-
Software Ethology: An Accurate, Resilient, and Cross-Architecture Binary Analysis Framework
Authors:
Derrick McKee,
Nathan Burow,
Mathias Payer
Abstract:
When reverse engineering a binary, the analyst must first understand the semantics of the binary's functions through either manual or automatic analysis. Manual semantic analysis is time-consuming, because abstractions provided by high level languages, such as type information, variable scope, or comments are lost, and past analyses cannot apply to the current analysis task. Existing automated bin…
▽ More
When reverse engineering a binary, the analyst must first understand the semantics of the binary's functions through either manual or automatic analysis. Manual semantic analysis is time-consuming, because abstractions provided by high level languages, such as type information, variable scope, or comments are lost, and past analyses cannot apply to the current analysis task. Existing automated binary analysis tools currently suffer from low accuracy in determining semantic function identification in the presence of diverse compilation environments.
We introduce Software Ethology, a binary analysis approach for determining the semantic similarity of functions. Software Ethology abstracts semantic behavior as classification vectors of program state changes resulting from a function executing with a specified input state, and uses these vectors as a unique fingerprint for identification. All existing semantic identifiers determine function similarity via code measurements, and suffer from high inaccuracy when classifying functions from compilation environments different from their ground truth source. Since Software Ethology does not rely on code measurements, its accuracy is resilient to changes in compiler, compiler version, optimization level, or even different source implementing equivalent functionality.
Tinbergen, our prototype Software Ethology implementation, leverages a virtual execution environment and a fuzzer to generate the classification vectors. In evaluating Tinbergen's feasibility as a semantic function identifier by identifying functions in coreutils-8.30, we achieve a high .805 average accuracy. Compared to the state-of-the-art, Tinbergen is 1.5 orders of magnitude faster when training, 50% faster in answering queries, and, when identifying functions in binaries generated from differing compilation environments, is 30%-61% more accurate.
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2020; v1 submitted 7 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Shining Light On Shadow Stacks
Authors:
Nathan Burow,
Xinping Zhang,
Mathias Payer
Abstract:
Control-Flow Hijacking attacks are the dominant attack vector against C/C++ programs. Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) solutions mitigate these attacks on the forward edge,i.e., indirect calls through function pointers and virtual calls. Protecting the backward edge is left to stack canaries, which are easily bypassed through information leaks. Shadow Stacks are a fully precise mechanism for protectin…
▽ More
Control-Flow Hijacking attacks are the dominant attack vector against C/C++ programs. Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) solutions mitigate these attacks on the forward edge,i.e., indirect calls through function pointers and virtual calls. Protecting the backward edge is left to stack canaries, which are easily bypassed through information leaks. Shadow Stacks are a fully precise mechanism for protecting backwards edges, and should be deployed with CFI mitigations. We present a comprehensive analysis of all possible shadow stack mechanisms along three axes: performance, compatibility, and security. For performance comparisons we use SPEC CPU2006, while security and compatibility are qualitatively analyzed. Based on our study, we renew calls for a shadow stack design that leverages a dedicated register, resulting in low performance overhead, and minimal memory overhead, but sacrifices compatibility. We present case studies of our implementation of such a design, Shadesmar, on Phoronix and Apache to demonstrate the feasibility of dedicating a general purpose register to a security monitor on modern architectures, and the deployability of Shadesmar. Our comprehensive analysis, including detailed case studies for our novel design, allows compiler designers and practitioners to select the correct shadow stack design for different usage scenarios.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2019; v1 submitted 7 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
-
CUP: Comprehensive User-Space Protection for C/C++
Authors:
Nathan Burow,
Derrick McKee,
Scott A. Carr,
Mathias Payer
Abstract:
Memory corruption vulnerabilities in C/C++ applications enable attackers to execute code, change data, and leak information. Current memory sanitizers do no provide comprehensive coverage of a program's data. In particular, existing tools focus primarily on heap allocations with limited support for stack allocations and globals. Additionally, existing tools focus on the main executable with limite…
▽ More
Memory corruption vulnerabilities in C/C++ applications enable attackers to execute code, change data, and leak information. Current memory sanitizers do no provide comprehensive coverage of a program's data. In particular, existing tools focus primarily on heap allocations with limited support for stack allocations and globals. Additionally, existing tools focus on the main executable with limited support for system libraries. Further, they suffer from both false positives and false negatives.
We present Comprehensive User-Space Protection for C/C++, CUP, an LLVM sanitizer that provides complete spatial and probabilistic temporal memory safety for C/C++ program on 64-bit architectures (with a prototype implementation for x86_64). CUP uses a hybrid metadata scheme that supports all program data including globals, heap, or stack and maintains the ABI. Compared to existing approaches with the NIST Juliet test suite, CUP reduces false negatives by 10x (0.1%) compared to the state of the art LLVM sanitizers, and produces no false positives. CUP instruments all user-space code, including libc and other system libraries, removing them from the trusted code base.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2017;
originally announced April 2017.
-
Control-Flow Integrity: Precision, Security, and Performance
Authors:
Nathan Burow,
Scott A. Carr,
Joseph Nash,
Per Larsen,
Michael Franz,
Stefan Brunthaler,
Mathias Payer
Abstract:
Memory corruption errors in C/C++ programs remain the most common source of security vulnerabilities in today's systems. Control-flow hijacking attacks exploit memory corruption vulnerabilities to divert program execution away from the intended control flow. Researchers have spent more than a decade studying and refining defenses based on Control-Flow Integrity (CFI), and this technique is now int…
▽ More
Memory corruption errors in C/C++ programs remain the most common source of security vulnerabilities in today's systems. Control-flow hijacking attacks exploit memory corruption vulnerabilities to divert program execution away from the intended control flow. Researchers have spent more than a decade studying and refining defenses based on Control-Flow Integrity (CFI), and this technique is now integrated into several production compilers. However, so far no study has systematically compared the various proposed CFI mechanisms, nor is there any protocol on how to compare such mechanisms.
We compare a broad range of CFI mechanisms using a unified nomenclature based on (i) a qualitative discussion of the conceptual security guarantees, (ii) a quantitative security evaluation, and (iii) an empirical evaluation of their performance in the same test environment. For each mechanism, we evaluate (i) protected types of control-flow transfers, (ii) the precision of the protection for forward and backward edges. For open-source compiler-based implementations, we additionally evaluate (iii) the generated equivalence classes and target sets, and (iv) the runtime performance.
△ Less
Submitted 27 January, 2017; v1 submitted 12 February, 2016;
originally announced February 2016.
