DOCSLIB.ORG

Vulnerability-Tolerant Secure Architectures (Invited Paper)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vulnerability-Tolerant Secure Architectures (Invited Paper) Vulnerability-Tolerant Secure Architectures (Invited Paper) Todd Austin 1, Valeria Bertacco 1, Baris Kasikci1, Sharad Malik2, and Mohit Tiwari3 1University of Michigan 2Princeton University 3University of Texas at Austin Corresponding Email: [email protected] Abstract • Even for a specific vulnerability and definition of system Today, secure systems are built by identifying potential vul- security, the resulting verification problems are intractable nerabilities and then adding protections to thwart the associ- and tend not to scale to practical systems. ated attacks. Unfortunately, the complexity of today's systems • It is not possible to know all possible threats and vulner- makes it impossible to prove that all attacks are stopped, so abilities a priori. This lack of knowledge is exactly what clever attackers find a way around even the most carefully attackers exploit. designed protections. In this article, we take a sobering look at the state of secure system design, and ask ourselves why the While much progress has been made in formal verification, "security arms race" never ends? The answer lies in our inabil- success is limited in type and scale of the systems addressed ity to develop adequate security verification technologies. We (e.g., SLAM [3]) or scope of the analysis (e.g., Whoop [4]). then examine an advanced defensive system in nature -the hu- Thus given the complexity of today's systems, the goal of man immune system -and we discover that it does not remove securing general software and hardware remains unreachable vulnerabilities, rather it adds offensive measures to protect through security proofs. the body when its vulnerabilities are penetrated. We close The incompleteness and intractability of formalized secu- the article with brief speculation on how the human immune rity verification techniques is further exacerhated by the fast- system could inspire more capable secure system designs. growing complexity of modern systems. Fueled by the com- 1.Introduction putational and memory resources made available by Moore's Law, designers are continually building systems with increased It seems that one inescapable truth in computer security is that, complexity. A recent study of lines of code for avionic systems regardless of the system, attackers always find vulnerabilities found that the code size in Boeing and Airbus commercial jets to exploit, and if those vulnerabilities are fixed, they will soon is growing at a rate of 2x every four years [5]. Another study find ways around those protections. 1bis "security arms race," for Ford vehicles found a !Ox increase in the size of on-board as it is called, persists because, despite advances in security software over a 3 year period [6]. Similar trends can be seen verification [l, 2], the complexity ofreal systems precludes in hardware design complexity. A recent study of Apple SoCs the possibility of proving that a design cannot be attacked. found that the number of accelerators grew from to in 9 37 less than decade, with no sign of slowing [7]. 1.1. Why the Security Arms Race Never Ends In an ideal world, hardware and software designers could 1.2. Functional Verification Isn't Scaling to the Challenge harness powerful security analysis tools that would implement Functional verification works to find system design errors, proofs for each vulnerability of concern, in an effort to show many of which are vulnerabilities that could be exploited to that for a particular system: penetrate security. During functional testing, which is the V (programs, inputs, vulnerabilities ) (system is secure) workhorse of verification technologies, engineers use hand- made tests, random testing, and formal analysis to exercise Unfortunately, the creation of truly secure systems is not possi- as much of the functionality of the design as possible, given ble for arbitrary systems running arbitrary software, because: engineering resources [8]. Again, due to the complexity of • Itis not possible to easily define what it means for the system modern systems, there is no hope to fully test the system, so to be secure. Specific properties such as confidentiality and verification engineers direct tests toward likely runtime states. integrity are useful, but are incomplete notions of security. For functional verification, it is important to test the most Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or likely states to be visited while the system is in operation. classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed Thus, "coverage metrics" are used to assess to what extent for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM these likely states have been exantined [9]. Studies have shown must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted To copy othe.rwi.se, or republish, that while a design possesses a multitude of reachable states, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. normal operation only touches a tiny fraction of these states ICCAD '18,November 5--8, 2018. San Diego, CA, USA [10, ll], leading to verification of likely states being a very © 2018 Association for Computing Machinery. effective functional verification approach. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5950-4/1 8111... $15.00 https://doi.org/10.1145/3240765.3273057 While "best effort" serves functional verification well, it falls way short of what is necessary for high-quality security holder of the bounty and verified, the attacker will typically verification. Functional verification wants to find the bugs be paid a bounty in proportion to the vulnerability'• severity. that are likely to be encountered with real-world software, Severity is often scored using the industry standard Common thus, it is possible to find most of them by running real-world Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) [17]. Bug bounties have software on test systems. Security verification, on the other been quickly growing in number and amounts in the last few hand, is a very different endeavor. Attackers do not seek out years because it has been shown to be an effective method to likely execution scenarios, as these are quite unlikely to have entice attackers to disclose a uew vulnerability, rather than vulnerabilities. Instead, attackers seek out the most unlikely use it to harm the users of a vulnerable system. For example, configurations, because these have not been well tested. For ex- Intel instituted its security bug bounty program in March 2017, ample, if an attacker wants to exploit a program asking which and expanded its payouts to up to $250,000 in Fehruary 2018 day of the month you were born, their inclination is to enter a [18]. Yet, even with lucrative bug bounties, attackers will negative number, to see how the program responds to the unex- often choose to retain vulnerabilities for their own use. pected. Much research supports this observation that attackers seek unlikely execution scenarios [12, 13]. The implication 2. InSearch of Advanced Defense Systems -The for verification engineers is that testing the most likely execu- Human Immune System tion scenarios provides very little value inhardening a system To move heyond the lintitations of security verification, in against security attacks. Instead, security verification engi- this work we explore vulnerability-tolerant secure systems. neers have to explore the most unlikely execution scenarios, These systems, despite having exposed vulnerabilities, are still and if they want high coverage vulnerability coverage, they resistant to attack because they incorporate defenses that make must work toward verifying all possible system configurations them impractically difficult to penetrate. Surprisingly, there is - which of course is impractical for non-trivial systems. As a prime example of a "security" system of this form in nature such, verification methods, which already fall short for func- in the human immune system. Consequently, we have studied tional verification, fall even shorter for security verification. In the human immune system for inspiration on how to achieve the end, large complex designs are released to the public with the goal of a vulnerability-tolerant secure system. yet-to-be-found security vulnerabilities lying within them. Given the higher bar for security verification, two additional 2.1. Properties of the Hnman Immune System forms of verification have emerged: red teaming and bug The human immune system is a very effective analogy for sys- bounties. Red teaming engages a team of attackers to ethically tem security, where the "system"is the human body, the "secu- attack a system to discover its vulnerabilities [14]. 'fypi.cally, rity defenses" are the immunity mechanisms inthe body, and the team is hired externally from a white-hat attacker company, the "attackers" are all forms of disease. It is very instrnctive to although some larger organizations have in-house red teams. examine the human immune system, since its capabilities are Red teams employ the same tools that black-hat attackers use significantly more advanced that even today's most advanced to penetrate the system, ranging from prepackaged exploits, security technologies. Specifically, the human immune system to random test-generation tools, and hand-crafted attacks. If has the following highly desirable defense properties: the red team is very skilled, the approach can be unmatched Vulnerability Tolerant - The human immune system is not for the degree and quality of the vulnerabilities found, but focused on finding and fixing vulnerabilities, in fact, our ultimately the system will still possess vulnerabilities. bodies are constantly under attack from diseases in our en- In a similar vein, the white-hat attack research community, vironment. Instead, the human immune system focuses on composed primarily of acadentics, security research compa- thwarting the attacks of diseases once they enter the body.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BUGS in the SYSTEM a Primer on the Software Vulnerability Ecosystem and Its Policy Implications
    ANDI WILSON, ROSS SCHULMAN, KEVIN BANKSTON, AND TREY HERR BUGS IN THE SYSTEM A Primer on the Software Vulnerability Ecosystem and its Policy Implications JULY 2016 About the Authors About New America New America is committed to renewing American politics, Andi Wilson is a policy analyst at New America’s Open prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. We generate big Technology Institute, where she researches and writes ideas, bridge the gap between technology and policy, and about the relationship between technology and policy. curate broad public conversation. We combine the best of With a specific focus on cybersecurity, Andi is currently a policy research institute, technology laboratory, public working on issues including encryption, vulnerabilities forum, media platform, and a venture capital fund for equities, surveillance, and internet freedom. ideas. We are a distinctive community of thinkers, writers, researchers, technologists, and community activists who Ross Schulman is a co-director of the Cybersecurity believe deeply in the possibility of American renewal. Initiative and senior policy counsel at New America’s Open Find out more at newamerica.org/our-story. Technology Institute, where he focuses on cybersecurity, encryption, surveillance, and Internet governance. Prior to joining OTI, Ross worked for Google in Mountain About the Cybersecurity Initiative View, California. Ross has also worked at the Computer The Internet has connected us. Yet the policies and and Communications Industry Association, the Center debates that surround the security of our networks are for Democracy and Technology, and on Capitol Hill for too often disconnected, disjointed, and stuck in an Senators Wyden and Feingold. unsuccessful status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Analyze the Cyber Threat from Drones
    C O R P O R A T I O N KATHARINA LEY BEST, JON SCHMID, SHANE TIERNEY, JALAL AWAN, NAHOM M. BEYENE, MAYNARD A. HOLLIDAY, RAZA KHAN, KAREN LEE How to Analyze the Cyber Threat from Drones Background, Analysis Frameworks, and Analysis Tools For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2972 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0287-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Rick Penn-Kraus Cover images: drone, Kadmy - stock.adobe.com; data, Getty Images. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report explores the security implications of the rapid growth in unmanned aerial systems (UAS), focusing specifically on current and future vulnerabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The CLASP Application Security Process
    The CLASP Application Security Process Secure Software, Inc. Copyright (c) 2005, Secure Software, Inc. The CLASP Application Security Process The CLASP Application Security Process TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1 CLASP Status 4 An Activity-Centric Approach 4 The CLASP Implementation Guide 5 The Root-Cause Database 6 Supporting Material 7 CHAPTER 2 Implementation Guide 9 The CLASP Activities 11 Institute security awareness program 11 Monitor security metrics 12 Specify operational environment 13 Identify global security policy 14 Identify resources and trust boundaries 15 Identify user roles and resource capabilities 16 Document security-relevant requirements 17 Detail misuse cases 18 Identify attack surface 19 Apply security principles to design 20 Research and assess security posture of technology solutions 21 Annotate class designs with security properties 22 Specify database security configuration 23 Perform security analysis of system requirements and design (threat modeling) 24 Integrate security analysis into source management process 25 Implement interface contracts 26 Implement and elaborate resource policies and security technologies 27 Address reported security issues 28 Perform source-level security review 29 Identify, implement and perform security tests 30 The CLASP Application Security Process i Verify security attributes of resources 31 Perform code signing 32 Build operational security guide 33 Manage security issue disclosure process 34 Developing a Process Engineering Plan 35 Business objectives 35 Process
    [Show full text]
  • Threats and Vulnerabilities in Federation Protocols and Products
    Threats and Vulnerabilities in Federation Protocols and Products Teemu Kääriäinen, CSSLP / Nixu Corporation OWASP Helsinki Chapter Meeting #30 October 11, 2016 Contents • Federation Protocols: OpenID Connect and SAML 2.0 – Basic flows, comparison between the protocols • OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect Vulnerabilities and Best Practices – Background for OAuth 2.0 security criticism, vulnerabilities related discussion and publicly disclosed vulnerabilities, best practices, JWT, authorization bypass vulnerabilities, mobile application integration. • SAML 2.0 Vulnerabilities and Best Practices – Best practices, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities • OWASP Top Ten in Access management solutions – Focus on Java deserialization vulnerabilites in different commercial and open source access management products • Forgerock OpenAM, Gluu, CAS, PingFederate 7.3.0 Admin UI, Oracle ADF (Oracle Identity Manager) Federation Protocols: OpenID Connect and SAML 2.0 • OpenID Connect is an emerging technology built on OAuth 2.0 that enables relying parties to verify the identity of an end-user in an interoperable and REST-like manner. • OpenID Connect is not just about authentication. It is also about authorization, delegation and API access management. • Reasons for services to start using OpenID Connect: – Ease of integration. – Ability to integrate client applications running on different platforms: single-page app, web, backend, mobile, IoT. – Allowing 3rd party integrations in a secure, interoperable and scalable manner. • OpenID Connect is proven to be secure and mature technology: – Solves many of the security issues that have been an issue with OAuth 2.0. • OpenID Connect and OAuth 2.0 are used frequently in social login scenarios: – E.g. Google and Microsoft Account are OpenID Connect Identity Providers. Facebook is an OAuth 2.0 authorization server.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuzzing with Code Fragments
    Fuzzing with Code Fragments Christian Holler Kim Herzig Andreas Zeller Mozilla Corporation∗ Saarland University Saarland University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract JavaScript interpreter must follow the syntactic rules of JavaScript. Otherwise, the JavaScript interpreter will re- Fuzz testing is an automated technique providing random ject the input as invalid, and effectively restrict the test- data as input to a software system in the hope to expose ing to its lexical and syntactic analysis, never reaching a vulnerability. In order to be effective, the fuzzed input areas like code transformation, in-time compilation, or must be common enough to pass elementary consistency actual execution. To address this issue, fuzzing frame- checks; a JavaScript interpreter, for instance, would only works include strategies to model the structure of the de- accept a semantically valid program. On the other hand, sired input data; for fuzz testing a JavaScript interpreter, the fuzzed input must be uncommon enough to trigger this would require a built-in JavaScript grammar. exceptional behavior, such as a crash of the interpreter. Surprisingly, the number of fuzzing frameworks that The LangFuzz approach resolves this conflict by using generate test inputs on grammar basis is very limited [7, a grammar to randomly generate valid programs; the 17, 22]. For JavaScript, jsfunfuzz [17] is amongst the code fragments, however, partially stem from programs most popular fuzzing tools, having discovered more that known to have caused invalid behavior before. LangFuzz 1,000 defects in the Mozilla JavaScript engine. jsfunfuzz is an effective tool for security testing: Applied on the is effective because it is hardcoded to target a specific Mozilla JavaScript interpreter, it discovered a total of interpreter making use of specific knowledge about past 105 new severe vulnerabilities within three months of and common vulnerabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Youn from Isec Partners
    Where do security bugs come from? MIT 6.858 (Computer Systems Security), September 19th, 2012 Paul Youn • Technical Director, iSEC Partners • MIT 18/6-3 (‘03), M.Eng ’04 Tom Ritter • Security Consultant, iSEC Partners • (Research) Badass Agenda • What is a security bug? • Who is looking for security bugs? • Trust relationships • Sample of bugs found in the wild • Operation Aurora • Stuxnet • I’m in love with security; whatever shall I do? What is a Security Bug? • What is security? • Class participation: Tacos, Salsa, and Avocados (TSA) What is security? “A system is secure if it behaves precisely in the manner intended – and does nothing more” – Ivan Arce • Who knows exactly what a system is intended to do? Systems are getting more and more complex. • What types of attacks are possible? First steps in security: define your security model and your threat model Threat modeling: T.S.A. • Logan International Airport security goal #3: prevent banned substances from entering Logan • Class Participation: What is the threat model? • What are possible avenues for getting a banned substance into Logan? • Where are the points of entry? • Threat modeling is also critical, you have to know what you’re up against (many engineers don’t) Who looks for security bugs? • Engineers • Criminals • Security Researchers • Pen Testers • Governments • Hacktivists • Academics Engineers (create and find bugs) • Goals: • Find as many flaws as possible • Reduce incidence of exploitation • Thoroughness: • Need coverage metrics • At least find low-hanging fruit • Access:
    [Show full text]
  • Designing New Operating Primitives to Improve Fuzzing Performance
    Designing New Operating Primitives to Improve Fuzzing Performance Wen Xu Sanidhya Kashyap Changwoo Miny Taesoo Kim Georgia Institute of Technology Virginia Techy ABSTRACT from malicious attacks, various financial organizations and com- Fuzzing is a software testing technique that finds bugs by repeatedly munities, that implement and use popular software and OS kernels, injecting mutated inputs to a target program. Known to be a highly have invested major efforts on finding and fixing security bugsin practical approach, fuzzing is gaining more popularity than ever their products, and one such effort to finding bugs in applications before. Current research on fuzzing has focused on producing an and libraries is fuzzing. Fuzzing is a software-testing technique input that is more likely to trigger a vulnerability. that works by injecting randomly mutated input to a target pro- In this paper, we tackle another way to improve the performance gram. Compared with other bug-finding techniques, one of the of fuzzing, which is to shorten the execution time of each itera- primary advantages of fuzzing is that it ensures high throughput tion. We observe that AFL, a state-of-the-art fuzzer, slows down by with less manual efforts and pre-knowledge of the target software. 24× because of file system contention and the scalability of fork() In addition, it is one of the most practical approach to finding system call when it runs on 120 cores in parallel. Other fuzzers bugs in various critical software. For example, the state-of-the-art are expected to suffer from the same scalability bottlenecks inthat coverage-driven fuzzer, American Fuzzy Lop (AFL), has discovered they follow a similar design pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Analysis and Automated Classification of Security Bug Reports
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2016 Empirical Analysis and Automated Classification of Security Bug Reports Jacob P. Tyo Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Tyo, Jacob P., "Empirical Analysis and Automated Classification of Security Bug Reports" (2016). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6843. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6843 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Empirical Analysis and Automated Classification of Security Bug Reports Jacob P. Tyo Thesis submitted to the Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering Katerina Goseva-Popstojanova, Ph.D., Chair Roy S. Nutter, Ph.D. Matthew C. Valenti, Ph.D. Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED. Morgantown, West Virginia 2016 Keywords: Cybersecurity, Machine Learning, Issue Tracking Systems, Text Mining, Text Classification Copyright 2016 Jacob P.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional and Non Functional Requirements
    Building Security Into Applications Marco Morana OWASP Chapter Lead Blue Ash, July 30th 2008 OWASP Cincinnati Chapter Meetings Copyright 2008 © The OWASP Foundation Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the OWASP License. The OWASP Foundation http://www.owasp.org Agenda 1. Software Security Awareness: Business Cases 2. Approaches To Application Security 3. Software Security Roadmap (CMM, S-SDLCs) 4. Software Security Activities And Artifacts Security Requirements and Abuse Cases Threat Modeling Secure Design Guidelines Secure Coding Standards and Reviews Security Tests Secure Configuration and Deployment 5. Metrics and Measurements 6. Business Cases OWASP 2 Software Security Awareness Business Cases OWASP 3 Initial Business Cases For Software Security Avoid Mis-Information: Fear Uncertainty Doubt (FUD) Use Business Cases: Costs, Threat Reports, Root Causes OWASP 4 Business Case #1: Costs “Removing only 50 percent of software vulnerabilities before use will reduce defect management and incident response costs by 75 percent.” (Gartner) The average cost of a security bulletin is 100,000 $ (M. Howard and D. LeBlanc in Writing Secure Software book) It is 100 Times More Expensive to Fix Security Bug at Production Than Design” (IBM Systems Sciences Institute) OWASP 5 Business Case #2: Threats To Applications 93.8% of all phishing attacks in 2007 are targeting financial institutions (Anti- Phishing Group) Phishing attacks soar in 2007 (Gartner) 3.6 Million victims, $ 3.2 Billion Loss (2007)
    [Show full text]
  • Software Bug Bounties and Legal Risks to Security Researchers Robin Hamper
    Software bug bounties and legal risks to security researchers Robin Hamper (Student #: 3191917) A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Law by Research Page 2 of 178 Rob Hamper. Faculty of Law. Masters by Research Thesis. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents a non-exclusive licence to archive and to make available (including to members of the public) my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known. I acknowledge that I retain all intellectual property rights which subsist in my thesis or dissertation, such as copyright and patent rights, subject to applicable law. I also retain the right to use all or part of my thesis or dissertation in future works (such as articles or books).’ ‘For any substantial portions of copyright material used in this thesis, written permission for use has been obtained, or the copyright material is removed from the final public version of the thesis.’ Signed ……………………………………………........................... Date …………………………………………….............................. AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis.’ Signed ……………………………………………........................... Date …………………………………………….............................. Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname/Family Name : Hamper Given Name/s : Robin Abbreviation for degree as give in the University calendar : Masters of Laws by Research Faculty : Law School : Thesis Title : Software bug bounties and the legal risks to security researchers Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) This thesis examines some of the contractual legal risks to which security researchers are exposed in disclosing software vulnerabilities, under coordinated disclosure programs (“bug bounty programs”), to vendors and other bug bounty program operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Lacking-Recheck Bugs in OS Kernels
    Check It Again: Detecting Lacking-Recheck Bugs in OS Kernels Wenwen Wang, Kangjie Lu, and Pen-Chung Yew University of Minnesota, Twin Cities ABSTRACT code. In order to safely manage resources and to stop attacks from Operating system kernels carry a large number of security checks the user space, OS kernels carry a large number of security checks to validate security-sensitive variables and operations. For example, that validate key variables and operations. For instance, when the a security check should be embedded in a code to ensure that a Linux kernel fetches a data pointer, ptr, from the user space for user-supplied pointer does not point to the kernel space. Using a memory write, it uses access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, ptr, size) to security-checked variables is typically safe. However, in reality, check if both ptr and ptr+size point to the user space. If the check security-checked variables are often subject to modification after fails, OS kernels typically return an error code and stop executing the check. If a recheck is lacking after a modification, security the current function. Such a check is critical because it ensures that issues may arise, e.g., adversaries can control the checked variable a memory write from the user space will not overwrite kernel data. to launch critical attacks such as out-of-bound memory access or Common security checks in OS kernels include permission checks, privilege escalation. We call such cases lacking-recheck (LRC) bugs, bound checks, return-value checks, NULL-pointer checks, etc. a subclass of TOCTTOU bugs, which have not been explored yet.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Software and Protocol Vulnerabilities in WPA2 Implementations Through Fuzzing
    POLITECNICO DI TORINO Master Degree in Computer Engineering Master Thesis Identifying Software and Protocol Vulnerabilities in WPA2 Implementations through Fuzzing Supervisors Prof. Antonio Lioy Dr. Jan Tobias M¨uehlberg Dr. Mathy Vanhoef Candidate Graziano Marallo Academic Year 2018-2019 Dedicated to my parents Summary Nowadays many activities of our daily lives are essentially based on the Internet. Information and services are available at every moment and they are just a click away. Wireless connections, in fact, have made these kinds of activities faster and easier. Nevertheless, security remains a problem to be addressed. If it is compro- mised, you can face severe consequences. When connecting to a protected Wi-Fi network a handshake is executed that provides both mutual authentication and ses- sion key negotiation. A recent discovery proves that this handshake is vulnerable to key reinstallation attacks. In response, vendors patched their implementations to prevent key reinstallations (KRACKs). However, these patches are non-trivial, and hard to get correct. Therefore it is essential that someone audits these patches to assure that key reinstallation attacks are indeed prevented. More precisely, the state machine behind the handshake can be fairly complex. On top of that, some implementations contain extra code to deal with Access Points that do not properly follow the 802.11 standard. This further complicates an implementation of the handshake. All combined, this makes it difficult to reason about the correctness of a patch. This means some patches may be flawed in practice. There are several possible techniques that can be used to accomplish this kind of analysis such as: formal verification, fuzzing, code audits, etc.
    [Show full text]