12 KiB
STRIDE & PASTA Threat Modeling Guide
Practical guide for threat modeling systems, APIs, and AI agents. Use this when performing
007 threat-modelor any security analysis that requires structured threat identification.
When to Use What
| Method | Best For | Effort | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| STRIDE | Component-level analysis, quick threat identification | Low-Medium | List of threats per component |
| PASTA | Full system risk analysis, business-aligned | Medium-High | Prioritized attack scenarios |
| Both | Critical systems, compliance requirements | High | Complete threat landscape |
Rule of thumb:
- Quick code review or PR? -> STRIDE on changed components
- New system design or architecture review? -> PASTA full process
- Production system with sensitive data? -> Both (PASTA for strategy, STRIDE for each component)
STRIDE Walkthrough
STRIDE categorizes threats into six types. For each, ask: "Can an attacker do this to my system?"
S - Spoofing (Identity)
Question: Can someone pretend to be another user, service, or component?
Examples:
# API without authentication
GET /api/users/123/data # Anyone can access any user's data
# Forged JWT with weak secret
jwt.encode({"user_id": "admin", "role": "superuser"}, "password123")
# Webhook without origin verification
POST /webhooks/payment # No signature validation, anyone can send fake events
Detection patterns: Missing auth middleware, hardcoded/weak secrets, no mutual TLS between services.
Mitigations: Strong authentication (OAuth 2.0, mTLS), HMAC signature validation, API key rotation.
T - Tampering (Data Integrity)
Question: Can someone modify data in transit, at rest, or in processing?
Examples:
# SQL injection modifying data
POST /api/transfer {"amount": "100; UPDATE accounts SET balance=999999 WHERE id=1"}
# Man-in-the-middle on HTTP (not HTTPS)
# Attacker intercepts and modifies API response
# Unsigned configuration files
config.yaml loaded without integrity check -> attacker modifies log_level: DEBUG to expose secrets
Detection patterns: No input validation, HTTP endpoints, missing integrity checks on files, no checksums.
Mitigations: Input validation/sanitization, HTTPS everywhere, signed artifacts, database constraints.
R - Repudiation (Accountability)
Question: Can someone perform an action and deny it later?
Examples:
# No audit logging on financial transactions
def transfer_money(from_acc, to_acc, amount):
db.execute("UPDATE accounts ...") # No log of who did this, when, or why
# Logs stored on same server (attacker can delete)
# User deletes their own audit trail after unauthorized access
Detection patterns: Missing audit logs, logs without timestamps/user IDs, mutable log storage, no log forwarding.
Mitigations: Immutable audit logs (append-only), centralized logging (SIEM), signed log entries, write-once storage.
I - Information Disclosure
Question: Can someone access data they shouldn't see?
Examples:
# Stack trace in production API response
{
"error": "NullPointerException at com.app.UserService.getUser(UserService.java:42)",
"database": "postgresql://admin:s3cret@db.internal:5432/users"
}
# .env file exposed via web server
GET /.env # Returns API_KEY=sk-live-xxxxx, DB_PASSWORD=...
# Verbose error messages
"User admin@company.com not found" vs "Invalid credentials" (leaks valid emails)
Detection patterns: Verbose errors in production, exposed config files, missing access controls on endpoints, debug mode enabled.
Mitigations: Generic error messages, secrets in vault (not env files), access control on all endpoints, disable debug in production.
D - Denial of Service
Question: Can someone make the system unavailable?
Examples:
# Unbounded query with no pagination
GET /api/users # Returns 10 million records, crashes server
# ReDoS - Regular expression denial of service
import re
re.match(r"(a+)+$", "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!") # Exponential backtracking
# No rate limiting on expensive operation
POST /api/reports/generate # Each request takes 30s and 2GB RAM
Detection patterns: Missing rate limits, unbounded queries, regex without timeout, no resource limits on containers.
Mitigations: Rate limiting, pagination, query limits, circuit breakers, resource quotas, CDN/WAF.
E - Elevation of Privilege
Question: Can someone gain permissions they shouldn't have?
Examples:
# IDOR - Insecure Direct Object Reference
GET /api/users/123/admin-panel # Only checks if user is logged in, not if they're admin
# Role manipulation via mass assignment
POST /api/register {"name": "John", "email": "john@test.com", "role": "admin"}
# Path traversal
GET /api/files?path=../../etc/passwd
Detection patterns: Missing authorization checks (not just authentication), mass assignment vulnerabilities, path traversal, insecure deserialization.
Mitigations: Role-based access control (RBAC), allowlist for assignable fields, input path validation, principle of least privilege.
PASTA 7-Stage Walkthrough
Process for Attack Simulation and Threat Analysis
Stage 1: Define Objectives
What to do: Align security analysis with business goals.
Business objective: "Process payments securely"
Security objective: "Prevent unauthorized transactions and data exposure"
Compliance: PCI-DSS, LGPD
Risk appetite: LOW (financial data)
Stage 2: Define Technical Scope
What to do: Map all technical components in scope.
Components:
- Frontend: React SPA (app.example.com)
- API Gateway: Kong (api.example.com)
- Backend: FastAPI (internal)
- Database: PostgreSQL (internal)
- Queue: RabbitMQ (internal)
- External: Stripe API, SendGrid
- Infrastructure: AWS ECS, RDS, S3
Stage 3: Application Decomposition
What to do: Create data flow diagrams (DFDs), identify trust boundaries.
Trust boundaries:
[Internet] --HTTPS--> [WAF/CDN] --HTTPS--> [API Gateway]
[API Gateway] --mTLS--> [Backend Services]
[Backend] --TLS--> [Database]
[Backend] --HTTPS--> [Stripe API]
Data flows:
User credentials -> API Gateway -> Auth Service -> DB
Payment data -> API Gateway -> Payment Service -> Stripe
Webhook events -> Stripe -> API Gateway -> Payment Service
Stage 4: Threat Analysis
What to do: Identify threats using STRIDE on each component from Stage 3.
Apply STRIDE to each data flow crossing a trust boundary.
Stage 5: Vulnerability Analysis
What to do: Map known vulnerabilities to threats identified.
Tools: OWASP ZAP, Semgrep, dependency audit (npm audit, pip-audit)
CVE databases: NVD, GitHub Advisory
Existing findings: penetration test reports, bug bounty reports
Stage 6: Attack Modeling
What to do: Build attack trees for high-priority threats.
(See Attack Trees section below)
Stage 7: Risk & Impact Analysis
What to do: Prioritize threats by business impact and likelihood.
Use the threat documentation template below to score each threat.
Building Attack Trees
Attack trees decompose a goal into sub-goals with AND/OR relationships.
GOAL: Steal user payment data
├── OR: Compromise database directly
│ ├── AND: Find SQL injection point
│ │ ├── Identify input field without sanitization
│ │ └── Craft injection payload
│ └── AND: Access database credentials
│ ├── Find exposed .env file
│ └── OR: Access via SSRF
├── OR: Intercept data in transit
│ ├── Downgrade HTTPS to HTTP
│ └── Compromise TLS certificate
├── OR: Exploit API vulnerability
│ ├── AND: BOLA on payment endpoint
│ │ ├── Enumerate user IDs
│ │ └── Access /users/{id}/payments without authz
│ └── Mass assignment on user object
└── OR: Social engineering
├── Phish admin credentials
└── Compromise developer laptop
Each leaf node = actionable threat to mitigate.
Threat Documentation Template
Use this template for every identified threat:
### THREAT-{ID}: {Short Title}
**Category:** STRIDE category (S/T/R/I/D/E)
**Component:** Affected system component
**Attack Vector:** How the attacker exploits this
**Prerequisites:** What the attacker needs (access level, knowledge, tools)
**Impact:**
- Confidentiality: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
- Integrity: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
- Availability: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
- Business impact: Description of business consequence
**Probability:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
**Severity:** CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW (Impact x Probability)
**Evidence/Detection:**
- How to detect if this is being exploited
- Log patterns, monitoring alerts
**Mitigation:**
- [ ] Short-term fix (hotfix)
- [ ] Long-term fix (architectural)
- [ ] Monitoring/alerting to add
**Status:** OPEN | MITIGATED | ACCEPTED | TRANSFERRED
**Owner:** Team/person responsible
**Due date:** YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Threat Modeling a Webhook Endpoint
Context: POST /webhooks/stripe receives payment events from Stripe.
STRIDE Analysis
| Category | Threat | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoofing | Attacker sends fake Stripe events | CRITICAL | Verify Stripe-Signature header with HMAC |
| Tampering | Event payload modified in transit | HIGH | HTTPS + signature verification |
| Repudiation | Cannot prove event was received/processed | MEDIUM | Log all webhook events with idempotency key |
| Info Disclosure | Error responses leak internal state | MEDIUM | Return generic 200/400, log details internally |
| DoS | Flood endpoint with fake events | HIGH | Rate limit by IP, verify signature before processing |
| EoP | Webhook triggers admin-level operations | HIGH | Webhook handler runs with minimal permissions, validate event type |
Key Implementation
import hmac
import hashlib
def verify_stripe_webhook(payload: bytes, signature: str, secret: str) -> bool:
"""Always verify before processing ANY webhook logic."""
timestamp, sig = parse_stripe_signature(signature)
# Prevent replay attacks (reject events older than 5 minutes)
if abs(time.time() - int(timestamp)) > 300:
return False
expected = hmac.new(
secret.encode(), f"{timestamp}.{payload.decode()}".encode(), hashlib.sha256
).hexdigest()
return hmac.compare_digest(expected, sig)
Example: Threat Modeling an AI Agent with Tool Access
Context: AI agent with access to file system, API calls, and database queries.
STRIDE Analysis
| Category | Threat | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoofing | Prompt injection makes agent impersonate admin | CRITICAL | Input sanitization, system prompt hardening |
| Tampering | Agent modifies files/DB beyond intended scope | CRITICAL | Read-only by default, allowlist of writable paths |
| Repudiation | Cannot trace which agent action caused damage | HIGH | Log every tool call with full context |
| Info Disclosure | Agent leaks secrets from context/env to output | CRITICAL | Strip secrets before context injection, output filtering |
| DoS | Agent enters infinite loop, burns API credits | HIGH | Iteration limits, token budgets, timeout per operation |
| EoP | Agent escapes sandbox via tool chaining | CRITICAL | Least-privilege tool access, no shell access, sandboxed execution |
Critical Controls for AI Agents
agent_security:
tool_access:
file_system: READ_ONLY # Default
writable_paths: ["/tmp/agent-workspace/"] # Explicit allowlist
blocked_paths: ["~/.ssh", "~/.aws", ".env"]
max_file_size: 1MB
execution_limits:
max_iterations: 25
max_tokens_per_request: 4000
max_total_tokens: 100000
timeout_seconds: 120
max_tool_calls: 50
monitoring:
log_all_tool_calls: true
alert_on_file_write: true
alert_on_external_api: true
alert_on_secret_pattern: true # Regex for API keys, passwords
isolation:
network: RESTRICTED # Only allowlisted domains
allowed_domains: ["api.openai.com", "api.anthropic.com"]
no_shell_access: true
no_code_execution: true # Unless explicitly sandboxed
Quick Reference: Severity Matrix
| Low Impact | Medium Impact | High Impact | |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Probability | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL |
| Medium Probability | LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH |
| Low Probability | LOW | LOW | MEDIUM |