Identifying and Managing Software Dependencies Attacks

Common Attacks on Software Dependencies

Understanding the critical role of software dependencies is essential to exploring the specific threats they introduce, . The complexity of software supply chains, where one dependency can pull in many others, creates opportunities for various attacks. We’ll examine how attackers exploit these dependencies, from anomalous behaviors to sophisticated dependency confusion strategies. Cybersecurity experts can develop more effective defense mechanisms by dissecting these attack vectors. Let’s now look at the types of suspect dependency attacks that pose significant risks to software security.

Anomalous Dependencies 

Anomalous dependencies refer to situations where dependencies exhibit unexpected behavior or patterns, potentially indicating malicious intent.

Examples of anomalous dependencies might include:

• Dependencies that suddenly change behavior (e.g., a benign library suddenly starts making network requests).
• Dependencies with suspicious code modifications (e.g., unauthorized changes to critical functions).
• Dependencies that diverge significantly from their usual usage patterns.

Dependency Confusion

Dependency Confusion, also known as Namespace Confusion, is a newly discovered logic flaw that affects the default way software development tools pull third-party packages from both public and private repositories. Let’s dive into

How It Works:

• When developers build applications, they pull code packages and libraries from public repositories (such as npm for JavaScript, pip for Python, and gem for Ruby). However, they also use private components developed in-house, hosted in their company’s private repositories or local feeds.
• Attackers Exploit the Gap: Here’s where the flaw comes in. Attackers exploit this flaw by uploading a software package with the same name as an internal package in a company’s private repository to a public package repository. By using higher version numbers for these malicious public packages, they take advantage of how dependency resolution works, causing development tools to prioritize the public package over the private one.  As a result, developers might unknowingly use the malicious version of the package from the public repository instead of the intended custom package from the private repository.

Known Vulnerabilities

Known vulnerabilities are security weaknesses everyone knows about. This makes them easier to exploit (attack) and fix (mitigate). 

Here are some common types:

• SQL Injection: attackers trick applications into running malicious code.
• Command Injection: attackers can take control of the system by injecting commands.
• Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): attackers inject scripts into websites to steal data or hijack accounts.
• Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF): attackers trick users into performing unintended actions on trusted websites.
• Insecure Deserialization: attackers can inject malicious code when applications process data.
• Broken Authentication: weak passwords or forgotten session management can lead to unauthorized access.

Suspicious Scripts

Suspicious scripts are code snippets or entire packages within software dependencies that exhibit potentially harmful behavior.

These scripts can compromise an application’s security and integrity by introducing vulnerabilities, unauthorized access, or other malicious actions.

Examples of Suspicious Scripts might include

• Malware is hidden within legitimate-looking packages.
• Supply chain attacks where attackers inject malicious code into dependencies.
• Code that behaves unexpectedly, such as sending sensitive data to external servers.

Typosquatting

Typosquatting is a malicious technique that involves registering domain names or package names that are very similar to legitimate ones, often differing by just a typo. The goal is to deceive users who make typographical errors when entering a URL or installing software packages, leading them to a malicious site or software instead of the intended legitimate one.

Developers may unknowingly introduce security risks by using these fake dependencies.

Examples of Typosquatting:

• If the legitimate domain is example.com, a typosquatter might register examp1e.com (replacing ‘l’ with ‘1’) or exampl.com (missing ‘e’). Similarly, for a software package named lodash, a typosquatting package might be named lodahs.

Copycat Packages

Copycat packages involve creating malicious packages that imitate popular and legitimate ones. These packages often have similar names, descriptions, or even functionality to trick users into downloading and using them instead of the legitimate versions. The goal is usually to distribute malware, steal data, or compromise systems.

Examples of Copycat Packages:

• A legitimate package named express might be imitated by a malicious package named  expressjs, expres, or expresjs. These copycat packages may appear legitimate and partially function like the original package but contain hidden malicious code.

For a deeper dive into the distinctions and implications of these tactics, check out our detailed blog post on Typosquatting vs. Copycat Packages: Understanding the Differences.