A supply chain attack is one of the most dangerous form of cyberattack that targets the software supply chain, which comprises the elaborate network of vendors and dependencies responsible for delivering essential components to software applications. In orchestrating such an attack, a malicious actor skillfully identifies and exploits a vulnerability within a third-party component or software library that the targeted application depends on. Successfully breaching this component allows the attacker to infiltrate the system, exfiltrate sensitive data, or assume control of the application, causing significant damage to the targeted organization.
As a responsible and diligent software developer, it is vital for you to maintain constant vigilance over security concerns in the ever-evolving world of technology. This entails developing a comprehensive understanding of the tactics and techniques employed by attackers, including the various nuances of supply chain attacks. With this knowledge, you can implement appropriate countermeasures to defend against potential threats. It is crucial for you to adhere to secure coding practices, regularly perform vulnerability assessments and penetration testing, and ensure that your software and its dependencies remain up to date with the latest security patches. By proactively embracing these strategies, you can not only effectively deter supply chain attacks but also bolster the security and integrity of your software applications.
To better equip you in understanding the evolving landscape of cybersecurity threats, we have compiled a list of the top 12 ingenious methods that blackhats use to exploit supply chains. These tactics demonstrate the creativity and persistence of malicious actors, highlighting the importance of staying informed and maintaining robust security measures to protect your software applications and their users.
1. Creating a Compromised Plugin or Extension
An attacker targets a popular open source project with a thriving ecosystem of plugins or extensions. The attacker develops a seemingly useful and well-crafted plugin or extension that contains hidden malicious code.
The attacker promotes their compromised plugin through various channels, such as social media, online forums, and blog posts. As users adopt the plugin, they unknowingly introduce the attacker’s malicious code into their systems, compromising their security.
The attacker can then leverage the compromised plugin to gain unauthorized access to user data, manipulate system behavior, or launch further attacks. The malicious plugin may continue to operate undetected, as users typically trust the plugins and extensions available for a popular open source project.
2. Masquerading as a Superior Alternative to Popular Projects
First, the attacker identifies a popular open source project and its close competitor. They decide to create a counterfeit version of either the original project or its competing project, mimicking its features, appearance, and branding, but embedding malicious code within its source.
To make their counterfeit project even more appealing, the attacker forks the popular project and implements the most requested features that the original project has not yet incorporated. By doing this, they increase the chances of attracting users who have been eagerly waiting for these features in the original project.
The attacker then launches a disinformation campaign, promoting their counterfeit project as a superior alternative to both the original project and its competitor. They use tactics such as fake reviews, social media posts, and blog articles to market their counterfeit project. The attacker may also attempt to undermine the reputation of both the original project and its competitor by spreading false information or exaggerating their flaws.
Unsuspecting users, believing the counterfeit project to be a legitimate and improved alternative, adopt it and inadvertently expose their systems to compromise. The attacker can then exploit the malicious code embedded in the counterfeit project to gain unauthorized access to user data, manipulate system behavior, or perform other malicious activities.
3. Establishing Trust with Project Administrators
In this hypothetical scenario, a malicious attacker carefully selects popular packages and libraries, aiming to identify projects in need of volunteers where they can contribute as an open source developer. The attacker’s strategy revolves around ingratiating themselves with the project’s community and building trust with the package administrator or owner.
The attacker may spend a considerable amount of time—months or even years—working diligently on the project, actively participating in discussions, and resolving issues. They cultivate a positive image, appearing as a dedicated and reliable community member who is genuinely invested in the project’s success. By contributing valuable work, the attacker gradually gains the trust of the package administrator, who may have other obligations, such as a day job, that limit their availability for the project.
Once the attacker has established themselves as a trusted contributor, they may request write access to the supply chain or exploit their influence in the community to assume a more prominent role in the project. This strategy capitalizes on the natural turnover of administrators and maintainers in open source projects, which can result from various factors such as burnout, loss of interest, or personal reasons.
4. Exploiting a Third-Party Dependency
An attacker analyzes the dependencies of a popular open source project to find a less-known, but widely-used, third-party library. The attacker then focuses their efforts on compromising this library, either by becoming a trusted contributor or exploiting an existing vulnerability.
Once the attacker gains control over the third-party library, they introduce malicious code that is difficult to detect. Since the library is a dependency of the popular open source project, the project’s maintainers unknowingly integrate the compromised library into their codebase.
As users of the open source project update their systems, they inadvertently install the compromised library as well. This allows the attacker to exploit the vulnerability on a large scale, potentially affecting numerous users and organizations.
5. Co-opting a Trusted Contributor’s Account
An attacker targets a trusted contributor of a popular open source project by studying their online presence and habits. The attacker identifies a vulnerability in the contributor’s personal security, such as a weak password or susceptibility to phishing attacks.
The attacker exploits this weakness to gain access to the contributor’s account on the project’s version control system. With access to the account, the attacker can now make changes to the project’s source code under the guise of the trusted contributor.
By carefully crafting malicious commits that appear innocuous, the attacker is able to introduce vulnerabilities into the project’s codebase without raising suspicion. Users of the project, trusting the contributions made by the compromised account, unwittingly introduce the attacker’s code into their systems, leading to a large-scale supply chain compromise.
6. Acquiring Open Source Projects Through Monetary Incentives
In some cases, attackers have been known to obtain ownership of open source projects by offering financial incentives to the original developers. This approach can be particularly effective if the developers are experiencing financial difficulties, lack the resources to continue maintaining the project, or have lost interest in the project.
By gaining ownership of the project, the attacker can introduce vulnerabilities or backdoors into the code, compromising the supply chain and potentially affecting a large number of users. They may also exploit the project’s reputation and user base for their own gain or leverage the project’s resources and infrastructure for other malicious activities.
7. Manipulating Project Documentation
In this creative scenario, an attacker focuses on the documentation of a popular open source project. They seek out vulnerabilities in the documentation hosting platform or infiltrate the project’s documentation team, gaining the ability to edit and modify the documentation.
The attacker subtly alters the documentation to introduce incorrect or misleading information, encouraging users to implement insecure configurations, use deprecated functions, or download malicious packages disguised as legitimate dependencies.
As users follow the manipulated documentation, they unknowingly expose their systems to compromise. The attacker can exploit the vulnerabilities introduced through the altered documentation to gain unauthorized access to user data, manipulate system behavior, or launch further attacks.
8. Infiltrating the Hiring Process
A malicious attacker targets a specific organization known for its open source project, which has a significant impact on a particular industry. The attacker researches the company’s structure and identifies an open position that would grant them access to the project’s source code and infrastructure. They then create a fake, yet impressive, resume and apply for the job, successfully landing an interview.
During the interview process, the attacker exhibits exceptional technical skills and a deep understanding of the project’s domain, impressing the hiring team. Once hired, the attacker gradually earns the trust of their colleagues and supervisors, gaining more access and influence over the project’s development.
With time, the attacker subtly introduces vulnerabilities or backdoors into the codebase, leading to a compromised supply chain. By the time their actions are discovered, they have already inflicted significant damage and potentially affected a large number of users.
9. Hijacking a Popular User Support Channel
An attacker identifies a popular open source project with a bustling user support channel, such as a forum or a chat group. The attacker infiltrates the support channel, posing as a helpful and knowledgeable community member.
Over time, the attacker gains the trust of users seeking assistance and offers tailored advice to solve their problems. However, the attacker begins to distribute seemingly harmless solutions that actually contain hidden exploits, such as recommending a specific patch or configuration that introduces a vulnerability.
As users implement the attacker’s suggested solutions, they unknowingly expose their systems to compromise. The attacker’s deep involvement in the support channel allows them to stay up-to-date on the latest issues and user concerns, enabling them to craft increasingly targeted and effective attacks.
10. Exploiting Insecure Update Servers
An attacker targets an open source project that has a large user base but an insecure update server. The update server hosts the update files and is responsible for delivering new versions, patches, and improvements of the software to the users.
The attacker conducts extensive research on the update server to identify potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the system. These vulnerabilities could be due to poor encryption, lack of authentication, or insufficient validation of the update files being delivered to users.
Once the attacker identifies a weakness in the update server, they exploit it to gain unauthorized access and tamper with the update files hosted on the server. The attacker injects malicious payloads into the update files, which could be malware, ransomware, or code designed to create backdoors, granting them unauthorized access to users’ systems.
When users trustingly download and install the compromised updates, they inadvertently introduce the attacker’s malicious code into their systems. As a result, the attacker gains control over the users’ systems and can execute various malicious activities, such as data exfiltration or remote code execution.
The compromised update server may remain undetected for an extended period, allowing the attacker to continuously exploit the vulnerability, affecting numerous users and systems in the process.
11. Compromising Core Team Members and Trusted Contributors
An attacker targets the core team members and trusted contributors of a popular open source project. The attacker employs social engineering tactics, such as phishing emails or other deceptive communication methods, to trick the core team members and contributors into revealing sensitive information, such as login credentials or access tokens.
Once the attacker gains access to the accounts of core team members or trusted contributors, they can use their privileged positions to introduce malicious code into the project’s source code or manipulate project decisions. They may discreetly modify the codebase, introduce security vulnerabilities, or compromise the project’s infrastructure without raising suspicion, as the changes appear to come from legitimate and trusted sources.
As users continue to rely on the compromised project, they unknowingly introduce the attacker’s malicious code into their systems. This can lead to unauthorized access to user data, manipulation of system behavior, or the execution of other malicious activities. The attacker can maintain their covert presence within the project by exploiting the trust placed in the compromised accounts, making it difficult for the project maintainers to detect and respond to the attack.
12. Sabotaging Project’s Reputation Through Covert Misconduct
In this innovative scenario, an attacker targets a popular open source project with the intention of sabotaging its reputation and driving users away. Instead of directly compromising the project’s code or infrastructure, the attacker opts for a more covert approach to avoid detection.
The attacker infiltrates the project’s development team or online community by posing as a helpful and enthusiastic contributor. They build trust and rapport with the project maintainers and other contributors over time, becoming an influential figure within the community.
Once established as a respected member, the attacker subtly starts to engage in misconduct or introduce intentional flaws in the project. They may advocate for the use of insecure practices, insert subtle bugs, or push for controversial changes that divide the community. Their actions are calculated and discreet, making it difficult for other members to pinpoint the source of the problems.
As the project starts to experience a decline in quality, stability, and community cohesion, its reputation suffers, and users begin to abandon it in favor of alternatives. The attacker’s objective is to weaken the project’s standing and potentially benefit a competing project or their own interests. This sabotage method is challenging to detect and counter, as the attacker remains concealed within the community while gradually eroding the project’s foundations.