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.
