Difference between revisions of "OWASP Game Security Framework Project"

Latest revision as of 17:46, 23 March 2017

OWASP Game Security Framework (GSF)

The OWASP Game Security Framework (GSF) represents a modular approach to understanding the security issues that surround video game ecosystems.

In 2016 the videogame market became 99.6 Billion dollar industry... any why shouldn't it be? Some of the most prolific and complex software developed today are video games. They are professionally played, sponsored, scrutinized, monetized, and celebrated, just like many sports. They handle clients, servers, web components, monetary transfers, social interactions, virtual markets, etc, with every bit the need of security that most internet hosted apps have (if not more in some cases). The GSF is designed to help threat model gaming issues that have devastated new games. Most importantly we hope the GSF can help new developers and security testers alike root out bugs in your favorite titles.

The framework is broken into three main concepts / sections:

1. Identifying and clustering the components of risk within the overall game security space, and then giving instances of each component.

Components include the following:

Attack Surfaces: the various surface areas that can be attacked by attackers in order to cause harm to the gaming ecosystem.

Vulnerabilities: the specific weaknesses in design or implementation that allows attackers to successfully target a given game.

Attacker Goals: a list of the reasons that an attacker might want to attack a given game.

Negative Outcomes: a collection of ways that the gaming company could ultimately be impacted negatively by attacks to its game and associated infrastructure.

2. A natural language semantic structure for thinking about and articulating game security issues, which uses the modular risk components as sentence structure.

Example:

"The attacker attacked and edited the LOCAL GAME CLIENT (Attack Surface), which had a LACK OF CLIENT INTEGRITY CONTROLS (Vulnerability), which allowed her to ARTIFICIALLY INCREASE HER ABILITIES (Attacker Goal), ultimately leading to an UNHAPPY PLAYER BASE (Negative Outcome) and DECLINING GAME REVENUE (Negative Outcome) , which could have been prevented by DEFENSE.”

Using this structure, security testers can clearly communicate the various aspects of a game security issue to many different types of stakeholder—from pentesting peers to business executives in the gaming industry.

3. Examples of real-world examples of previous attacks against games, and how the attacks map to the GSF framework components.

Licensing

The OWASP Game Security Framework is free to use. It is licensed under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license], so you can copy, distribute and transmit the work, and you can adapt it, and use it commercially, but all provided that you attribute the work and if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Share this:

What is the OWASP Game Security Framework?

The goal of the OWASP Game Security Framework is to provide a structure for discussing the various aspects around the security of video games.

The target audience for the project includes:

Gamers
QA
Game designers
Penetration testers
Gaming executives
Anyone else with a vested interest in game security

Project Leaders

Jason Haddix
Daniel Miessler

Contributors

Kevin Hemmingsen
Troy Cunefare
Ryan Lawrence
Martin Mendoza
Koray Algan
Tom Simkovic
Matt Espinoza
Chad Lynch

Related Projects

Collaboration

The Slack Channel

Quick Download

COMING SOON

News and Events

January, 2017: Doing a complete redesign of the project.
March 2017: Presenting version 1.0 at HouSecCon 2017.

Classifications

@@ Line 231: / Line 231: @@
 * Jason Haddix
+== Related Projects ==
+* [[OWASP_Mobile_Security_Project|OWASP Mobile Security]]
+* [[OWASP_Top_Ten_Project|OWASP Web Top 10]]
+== Collaboration ==
+[https://game-security.slack.com The Slack Channel]
+== Resources ==
+* [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_IoT_Vulnerabilities Top 10 IoT Vulnerabilities from 2014]
+== News and Events ==
+* Coming Soon
+|}
+= Exploits =
+<div style="width:100%;height:160px;border:0,margin:0;overflow: hidden;">[[File:OWASP_Project_Header.jpg|link=]]</div>
+{| style="padding: 0;margin:0;margin-top:10px;text-align:left;" |-
+| valign="top" style="border-right: 1px dotted gray;padding-right:25px;" |
+== Exploits ==
+This list refers to what a given attacker might use to take advantage of a given bug within the game.
+{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="text-align: left"
+! Exploit
+! Description
+|-
+| '''DDoS'''
+|Force a player to DC, or attack the game itself so that it cannot serve customers.
+|-
+| '''Client Modification'''
+|Modify the client in a way that gives advantage.
+|-
+| '''Malicious Macros'''
+|Implementation of macros that perform unwanted actions.
+|-
+| '''Social Engineering'''
+|Getting a player, mod, or game staff member to perform an action that helps the attacker.
+|-
+| '''Use Physics Bug'''
+|Interact with the world in a way that makes the physics engine do what the attacker wants.
+|-
+|'''Malform Network Traffic'''
+|Send modified network traffic that tricks or disrupts an opposing player or the game itself.
+|-
+|}
+{{Social Media Links}}
+| valign="top" style="padding-left:25px;width:300px;border-right: 1px dotted gray;padding-right:25px;" |
+== The Exploits Project ==
+The Exploits provides information on what types of tools and techniques an attacker might use to accomplish his/her goal.
+== Sub-project Leader ==
+* Daniel Miessler
 == Related Projects ==
@@ Line 277: / Line 340: @@
 | '''Take Opponent Offline'''
 |Take a player out of the game so that the attacker's position is improved.
+|-
+|'''Skip Content'''
+|Allows player to skip content resuting in a faster completion or objective time
 |-
 |}
@@ Line 383: / Line 449: @@
 | valign="top" style="border-right: 1px dotted gray;padding-right:25px;" |
-== Common Game Security Defenses ==
+== Defenses ==
+These are some of the common defenses that can be used to counter attacks against various components of a game.
 {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="text-align: left"
 ! Outcomes
 ! Description
 |-
-| '''Currency Magnification'''
+| '''Cryptographic Validation of Client'''
-|A player ends up with more currency than they were supposed to have.
+|Ensure that the client will not run if it has been modified.
 |-
-| '''Player Anger'''
+| '''Enterprise-level DDoS Protection'''
-|Players become extremely agitated by one or more bugs.
+|Implement protection against low to mid-tier DDoS attacks against the core gaming infrastructure.
 |-
-| '''Players Stop Playing the Game'''
+| '''Basic Application Security Defenses'''
-|Players become so frustrated with the bugs and exploits that they stop playing and/or paying for the game.
+|Code-based protections against common application security flaws, such as SQLi, XSS, CSRF, LFI/RFI, etc.
 |-
-| '''Invulnerable Positions'''
+|'''Authentication Lockouts'''
-|Locations on the map make bases or players unassailable and therefore invulnerable.
+|Lock out a user's account after a certain number of failed attempts.
-|-
-| '''Item Multiplication'''
-|Items are duplicated, multiplied, or otherwise increased in an unintended way.
 |-
-|'''Unfair Ladder Victory'''
+|'''Two-factor Authentication'''
-|A victory is scored in favor of a player or team when they should not have won.
+|Require use of 2FA on a given player's account.
 |-
-|'''Unauthorized Admin Command Use'''
+|'''Better Code'''
-|Regular users are somehow able to execute administrative commands.
+|Any fixes that can be done in code that aren't covered by other defenses. Could include net code, physics engine, logic fixes, etc.
 |-
-|'''Lost Revenue'''
+|'''Server-side Validation'''
-|The game company loses revenue due to bugs, hacks, and player anger.
+|Ensure that validations are performed on the server and not (only) the client.
 |}

ID	Vulnerabilty Name	Description	Surface Area	Goal	Techical Impact	Business Impact	Defense	Ref	Genre
V1	Local Resource Modification, Client-side Logic Flaw	In 2015 The Division experienced an exploit that allowed an attacker to switch weapons rapidly, applying weapon buffs in a stacking manner, with no cap.	Game Client	Unfair Player Advantage	Player Anger	Players leave, Lost Revenue	Cryptographic Integrity Checks on Game Client	http://www.gamesradar.com/theres-a-division-damage-stacking-glitch-if-youve-got-fast-fingers/	3PS/1PS/MMO
VN1	"The attacker attacked and edited the `LOCAL GAME CLIENT (Attack Surface)`, which had a `LACK OF CLIENT INTEGRITY CONTROLS (Vulnerability)`, which allowed her to `ARTIFICIALLY INCREASE HER ABILITIES (Attacker Goal)`, ultimately leading to an `UNHAPPY PLAYER BASE (Negative Outcome)` and `DECLINING GAME REVENUE (Negative Outcome)` due to cheating, which could have been prevented by `CRYPTOGRAPHIC INTEGRITY CHECKS ON GAME CLIENT`”