DOCSLIB.ORG

VM-Based Security Overkill: a Lament for Applied Systems Security Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
VM-Based Security Overkill: a Lament for Applied Systems Security Research VM-based Security Overkill: A Lament for Applied Systems Security Research Sergey Bratus Michael E. Locasto Ashwin Ramaswamy Dartmouth College University of Calgary Dartmouth College Sean W. Smith Dartmouth College ABSTRACT open-source cousins like VirtualBox). Virtual machine manage- Virtualization has seen a rebirth for a wide variety of uses; in our ment infrastructure has — notably and recently — increased the field, systems security researchers routinely use it as a standard tool practicality of large scale, commodity distributed computing (i.e., for providing isolation and introspection. Researchers’ use of vir- the “cloud”). tual machines has reached a level of orthodoxy that makes it dif- In addition to arguments involving reduced management, admin- ficult for the collective wisdom to consider alternative approaches istration, and hardware costs, virtualization technology routinely to protecting computation. We suggest that many scenarios exist sees service in a security context, primarily driven by the assump- where virtual machines do not provide a suitable tool or appropri- tion that virtualization provides the best approach (for some value ate security properties. We analyze the use of virtual machines in of “best”, whether this means (1) “most practical”; (2) more com- jail chroot(2) the systems security space and we highlight other work that ques- prehensive than BSD’s , , Janus, or systrace [35]; tions the current (ab)uses of virtualization. or (3) something else) to providing isolation between execution The takeaway message of this paper is that “self-protection” mech- containers. At an increased cost (typically), a virtual environment anisms still represent an interesting and viable path of research. At can provide inspection capabilities in addition to basic isolation. some point, hypervisors (or whatever the lowest layer of software, This kind of isolation and trapping of sensitive operations presents firmware, or programmable hardware is) must rely on detection and a temptation too sweet for system security researchers to resist (un- protection mechanisms embedded within themselves. derstandably, since pre-existing environments reduce the workload of setting up an execution container). While we agree that virtualization can be quite useful in many Categories and Subject Descriptors scenarios, we observe that its level of use has approached ortho- H.1.1 [Models and Principles]: Systems and Information The- doxy in terms of the appropriate technology for composing secu- ory—Value of Information rity systems involving isolation, inspection, introspection, or be- havioral analysis of execution. In short, as a field, the community General Terms seems to have found the perfect implementation form of a practical reference monitor. Security, Measurement 1.1 Contribution Keywords This paper attempts to question that orthodoxy. Are VM-based virtualization, isolation, VM solutions scalable or even economically feasible to enterprise and SCADA network with respect to management and administration 1. INTRODUCTION overhead they require? Are non-VM approaches still a viable and practical means of achieving isolation, inspection, and other forms Virtualization is clearly an enabling technology: providing exe- of program behavior analysis? Specifically, in situations where cution containers can make computing cheaper, more mobile, eas- sliding another security-enforcing layer such as a hypervisor/VMM ier to back up, share, and archive entire OS environments. Many might prove too costly for the platform, software might inevitably variations on the theme of pure virtualization exist, from open- fall back to examining itself. We suggest that (1) such a fallback source CPU emulators like Bochs and QEMU through container- is inevitable for certain scenarios and so (2) it has to be done with based systems like User-mode Linux, OpenVZ, and Zap [31] to appropriate engineering principles and care to make it least ad hoc more commercial offerings like VMWare and VirtualPC (and their as possible. 1.2 Motivation: Detecting Malicious Compu- Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for tation With Little Performance Impact personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are Our motivation to examine the possibility of non-VM approaches not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies to software supervision, introspection, mediation, and isolation be- bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to gan with a consideration of how to implement anti-rootkit detection republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific capabilities on a range of low-power and low-resource embedded permission and/or a fee. NSPW’10, September 21–23, 2010, Concord, MA, USA. platforms (e.g., mobile phones, 802.11 access points, SCADA con- Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-4503-0415-3/10/09 ...$10.00. trollers). Such devices typically do not have the resources to run an entire VM infrastructure. Furthermore, as a practical matter, using so-called “personal firewalls”), despite their history of vulnerabili- currently available commercial or F/OSS VM technology entails si- ties, continue to be adopted. multaneously running and maintaining two operating systems, with Second, the study of instrumentation for certain classes of unde- all their attendant services, libraries, and software packages, the sirable events, even when undertaken in the presence of theoreti- locking down and constant patching of which presents a dramat- cally cleaner designs that would obviate the need for such instru- ically increased administrative burden compared with our design mentation, often shows the way toward more efficient and econom- (a relatively simple, self-contained kernel module that has but one ical designs. Practical OS security engineering offers an an im- task: monitoring a set of hooks, which we examine in more detail pressive gallery of ideas that started as “hacks” (OpenWall, PaX, in our technical reports [38, 37]). As explained below, in that sys- LIDS, BSD Jails and Linux VServer) and ended up informing in- tem we focus on computation rather than code. In particular, we dustrial solutions like ExecShield, GrSecurity hardening patches, focus on detecting violations of an observed, known invariant of LSM, SELinux, and AppArmour. the correct Linux kernel operation. Finally, although one could argue that the components necessary Rootkit programming Historically, rootkits and exploits tended to support VMMs now exist in commodity hardware, using these to be mistakenly associated with malicious, foreign code intro- capabilities entails warping legacy systems around them, i.e., either duced into the system; consequently, anti-rootkit efforts focused explicitly rewriting kernels (paravirtualization), or writing device on detecting a foreign body of code one way or another. This mis- emulation layers: a heavier proposition than instrumentation-based taken assumption has been challenged by original hacker research self-analysis. We next consider some additional shortcomings of publications [14, 51, 29, 16] that propose flexible exploit program- the VMM-based monitoring philosophy. ming techniques that involved no foreign code, and has hopefully been defeated for good by [44, 13], which made it clear to the aca- demic community that they were dealing with a Turing-complete 2. WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG WITH VIR- programming and execution model rather than an ad-hoc collection TUALIZATION? of obscure hacks. As organizations increase their adoption of virtualization envi- Hund et al. [22] have further generalized and applied this model ronments, and with the current industry focus on information se- to rootkit programming. They stress that the essence of a rootkit curity, it is natural to wonder just how a virtualization framework was not malicious code but rather malicious computation effected might pull double duty by improving a security posture as well as either exclusively or largely with the unanticipated use of existing, easing management burden and infrastructure costs. Of course, trusted code integral to the exploited system. merely running a virtualized environment does not automatically We note that the art of co-opting and re-using existing (and there- entail a guarantee of increased security. As we discuss below, even fore inherently more stable) code has been an established pattern of 1 the basic isolation properties of a VM framework are questionable; rootkit programming since its early days. In fact, we believe that it remains entirely unclear whether a VMM can get the job of iso- it would fair to speak of Rootkit Design Patterns, such as “context- lation (a job that OS designers and microkernel researchers have based hot patching”, “multi-layer interception”, and others [33, 48, grappled with for years) correct, especially in the absence of hard- 32], all dedicated to runtime manipulation of both live code and ware primitives for this purpose.2 We also agree with the sentiment live data while lowering the probability of a crash. expressed in recent work [6, 11, 24, 40, 17] (some of it our own) that current VM implementations actually use a flawed event trap- 1.3 Philosophy on Self-Monitoring and Same- ping framework that fails to capture events of natural and signifi- layer Attacks cant interest to security policies. Essentially, our previous work [38, 37] proposes an alternative to VM-based monitoring that uses a ring 0 technique for catching
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments
    NISTIR 8176 Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments Ramaswamy Chandramouli This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 NISTIR 8176 Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments Ramaswamy Chandramouli Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 October 2017 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology NISTIR 8176 SECURITY ASSURANCE FOR LINUX CONTAINERS National Institute of Standards and Technology Internal Report 8176 37 pages (October 2017) This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. This p There may be references in this publication to other publications currently under development by NIST in accordance with its assigned statutory responsibilities. The information in this publication, including concepts and methodologies, may be used by federal agencies even before the completion of such companion publications. Thus, until each ublication is available free of charge from: http publication is completed, current requirements, guidelines, and procedures, where they exist, remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new publications by NIST.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Kernel Exploits
    Writing kernel exploits Keegan McAllister January 27, 2012 Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits Why attack the kernel? Total control of the system Huge attack surface Subtle code with potential for fun bugs Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits Kernel security Kernel and user code coexist in memory Kernel integrity depends on a few processor features: Separate CPU modes for kernel and user code Well-defined transitions between these modes Kernel-only instructions and memory Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits User vs. kernel exploits Typical userspace exploit: Manipulate someone's buggy program, locally or remotely Payload runs in the context of that user Typical kernel exploit: Manipulate the local kernel using system calls Payload runs in kernel mode Goal: get root! Remote kernel exploits exist, but are much harder to write Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits Scope We'll focus on the Linux kernel and 32-bit x86 hardware. Most ideas will generalize. References are on the last slides. Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits Let's see some exploits! We'll look at Two toy examples Two real exploits in detail Some others in brief How to harden your kernel Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits NULL dereference Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits A simple kernel module Consider a simple Linux kernel module. It creates a file /proc/bug1. It defines what happens when someone writes to that file. Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits bug1.c void (*my_funptr)(void); int bug1_write(struct file *file, const char *buf, unsigned long len) { my_funptr(); return len; } int init_module(void){ create_proc_entry("bug1", 0666, 0) ->write_proc = bug1_write; return 0; } Keegan McAllister Writing kernel exploits The bug $ echo foo > /proc/bug1 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP Pid: 1316, comm: bash EIP is at 0x0 Call Trace : [<f81ad009>] ? bug1_write+0x9/0x10 [bug1] [<c10e90e5>] ? proc_file_write+0x50/0x62 ..
    [Show full text]
  • New Security Enhancements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux V.3, Update 3
    New Security Enhancements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux v.3, update 3 By Arjan van de Ven Abstract This whitepaper describes the new security features that have been added to update 3 of Red Hat Enterprise Linux v.3: ExecShield and support for NX technology. August 2004 Table of Contents Introduction 2 Types of Security Holes 2 Buffer Overflows 3 Countering Buffer Overflows 4 Randomization 6 Remaining Randomization: PIE Binaries 7 Compatibility 8 How Well Does it Work? 9 Future Work 10 ¢¡¤£¦¥¨§ © ¤ ¦ ¨¢ ¨ ! ¨! "¨ $#!© ¨%¦&¨¦ ¨! ¤' ¨¡(*)+¤-, ¡ ¡¤.!+ !£§ ¡¤%/ 01, © 02 ".§ + § ¨.)+.§ 3¦01¡.§4§ .© 02 .§ + § ¨.)+.§ 3¦01¡54¢! . !! !© 6¢'7.!"¡ .§.8¡.%¨¦ § © ¨0 #© %8&9© 0:§ ¨ ¨© 02 .§ ¨+ § ¨.)+¤§ 3;¡!54#!© %!0;<=¡.§ >!¨, ¨0 ¦?@BA$¨C.6B'ED8F ! Introduction The world of computer security has changed dramatically in the last few years. Network security used to be about one dedicated hacker trying to get into one government computer, but now it is often about automated mass attacks. The SQL Slammer and Code Red worms were the first wide-scale computer security incidents to get mainstream press coverage. Linux has had similar, less-invasive worms in the past, such as the Slapper worm of 2002. Another relatively new phenomenon is that compromised computers are primarily being used for other purposes, including sending spam or participating in Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attacks. A contributing factor to the mass-compromise problem is that a large portion1 of users and system administrators generally do not apply the security fixes that are provided by the operating system vendor. This leaves a significant number of vulnerable machines connected to the Internet at all times. Providing security updates after the fact, however, is not sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrity Checking for Process Hardening
    Integrity Checking For Process Hardening by Kyung-suk Lhee B.A. Korea University, 1991 Graduate Diploma, Griffith University, 1993 M.A. Boston University, 1995 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer and Information Science in the Graduate School of Syracuse University May 2005 Advisor: Professor Steve J. Chapin Abstract Computer intrusions can occur in various ways. Many of them occur by exploiting program flaws and system configuration errors. Existing solutions that detects specific kinds of flaws are substantially different from each other, so aggregate use of them may be incompatible and require substantial changes in the current system and computing practice. Intrusion detection systems may not be the answer either, because they are inherently inaccurate and susceptible to false positives/negatives. This dissertation presents a taxonomy of security flaws that classifies program vulnerabilities into finite number of error categories, and presents a security mechanism that can produce accurate solutions for many of these error categories in a modular fashion. To be accurate, a solution should closely match the characteristic of the target error category. To ensure this, we focus only on error categories whose characteristics can be defined in terms of a violation of process integrity. The thesis of this work is that the proposed approach produces accurate solutions for many error categories. To prove the accuracy of produced solutions, we define the process integrity checking approach and analyze its properties. To prove that this approach can cover many error categories, we develop a classification of program security flaws and find error characteristics (in terms of a process integrity) from many of these categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Austin Group
    Austin Group Status Update February 2006 http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group POSIX is a registered trademark o f The IEEE Summary q The Austin Group q JDOCS Procedures q Participation q Draft Development Methodology q Maintenance Procedures q Plenary Meeting Goals q Plenary Meeting Deliverables The Austin Group q The Austin Common Standards Revision Group q An open industry initiative to revise the core POSIX standard and the Single UNIX Specification; standards that lie at the heart of todays open systems q Chair and editors from The Open Group The Austin Group q Electronic participation q Participation in the group is free q Deliverables: § IEEE Std 1003.1 (POSIX.1) (incl former 1003.2) § The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 § ISO/IEC 9945 § (they are the same document!) About the Austin Group q 544 Participants (mailing list members as of February 2006) § Note the trend slightly downwards q Wide industry support, § AT&T, HP, IBM, Lucent, Microsoft, Red Hat, SGI, Siemens, Sun, § DoD, USENIX q Participation in the Austin Group from the Open Source community includes § The Linux Standard Base, NetBSD, FreeBSD, GNU and many others. Participation # of Members of the Austin Group Mailing List 600 580 580 558 544 475 09-98 451 04-99 401 07-99 375 01-00 351 360 05-00 301 09-00 251 03-01 245 05-01 201 01-02 175 151 01-03 101 126 01-04 76 01-05 51 02-06 1 17 JDOCS Procedures q The Austin Group operates under the JDOCS procedures q Procedures approved by the three organizations § IEEE PASC § The Open Group § ISO SC22 q Officers § Chair § Three organizational Reps (Ors) Original Objectives q To target the joint specification at the programmer / user rather than the system implementer q Organization based on the Core volumes of the Single UNIX Specification, organized alphabetically, and including Rationale q To produce a new standard in year 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Return-Oriented Rootkits: Bypassing Kernel Code Integrity Protection Mechanisms
    Return-Oriented Rootkits: Bypassing Kernel Code Integrity Protection Mechanisms Ralf Hund Thorsten Holz Felix C. Freiling Laboratory for Dependable Distributed Systems University of Mannheim, Germany [email protected], fholz,[email protected] Abstract In recent years, several mechanism to protect the in- tegrity of the kernel were introduced [6, 9, 15, 19, 22], Protecting the kernel of an operating system against at- as we now explain. The main idea behind all of these tacks, especially injection of malicious code, is an impor- approaches is that the memory of the kernel should be tant factor for implementing secure operating systems. protected against unauthorized injection of code, such as Several kernel integrity protection mechanism were pro- rootkits. Note that we focus in this work on kernel in- posed recently that all have a particular shortcoming: tegrity protection mechanisms and not on control-flow They cannot protect against attacks in which the attacker integrity [1, 7, 14, 18] or data-flow integrity [5] mech- re-uses existing code within the kernel to perform mali- anisms, which are orthogonal to the techniques we de- cious computations. In this paper, we present the design scribe in the following. and implementation of a system that fully automates the process of constructing instruction sequences that can be 1.1 Kernel Integrity Protection Mecha- used by an attacker for malicious computations. We eval- uate the system on different commodity operating sys- nisms tems and show the portability and universality of our Kernel Module Signing. Kernel module signing is a approach. Finally, we describe the implementation of a simple approach to achieve kernel code integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacewalk 2.4 for Oracle® Linux Client Life Cycle Management Guide
    Spacewalk 2.4 for Oracle® Linux Client Life Cycle Management Guide E71078-05 August 2017 Oracle Legal Notices Copyright © 2017, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This software and related documentation are provided under a license agreement containing restrictions on use and disclosure and are protected by intellectual property laws. Except as expressly permitted in your license agreement or allowed by law, you may not use, copy, reproduce, translate, broadcast, modify, license, transmit, distribute, exhibit, perform, publish, or display any part, in any form, or by any means. Reverse engineering, disassembly, or decompilation of this software, unless required by law for interoperability, is prohibited. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice and is not warranted to be error-free. If you find any errors, please report them to us in writing. If this is software or related documentation that is delivered to the U.S. Government or anyone licensing it on behalf of the U.S. Government, then the following notice is applicable: U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS: Oracle programs, including any operating system, integrated software, any programs installed on the hardware, and/or documentation, delivered to U.S. Government end users are "commercial computer software" pursuant to the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation and agency-specific supplemental regulations. As such, use, duplication, disclosure, modification, and adaptation of the programs, including any operating system, integrated software, any programs installed on the hardware, and/or documentation, shall be subject to license terms and license restrictions applicable to the programs. No other rights are granted to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Linux Exploit Mitigation
    Linux Exploit Mitigation Dobin Rutishauser V1.3, March 2016 Compass Security Schweiz AG Tel +41 55 214 41 60 Werkstrasse 20 Fax +41 55 214 41 61 Postfach 2038 [email protected] CH-8645 Jona www.csnc.ch About me At Compass Security since 2011 Spoke at OWASP Zürich, Bsides Vienna On the internet: www.broken.ch, www.haking.ch, www.r00ted.ch, phishing.help @dobinrutis github.com/dobin © Compass Security Schweiz AG www.csnc.ch Seite 2 About this presentation To understand exploit mitigations Need to understand exploit techniques I’ll lead you all the way, from zero In 45 minutes! © Compass Security Schweiz AG www.csnc.ch Seite 3 About this presentation Content of 8 hours for BFH It will get very technical Not possible to: Cover all the topics And be easy to understand And handle all the details This should give more of an … overview Don’t worry if you don’t understand everything © Compass Security Schweiz AG www.csnc.ch Seite 4 Overview of the presentation Compass Security Schweiz AG Tel +41 55 214 41 60 Werkstrasse 20 Fax +41 55 214 41 61 Postfach 2038 [email protected] CH-8645 Jona www.csnc.ch Overview 1. Memory Layout 2. Stack 3. Exploit Basics 4. Exploit Mitigation • DEP • Stack Protector • ASLR 5. Contemporary Exploiting 6. Hardening 7. Container 8. Kernel © Compass Security Schweiz AG www.csnc.ch Seite 6 Exploit Intention Attacker wants: Execute his own code on the server rm –rf / Connect-back shellcode echo “sysadmin:::” >> /etc/passwd © Compass Security Schweiz AG www.csnc.ch Seite 7 Exploit Requirements Attacker needs: Be able to upload code
    [Show full text]
  • Chrome OS Hardening
    Chrome OS Hardening http://outflux.net/slides/2012/bsides-pdx/chromeos.pdf Security B-Sides PDX 2012 Kees Cook <[email protected]> (pronounced "Case") Overview Overview ● Identifying the threat model ○ not the authenticated physically local user ● Doing what others do ○ common hardening strategies ● Doing what others will be doing ○ filling the gaps in common strategies ● Doing what others haven't done ○ Chrome OS is unique and so are our opportunities ● Testing ourselves ○ make sure this stuff actually works ● Seeing the future ○ what's next Identifying the threat model Identifying the threat model ● Malware ○ do not allow persistent control ● Theft ○ encrypt user and enterprise data ● Evil coffee shop patron ○ impose minimum physically local attack time ● Not the authenticated physically local user ○ developer mode Doing what others do Doing what others do ● Linux ○ TPM, GPT partitions, software auto-update ● Encryption ○ eCryptfs, dm-crypt ● Compiler hardening ○ stack-protector, FORTIFY_SOURCE, relro, bind- now, PIE ● Userspace hardening ○ RO/NX, ASLR, glibc runtime checks, namespaces, ptrace restrictions, link restrictions ● Kernel hardening ○ stack-protector, memory restriction, RO/NX, kptr_restrict Linux: TPM ● Key storage ● Entropy source ● Data "sealing" localhost ~ # tpm_version TPM 1.2 Version Info: Chip Version: 1.2.3.18 Spec Level: 2 Errata Revision: 2 TPM Vendor ID: IFX Vendor Specific data: 03120009 00 TPM Version: 01010000 Manufacturer Info: 49465800 localhost ~ # initctl stop tcsd tcsd stop/waiting localhost ~ # tpmc
    [Show full text]
  • Kguard: Lightweight Kernel Protection Against Return-To-User Attacks
    kGuard: Lightweight Kernel Protection against Return-to-user Attacks VasileiosP.Kemerlis GeorgiosPortokalidis AngelosD.Keromytis Network Security Lab Department of Computer Science Columbia University, New York, NY, USA {vpk, porto, angelos}@cs.columbia.edu Abstract Such return-to-user (ret2usr) attacks have affected all major OSs, including Windows [60], Linux [16, 18], Return-to-user (ret2usr) attacks exploit the operating sys- and FreeBSD [19, 59, 61], while they are not limited to tem kernel, enabling local users to hijack privileged ex- x86 systems [23], but have also targeted the ARM [30], ecution paths and execute arbitrary code with elevated DEC [31], and PowerPC [25] architectures. privileges. Current defenses have proven to be inade- There are numerous reasons to why attacks against the quate, as they have been repeatedly circumvented, in- kernel are becoming more common. First and foremost, cur considerable overhead, or rely on extended hypervi- processes running with administrative privileges have be- sors and special hardware features. We present kGuard, come harder to exploit due to the various defense mech- a compiler plugin that augments the kernel with com- anisms adopted by modern OSs [34,52]. Second, NULL pact inline guards, which prevent ret2usr with low per- pointer dereference errors had not received significant at- formance and space overhead. kGuard can be used with tention, until recently, exactly because they were thought any operating system that features a weak separation be- impractical and too difficult to exploit. In fact, 2009 has tween kernel and user space, requires no modifications been proclaimed, by some security researchers, as “the to the OS, and is applicable to both 32- and 64-bit ar- year of the kernel NULL pointer dereference flaw”[15].
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Intra-Kernel Isolation and Security with Iskios Spyridoula Gravani John Criswell Mohammad Hedayati Michael L
    Fast Intra-kernel Isolation and Security with IskiOS Spyridoula Gravani John Criswell Mohammad Hedayati Michael L. Scott {sgravani,hedayati}@cs.rochester.edu {criswell,scott}@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester University of Rochester ABSTRACT jeopardize the security of the entire system. To safeguard system The kernels of operating systems such as Windows, Linux, and integrity, control-flow integrity (CFI) enforcement [22, 31, 56, 66] MacOS are vulnerable to control-flow hijacking. Defenses exist, but ensures that only paths in an authorized control-flow graph are many require efficient intra-address-space isolation. Execute-only followed during execution [1]. At the same time, leakage-resilient memory, for example, requires read protection on code segments, diversification [4, 6, 21, 32, 33, 71] undermines the attacker’s knowl- and shadow stacks require protection from buffer overwrites. Intel’s edge of the code layout in memory, making successful exploitation Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU) could, in principle, provide more difficult. Both techniques must efficiently isolate memory the intra-kernel isolation needed by such defenses, but, when used within the OS kernel. CFI must protect the integrity of return ad- as designed, it applies only to user-mode application code. dresses on the stack [8, 10, 10, 17, 30, 34]; diversification must This paper presents an unconventional approach to memory pro- prevent attackers from learning the layout of kernel code—e.g., by tection, allowing PKU to be used within the operating system kernel leveraging buffer overreads [78, 79]. on existing Intel hardware, replacing the traditional user/supervisor Existing intra-kernel isolation mechanisms generally rely on isolation mechanism and, simultaneously, enabling efficient intra- software fault isolation (SFI) [76, 86], adding bounds checks to mem- kernel isolation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardened Kernels for Everyone
    Hardened kernels for everyone Yves-Alexis Perez Kernel Recipes 2015 corsac⊕corsac.net Hardened kernels Kernel Recipes 2015 1 / 32 Introduction Who am I? Yves-Alexis Perez I Head of hardware and software security lab, ANSSI I platform security (x86 mainly, also ARM) I focus on operating systems and underlying layers (chipset/SoC, PCI Express bus, devices) I Debian developer I maintainer for Xfce desktop environment and strongSwan IKE daemon I security team member I maintainer of unofficial linux-grsec package corsac⊕corsac.net Hardened kernels Kernel Recipes 2015 2 / 32 Introduction Context This talk is not I a detailed list of grsecurity benefits This talk is about I kernel security I kernel hardening I Debian distribution (and derivatives) And especially integration of all these in something suitable for end-users corsac⊕corsac.net Hardened kernels Kernel Recipes 2015 3 / 32 Kernel security The need for kernel security I kernel knows everything (Michaël Kerrisk) I kernel runs CPU in ring0 (supervisor) mode I kernel handles security for userspace: DAC Discretionary access control MAC Mandatory access control Namespace process separation IPsec network traffic encryption dm-crypt disk encryption … corsac⊕corsac.net Hardened kernels Kernel Recipes 2015 4 / 32 Kernel security Kernel security often limited to fixing security bugs Usually: kernel security bug => local privilege escalation I most of the time (see Android rooting) I not always the case Fixing security bugs I preferably before they’re exploited in the wild I sometimes after This is
    [Show full text]