Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
A Community Resource for Identifying and Understanding Attacks
An adversary engages in activities to decipher and/or decode protocol information for a network or application communication protocol used for transmitting information between interconnected nodes or systems on a packet-switched data network. While this type of analysis involves the analysis of a networking protocol inherently, it does not require the presence of an actual or physical network.
Although certain techniques for protocol analysis benefit from manipulating live 'on-the-wire' interactions between communicating components, static or dynamic analysis techniques applied to executables as well as to device drivers, such as network interface drivers, can also be used to reveal the function and characteristics of a communication protocol implementation. Depending upon the methods used the process may involve observing, interacting, and modifying actual communications occurring between hosts. The goal of protocol analysis is to derive the data transmission syntax, as well as to extract the meaningful content, including packet or content delimiters used by the protocol. This type of analysis is often performed on closed-specification protocols, or proprietary protocols, but is also useful for analyzing publicly available specifications to determine how particular implementations deviate from published specifications.
This table shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf and ParentOf, and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
This table shows the views that this attack pattern belongs to and top level categories within that view.
This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the attack pattern. The Scope identifies the security property that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in their attack. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a pattern will be used to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
A Related Weakness relationship associates a weakness with this attack pattern. Each association implies a weakness that must exist for a given attack to be successful. If multiple weaknesses are associated with the attack pattern, then any of the weaknesses (but not necessarily all) may be present for the attack to be successful. Each related weakness is identified by a CWE identifier.
There are several challenges inherent to protocol analysis depending upon the nature of the protocol being analyzed. There may also be other types of factors which complicate the process such as encryption or ad hoc obfuscation of the protocol. In general there are two kinds of networking protocols, each associated with its own challenges and analysis approaches or methodologies. Some protocols are human-readable, which is to say they are text-based protocols. Examples of these types of protocols include HTTP, SMTP, and SOAP. Additionally, application-layer protocols can be embedded or encapsulated within human-readable protocols in the data portion of the packet. Typically, human-readable protocol implementations are susceptible to automatic decoding by the appropriate tools, such as Wireshark/ethereal, tcpdump, or similar protocol sniffers or analyzers.
The presence of well-known protocol specifications in addition to easily identified protocol delimiters, such as Carriage Return or Line Feed characters (CRLF) result in text-based protocols susceptibility to direct scrutiny through manual processes. Protocol analysis against protocol implementations such as HTTP is often performed to identify idiosyncratic implementations of a protocol by a server or client. In the case of application-layer protocols which are embedded within text-based protocols, analysis techniques typically benefit from the well-known nature of the encapsulating protocols and can focus on discovering the semantic characteristics of the proprietary protocol or API, since the syntax and protocol delimiters of the underlying protocols can be readily identified.
When performing protocol analysis of machine-readable (non-text-based) protocols difficulties emerge as the protocol itself was designed to be read by computing process. Such protocols are typically composed entirely in binary with no apparent syntax, grammar, or structural boundaries. Examples of these types of protocols are IP, UDP, and TCP. Binary protocols with published specifications can be automatically decoded by protocol analyzers, but in the case of proprietary, closed-specification, binary protocols there are no immediate indicators of packet syntax such as packet boundaries, delimiters, or structure, or the presence or absence of encryption or obfuscation. In these cases there is no one technology that can extract or reveal the structure of the packet on the wire, so it is necessary to use trial and error approaches while observing application behavior based on systematic mutations introduced at the packet-level. Tools such as Protocol Debug (PDB) or other packet injection suites are often employed. In cases where the binary executable is available, protocol analysis can be augmented with static and dynamic analysis techniques.
More information is available — Please select a different filter.