policies related to the manifest to address potential vulnerabilities.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate ECU or the system responsible for generating the Vehicle Version Manifest, misleading other components into trusting incorrect or malicious information about the vehicle's software state.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication mechanisms to verify the identity of the entities that generate and use the Vehicle Version Manifest. Implement mutual authentication protocols, such as those using digital certificates, to ensure authenticity.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could tamper with the Vehicle Version Manifest, altering the information about the versions of software or firmware installed on the vehicle’s ECUs, potentially leading to the installation of outdated or malicious firmware.
- Mitigation: Use cryptographic signatures to ensure the integrity of the Vehicle Version Manifest. Devices should verify the signatures before accepting and using the manifest. Implement secure storage and transmission protocols to protect the manifest from tampering.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities responsible for generating or using the Vehicle Version Manifest could deny having provided or acted upon specific version information, complicating traceability and accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record the generation and usage of the Vehicle Version Manifest. Use tamper-evident logs that include details about who generated the manifest, when, and what data was included, to ensure accountability.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to the Vehicle Version Manifest could expose sensitive information about the vehicle’s software and firmware versions, potentially aiding attackers in identifying vulnerabilities or planning targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt the Vehicle Version Manifest both in storage and during transmission. Use access controls to restrict who can view or modify the manifest. Regularly audit access to the manifest to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the generation or distribution of the Vehicle Version Manifest, preventing the vehicle from receiving accurate information about its software state and hindering the update process.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of the manifest generation and distribution processes. Use monitoring to detect and mitigate DoS attacks targeting these systems.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising the Vehicle Version Manifest, an attacker could manipulate version information to bypass security checks, potentially leading to unauthorized installation of software or access to restricted functions.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of the Vehicle Version Manifest. Use role-based access control to limit who can interact with the manifest. Regularly review and update security policies related to the manifest to address potential vulnerabilities.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the Uptane Primary ECU to the update server or other ECUs, potentially intercepting updates or injecting malicious commands.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication methods such as TLS with certificates to verify the identity of the Uptane Primary ECU before it communicates with update servers or secondary ECUs. Employ unique device certificates to prevent spoofing.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker could tamper with the data processed by the Primary ECU, including altering firmware updates or metadata, potentially installing malicious software on the vehicle.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to ensure the integrity of data handled by the Primary ECU. Use secure boot mechanisms to verify the authenticity and integrity of the Primary ECU firmware at startup.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: The Primary ECU or any entity interacting with it could deny having performed specific actions or transactions, making it difficult to track or audit updates and communications.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging on the Primary ECU to record all interactions, including update downloads, installations, and communications with secondary ECUs. Use tamper-evident logging mechanisms to ensure logs remain intact.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to the Primary ECU could expose sensitive information, including vehicle data, update schedules, and cryptographic keys.
- Mitigation: Encrypt sensitive data stored on the Primary ECU and use secure communication protocols to protect data in transit. Implement access controls to restrict who can access the Primary ECU and its data.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the operation of the Primary ECU, preventing it from coordinating updates or communicating with the update server, potentially leaving the vehicle vulnerable.
- Mitigation: Implement fail-safes and redundancy to ensure the Primary ECU can continue to operate even under attack. Use rate limiting and anomaly detection to prevent DoS attacks. Monitor the ECU’s performance for signs of disruption.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising the Primary ECU could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges, potentially controlling the update process or accessing restricted vehicle functions.
- Mitigation: Use the principle of least privilege to limit the Primary ECU’s access to only necessary functions. Implement strong authentication and access controls to protect critical functions. Regularly audit the Primary ECU’s access and activities to detect unauthorized behavior.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate Secondary ECU, misleading the Primary ECU or other systems into sending updates or commands to a malicious ECU.
- Mitigation: Use unique device identifiers and certificates for each Secondary ECU to authenticate their identity before receiving updates. Employ mutual authentication protocols to ensure both the Primary and Secondary ECUs verify each other's identity.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the firmware or data processed by a Secondary ECU, injecting malicious code or altering functionality.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to verify the integrity of firmware and data before installation. Use secure boot mechanisms to ensure that only authenticated firmware is executed on Secondary ECUs.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: A Secondary ECU or any interacting entity could deny receiving or installing specific updates, complicating audit trails and accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging on each Secondary ECU to record all update transactions and installations. Use digital signatures to ensure that logs are tamper-proof and can serve as reliable records of actions.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to a Secondary ECU could expose sensitive information, such as diagnostic data, firmware details, or cryptographic keys, potentially aiding further attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt sensitive data stored on and transmitted by Secondary ECUs. Implement access controls to limit access to ECU data. Regularly audit and monitor access to Secondary ECUs to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the operation of a Secondary ECU, causing it to become unresponsive or fail to execute critical functions, potentially affecting the vehicle's operation.
- Mitigation: Use fail-safes and redundancy to maintain the operation of critical functions even if a Secondary ECU is compromised. Implement rate limiting and anomaly detection to identify and mitigate DoS attacks targeting ECUs.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising a Secondary ECU could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges, enabling unauthorized control over vehicle functions or communication with other ECUs.
- Mitigation: Enforce the principle of least privilege on Secondary ECUs, limiting their access to only necessary functions. Use role-based access controls to restrict what actions ECUs can perform. Regularly review and update security policies and configurations for ECUs.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate time server, providing incorrect time information to devices, which could be used to bypass security checks or facilitate rollback attacks.
- Mitigation: Use authentication mechanisms such as Network Time Security (NTS) to verify the identity of time servers. Devices should be configured to accept time updates only from trusted, authenticated sources.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the time data provided by time servers, altering timestamps to affect the behavior of time-sensitive operations, such as certificate expiration or update schedules.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic methods to secure the integrity of time data. Use cryptographic signing of time data to ensure that it has not been altered during transmission.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: A time server could deny providing specific time data, making it difficult to trace the source of incorrect time information or security incidents that rely on accurate timestamps.
- Mitigation: Maintain secure logs of time synchronization events, including which servers were used and the time data provided. Use signed logs to ensure they are tamper-proof and can be used as evidence.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Time synchronization data might expose information about the device’s operations or configurations if intercepted, potentially aiding in profiling or targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt time synchronization traffic to protect it from eavesdropping. Use secure protocols like NTS to ensure that time data is transmitted securely. Limit the disclosure of detailed time synchronization logs to authorized personnel.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could target time servers or disrupt time synchronization, causing devices to have incorrect times, which could affect the operation of time-sensitive security mechanisms.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy by configuring devices to use multiple time servers. Use load balancing and failover mechanisms to ensure time synchronization remains available even during attacks. Monitor time synchronization for anomalies.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Incorrect time data could be used to manipulate time-based access controls or security mechanisms, potentially allowing an attacker to escalate privileges or bypass security policies.
- Mitigation: Use secure, authenticated time sources and regularly verify the accuracy of the device’s system time against trusted servers. Implement time checks within critical security operations to ensure that time discrepancies are detected and managed appropriately.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate the revocation authority or mechanisms, causing devices to incorrectly believe that certain cryptographic keys or certificates have not been revoked, allowing malicious activities to proceed.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication to verify the identity of the revocation authority. Implement certificate-based authentication to ensure that only trusted revocation servers can communicate with devices.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with revocation lists or status information to prevent the revocation of compromised keys or certificates, allowing continued use of revoked credentials.
- Mitigation: Use digital signatures to protect the integrity of revocation lists and status information. Devices should verify the signatures before accepting revocation information. Implement secure storage and transmission protocols for revocation data.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity responsible for revocation could deny having issued a revocation, making it difficult to trace the source of revocation actions and maintain accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging that records all revocation actions, including the entity responsible, the time of revocation, and the specific keys or certificates involved. Use tamper-evident logging to ensure the integrity of logs.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to revocation information could expose details about compromised keys or certificates, potentially providing attackers with insights into vulnerabilities or security incidents.
- Mitigation: Encrypt revocation data both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Use access controls to limit who can view or modify revocation information. Regularly audit access to revocation mechanisms to detect unauthorized access.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt the revocation mechanisms, preventing devices from receiving updated revocation information and allowing the use of compromised keys or certificates.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms to ensure the availability of revocation services. Use load balancing to manage traffic to revocation servers. Monitor revocation systems for signs of DoS attacks and respond promptly.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: If an attacker can compromise the revocation mechanism, they could potentially bypass revocation checks, allowing them to use compromised credentials to gain unauthorized access or escalate privileges.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the revocation mechanism. Use the principle of least privilege to restrict who can initiate or modify revocation actions. Regularly review and update security policies related to revocation to ensure they address potential vulnerabilities.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could attempt to impersonate a legitimate user or system to gain access to cryptographic keys stored in the key management system, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data manipulation.
- Mitigation: Use strong authentication and authorization mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication and role-based access control (RBAC), to ensure that only authorized personnel and systems can access cryptographic keys. Implement hardware-based authentication where possible.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with cryptographic keys or key management data to alter encryption, decryption, or signing operations, potentially leading to data breaches or unauthorized actions.
- Mitigation: Use hardware security modules (HSMs) or trusted platform modules (TPMs) to securely store cryptographic keys and prevent tampering. Implement integrity checks and use digital signatures to ensure the authenticity and integrity of key management data.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: An entity could deny having accessed or used specific cryptographic keys, making it difficult to trace the origin of actions or detect unauthorized use.
- Mitigation: Implement secure, tamper-proof logging to record all access and usage of cryptographic keys. Logs should include details about who accessed the keys, when, and for what purpose. Use digital signatures on logs to ensure non-repudiation.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to key storage could lead to the exposure of cryptographic keys, potentially allowing attackers to decrypt sensitive data, impersonate legitimate users, or sign malicious code.
- Mitigation: Encrypt cryptographic keys both in storage and during transmission. Use access controls to limit who can access key storage systems. Regularly audit access to key management systems to detect unauthorized access attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt key storage and management systems, preventing legitimate users from accessing cryptographic keys and causing a failure in encryption, authentication, or other security operations.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for key storage and management systems to ensure availability. Use load balancing to manage access and prevent overload. Monitor key management systems for signs of DoS attacks and respond promptly.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising key storage or management systems could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges, enabling them to access sensitive functions, data, or systems.
- Mitigation: Enforce the principle of least privilege in key management systems, ensuring that only authorized personnel have access to sensitive keys. Regularly review and update access policies to reflect current security requirements. Use multi-factor authentication for accessing key management functions.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate vehicle or server to intercept communication, steal sensitive data, or inject malicious commands.
- Mitigation: Use strong mutual authentication protocols, such as TLS with client and server certificates, to ensure that both the vehicle and server can verify each other's identity. Employ unique device certificates to prevent impersonation.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might intercept and modify data transmitted between the vehicle and server, altering the content of updates, commands, or responses.
- Mitigation: Use end-to-end encryption, such as TLS, to protect the integrity of data during transmission. Implement cryptographic checksums and digital signatures to detect any unauthorized changes to the data.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Either the vehicle or server could deny having sent or received specific data, complicating the ability to trace actions and enforce accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging on both the vehicle and server to record all communications, including timestamps and data payloads. Use digital signatures to ensure that logs are tamper-proof and can serve as reliable evidence.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to vehicle-to-server communications could expose sensitive information, such as vehicle status, location, user data, or system vulnerabilities.
- Mitigation: Encrypt all communications using strong encryption standards to protect data confidentiality. Use secure protocols like TLS and implement access controls to limit who can view or intercept communications.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could flood the communication channel with requests or malicious traffic, disrupting the communication between the vehicle and server, potentially preventing updates or critical commands.
- Mitigation: Implement rate limiting, traffic filtering, and anomaly detection to manage and mitigate potential DoS attacks. Use redundant communication channels and load balancing to ensure continued service availability.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Compromising the communication protocol could allow an attacker to escalate privileges, enabling unauthorized access to sensitive data or control over vehicle functions.
- Mitigation: Use secure communication protocols with built-in access controls and authentication. Regularly audit communication channels for signs of unauthorized access or privilege escalation attempts. Enforce the principle of least privilege to limit access to sensitive commands and data.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate time server, providing incorrect time information to devices, which could be used to bypass security checks or facilitate rollback attacks.
- Mitigation: Use authentication mechanisms such as Network Time Security (NTS) to verify the identity of time servers. Devices should be configured to accept time updates only from trusted, authenticated sources.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the time data provided by time servers, altering timestamps to affect the behavior of time-sensitive operations, such as certificate expiration or update schedules.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic methods to secure the integrity of time data. Use cryptographic signing of time data to ensure that it has not been altered during transmission.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: A time server could deny providing specific time data, making it difficult to trace the source of incorrect time information or security incidents that rely on accurate timestamps.
- Mitigation: Maintain secure logs of time synchronization events, including which servers were used and the time data provided. Use signed logs to ensure they are tamper-proof and can be used as evidence.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Time synchronization data might expose information about the device’s operations or configurations if intercepted, potentially aiding in profiling or targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt time synchronization traffic to protect it from eavesdropping. Use secure protocols like NTS to ensure that time data is transmitted securely. Limit the disclosure of detailed time synchronization logs to authorized personnel.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could target time servers or disrupt time synchronization, causing devices to have incorrect times, which could affect the operation of time-sensitive security mechanisms.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy by configuring devices to use multiple time servers. Use load balancing and failover mechanisms to ensure time synchronization remains available even during attacks. Monitor time synchronization for anomalies.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: Incorrect time data could be used to manipulate time-based access controls or security mechanisms, potentially allowing an attacker to escalate privileges or bypass security policies.
- Mitigation: Use secure, authenticated time sources and regularly verify the accuracy of the device’s system time against trusted servers. Implement time checks within critical security operations to ensure that time discrepancies are detected and managed appropriately.
-
Spoofing Identity
- Threat: An attacker could impersonate a legitimate signer of the targets metadata, leading devices to accept unauthorized or malicious updates.
- Mitigation: Use strong cryptographic signatures to authenticate the source of targets metadata. Ensure that devices only accept metadata signed by recognized, trusted keys. Implement certificate-based authentication for entities that sign targets metadata.
-
Tampering with Data
- Threat: An attacker might tamper with the targets metadata to alter the list of authorized firmware updates or change the cryptographic hashes, allowing malicious firmware to be distributed.
- Mitigation: Implement cryptographic signatures and hash functions to protect the integrity of targets metadata. Devices should verify these signatures and hashes before accepting and processing the metadata. Use secure transmission channels to protect metadata from tampering during distribution.
-
Repudiation
- Threat: Entities responsible for creating or modifying targets metadata could deny their involvement, making it difficult to trace the origin of changes and ensure accountability.
- Mitigation: Implement secure logging to record all actions related to the creation, modification, and distribution of targets metadata. Use tamper-evident logging mechanisms, including digital signatures, to ensure the authenticity and integrity of logs.
-
Information Disclosure
- Threat: Unauthorized access to targets metadata could expose information about available updates, device configurations, or cryptographic hashes, potentially aiding attackers in planning targeted attacks.
- Mitigation: Encrypt targets metadata both in storage and during transmission to protect it from unauthorized access. Implement access controls to restrict who can view or modify targets metadata. Regularly audit access to metadata to detect unauthorized attempts.
-
Denial of Service (DoS)
- Threat: An attacker could disrupt access to targets metadata, preventing devices from verifying and downloading authorized updates, potentially leaving them vulnerable or outdated.
- Mitigation: Implement redundancy and failover mechanisms for targets metadata storage and distribution to ensure availability. Use monitoring to detect and respond to DoS attacks targeting metadata systems.
-
Elevation of Privilege
- Threat: By compromising targets metadata, an attacker could escalate privileges, enabling the distribution of unauthorized updates that could grant access to sensitive functions or data.
- Mitigation: Enforce strict access controls on the creation and modification of targets metadata. Use the principle of least privilege to limit who can manage and sign targets metadata. Regularly review and update security policies related to targets metadata to reflect current threats.