Using Figure 5.4 As The Target Architecture, Who Are The Thr ✓ Solved

Using Figure 5.4 as the target architecture, who are the thr

Using Figure 5.4 as the target architecture, who are the threat agents who will be most interested in attacking Web applications created through AppMaker?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

When evaluating threats against web applications generated by a low-code tool such as AppMaker, it is essential to identify the classes of adversaries (threat agents) that are most likely to target the architecture components depicted in Figure 5.4. Although the figure itself is not presented here, typical target architectures for AppMaker-style systems include client (browser/mobile), application server, API gateway, database, third-party integrations, development/CI-CD pipeline, and cloud infrastructure. Threat agent categorization helps prioritize defenses, map attack vectors to assets, and choose appropriate mitigations (NIST, 2020; OWASP, 2021).

Primary Threat Agent Categories

1. Cybercriminals (Financially Motivated Attackers): Cybercriminals are a top threat to web applications because they seek direct financial gain via data theft, account takeover, ransomware, or fraud. They exploit common web vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, authentication weaknesses, and business logic flaws (OWASP, 2021). For AppMaker apps that often handle user data and payment flows, criminals are likely to target weak authentication, exposed APIs, and misconfigured cloud storage (Verizon, 2023).

2. Opportunistic Bot Operators and Script Kiddies: Automated bots, botnets, and less-skilled attackers exploit common, high-volume flaws for credential stuffing, scraping, and denial-of-service. Low-code generated apps can be particularly vulnerable if default settings, predictable endpoints, or insufficient rate limiting are present (OWASP API Top Ten, 2019). These actors require relatively low effort but can cause significant disruption and data leakage.

3. Insider Threats (Disgruntled Employees, Contractors, Third-Party Developers): Insiders with privileged access to AppMaker development consoles, CI/CD pipelines, or cloud resources can misuse credentials, exfiltrate sensitive data, or introduce backdoors into generated code (CERT, 2016). Low-code platforms often blur the lines between citizen developers and professional devs, increasing risk from inadvertently or intentionally malicious insiders (Gartner, 2021).

4. Advanced Persistent Threats (State-Sponsored or Highly Skilled Actors): APT groups target organizations with valuable intellectual property, critical infrastructure, or strategic data. They possess high skill and patience and will exploit supply-chain weaknesses, zero-days, or subtle misconfigurations in the deployment architecture (CISA, 2021). If AppMaker applications integrate with enterprise systems or cloud services, APTs may aim to pivot from the web app into deeper networks (ENISA, 2020).

5. Competitors and Corporate Spies: Industrial espionage actors may attempt to access proprietary business logic, product roadmaps, or customer lists. They often use social engineering, targeted phishing, or API abuse to access sensitive endpoints or unprotected storage (Verizon, 2023).

6. Hacktivists and Reputation Attackers: These actors aim for publicity rather than financial gain. They may deface sites, leak data, or disrupt services to make political points or damage reputations. AppMaker apps with public-facing content and weak content security policies can be attractive targets for cross-site scripting (XSS) and defacement (OWASP, 2021).

7. Supply-Chain Attackers and Third-Party Library Exploiters: Attackers focusing on dependencies and the build pipeline will target third-party libraries, plugins, or marketplace components used by AppMaker. Compromised dependencies or CI/CD tools can introduce malicious code into many applications simultaneously (CISA, 2021; NIST, 2020).

Attack Vectors Aligned to Architecture Components

- Presentation Layer (Client): XSS, session hijacking, and clickjacking are common; attackers targeting end users (phishing or session theft) exploit improper output encoding and weak cookie settings (OWASP, 2021).

- Application/API Layer: Injection attacks, broken authentication/authorization, business logic abuse, and excessive data exposure in APIs are frequent targets; bot operators and cybercriminals frequently probe APIs for these weaknesses (OWASP API Top Ten, 2019).

- Data Layer: Database misconfigurations, unencrypted storage, and improper access controls can be exploited by criminals and insiders to exfiltrate sensitive data (NIST SP 800-53, 2020).

- CI/CD and Dev Environments: Supply-chain attackers and malicious insiders target the development and deployment pipeline to introduce persistent malicious changes (CISA, 2021).

- Cloud Infrastructure and Third-Party Integrations: Misconfigured cloud services (e.g., S3 buckets), exposed credentials, and insecure integrations are high-value targets for all categories, notably APTs and cybercriminals (ENISA, 2020).

Examples and Evidence

Recent breach analyses and industry reports emphasize credential theft, API misuse, and supply-chain compromises as leading causes of web app compromise (Verizon, 2023; CISA, 2021). OWASP’s lists highlight that insecure design and authentication flaws are primary vectors exploited by criminals and opportunistic attackers (OWASP, 2021; OWASP API Top Ten, 2019). Research on low-code platforms also underlines risks from default insecure configurations and over-reliance on platform abstractions, which can hide vulnerabilities from less experienced citizen developers (Gartner, 2021).

Mitigation Strategies

To guard against these threat agents, adopt a layered defense aligned to likely attackers and their methods: implement secure-by-default AppMaker configurations, enforce strong authentication and MFA, apply least privilege to developer and runtime roles, and secure APIs with proper authentication, rate-limiting, and schema validation (NIST, 2020; Microsoft, 2020).

Integrate static and dynamic application security testing (SAST/DAST) into CI/CD pipelines, apply software composition analysis for third-party dependencies, and monitor runtime behavior with logging, alerting, and EDR/WAF tools to detect suspicious access patterns (SANS, 2019; OWASP, 2021). Regular threat modeling and red-team exercises help prioritize protections against high-risk adversaries such as APTs and insider threats (NIST SP 800-30, 2012).

Conclusion

Multiple threat agents are likely to be interested in attacking AppMaker-created web applications: financially motivated cybercriminals, opportunistic bot operators, insiders, APTs, competitors, hacktivists, and supply-chain attackers. Each has distinct motives, capabilities, and preferred vectors that map to components of a typical web application architecture. By understanding these actors and aligning defenses—secure defaults, strong identity controls, dependency management, CI/CD hardening, and active monitoring—organizations can reduce exposure and quickly detect and respond to incidents (OWASP, 2021; NIST, 2020).

References

• Carnegie Mellon CERT. (2016). Insider Threat Guide: Understanding, Detecting, and Responding to Insider Threats. Carnegie Mellon University.
• CISA. (2021). AA21-004A: Rapidly Evolving Cyber Threats Emphasize Need to Protect Against Supply Chain Compromise. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
• ENISA. (2020). Threat Landscape for Web Applications. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity.
• Gartner. (2021). Market Guide for Low-Code Development Platforms. Gartner Research.
• Microsoft. (2020). Azure Security Best Practices and Patterns. Microsoft Documentation.
• NIST. (2020). Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (SP 800-53, Rev. 5). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• NIST. (2012). Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments (SP 800-30). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• OWASP. (2019). OWASP API Security Top 10. Open Web Application Security Project.
• OWASP. (2021). OWASP Top Ten 2021: The Ten Most Critical Web Application Security Risks. Open Web Application Security Project.
• Verizon. (2023). Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). Verizon Enterprise Solutions.