The vulnerability I discussed at the first installment of this article has a high “conditional complexity,” in that it can only be exploited 1) if an attacker is on the same network as the victim at the same time, 2) if the victim accesses the application over an insecure communication channel (non-SSL), and 3) if the application does not require mandatory re-authentication.
That’s a lot of “if’s.” Though the vulnerability itself might sound dangerous in isolation, the number of if’s–or conditions–reduces the potential likelihood of exploitation. Updating the risk equation from above, the likelihood decreases as the number of conditions necessary for exploitation increases, decreasing the overall risk:
risk = impact x (likelihood / conditions)
In programming, the term cyclomatic complexity (more accurately referred to here as conditional complexity) refers to the number of discrete paths through a procedure; a higher number of “if” conditions contributes to a higher cyclomatic complexity value. This complexity value is a measure of how maintainable and testable the code is.
For example, I’ll use this piece of shameful pseudocode that I’m certain I wrote at some point in my life: “Do this if that occurs but not this and only under that condition but only when this other thing isn’t true and that other thing hasn’t happened yet.”
That kind of procedure isn’t very maintainable, because any small change to the logic could easily break the whole thing. (Indeed, this is the type of code that no one wants to touch. Sometimes just looking at it will break it.) And testing it is another challenge entirely.
The cyclomatic complexity is represented by:
M = E – N + P
E = the number of edges (connections) in the graph
N = the number of nodes in the graph
P = the number of connected components (think of an entry/exit closed loop)
In the above graph,
E = 12
N = 9
P = 1 (there is an implied, or virtual, connection between the exit node and the entry node)
M = 12 – 9 + 1
M = 4
A complexity value less than 10 is generally desirable; otherwise, overly complex modules are “more prone to error, are harder to understand, are harder to test, and are harder to modify.”
Conditional Complexity Equation
The vulnerability preconditions that I mentioned earlier are like the inverse of these coding conditions. Not only does each condition reduce the likelihood of the vulnerability , but each one also reduces the business case for fixing it. It’s difficult to justify the business case to spend three man-days to fix a vulnerability that won’t likely happen.
To a stakeholder, those are three lost days not adding business functionality. The prudence of that decision is obviously based on several factors, but ultimately, a stakeholder must perform the risk management calculus that is appropriate to the organization.
When the risk severity ratings are presented to the business stakeholders, these ratings will help inform the business case for their remediation, so proper context must be understood when making this evaluation.
Just as we can calculate the cyclomatic complexity of a software function, we can calculate the conditional complexity of a vulnerability:
L(V) is the likelihood value of a vulnerability, and M is the product of the weighted likelihood of all the preconditions (including the vulnerability itself) necessary to exploit a given vulnerability.
In the following graph, there are two preconditions necessary to exploit vulnerability #3:
Let’s say the following are the likelihood values for the preconditions (and the target vulnerability itself) on a relative scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest:
Substituting the values, we get:
So the likelihood value of vulnerability #3 in isolation is 4 (out of 5), but in order to exploit it, the chained conditional likelihood value is only 1.
Most vulnerabilities don’t live in isolation, and attackers are generally crafty enough to chain together multiple vulnerabilities or use one vulnerability to pivot to a different vulnerability. If, for example, an attacker were to meet all the preconditions above and actually exploit the vulnerability, then we would have lost the risk management gamble if we hadn’t fixed the issue when we found it.
These pivot points are called second order vulnerabilities, because even though a single vulnerability might not compromise an asset, it might be necessary to exploit that vulnerability to dive further into the system.
A cross-site scripting vulnerability is a good example of this if it is used to acquire a victim’s session ID that is then used to infiltrate the system. The cross-site scripting vulnerability itself isn’t the culprit, but it is used to exploit a session management vulnerability.
The Unknown Precondition
Calculating the conditional complexity might seem neat and tidy in mathematical terms, but it’s the “unknown precondition” that could potentially wreck the whole calculation. So far, I’ve avoided mentioning the obvious: the conditional complexity equation contains an implied tautological variable that assumes that the vulnerability will be exploited at some point, regardless of the number or likelihood of preconditions.
This is the reality of it. But it doesn’t make much sense to use that as a business case to justify fixing every vulnerability. While remaining ever vigilant of the unknown precondition, we must take a risk-based approach when presenting the risk severity to the business stakeholders and allow them make informed, risk-based decisions.
Anyone familiar with how Anonymous hacked HBGary Federal saw this in action: SQL injection + poor cryptography + password reuse + social engineering = system takedown. That’s a lot of if’s, but the product of those preconditions brought down HBGary Federal.
However, looking at the vulnerability chain, we could weigh the SQL injection vulnerability relatively high, which would necessarily elevate the product of the other vulnerabilities further down the chain, which would in turn justify the business case for fixing it.
In building software, there is a lot that can go wrong. Fortunately, there are metrics available to help us measure various aspects of the software quality. If we apply the same principle to risk modeling, we can better convey risk to business stakeholders so they can dutifully make decisions based on risk factors that make the most sense to them and the organization. That shouldn’t be too big of an “if.”
About the Author: Rob Barnes writes for Infosec Institute and is a software security architect specializing in web application security, pen testing, risk management, and threat modeling. He holds CISSP, CSSLP, and CEH certifications and has a master’s degree in information security. His passion is helping customers understand and manage risk by framing security in the context of business impact.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this and other guest author articles are solely those of the contributor, and do not necessarily reflect those of Tripwire, Inc.
- Gartner: Configuration Hardening Required for Security and Compliance
- Human Factors in Information Security Management Systems
- Human Factors in ISMS: Goal Driven Risk Management
- Information Security Management Systems: Modelling Human Factors
P.S. Have you met John Powers, supernatural CISO?
Title image courtesy of ShutterStock
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/html/fieldhelp (Note that the CERT scoring system includes precondition as a characteristic of impact instead of likelihood.)