Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1030083.1030124acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

On the effectiveness of address-space randomization

Published: 25 October 2004 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Address-space randomization is a technique used to fortify systems against buffer overflow attacks. The idea is to introduce artificial diversity by randomizing the memory location of certain system components. This mechanism is available for both Linux (via PaX ASLR) and OpenBSD. We study the effectiveness of address-space randomization and find that its utility on 32-bit architectures is limited by the number of bits available for address randomization. In particular, we demonstrate a <i>derandomization attack</i> that will convert any standard buffer-overflow exploit into an exploit that works against systems protected by address-space randomization. The resulting exploit is as effective as the original exploit, although it takes a little longer to compromise a target machine: on average 216 seconds to compromise Apache running on a Linux PaX ASLR system. The attack does not require running code on the stack.
    We also explore various ways of strengthening address-space randomization and point out weaknesses in each. Surprisingly, increasing the frequency of re-randomizations adds at most 1 bit of security. Furthermore, compile-time randomization appears to be more effective than runtime randomization. We conclude that, on 32-bit architectures, the only benefit of PaX-like address-space randomization is a small slowdown in worm propagation speed. The cost of randomization is extra complexity in system support.

    References

    [1]
    Aleph One. Smashing the stack for fun and profit. Phrack Magazine 49(14), Nov. 1996. http://www.phrack.org/phrack/49/P49-14]]
    [2]
    Anonymous. Once upon a free(). Phrack Magazine 57(9), Aug. 2001. http://www.phrack.org/phrack/57/p57-0x09]]
    [3]
    Apache Software Foundation. The Apache HTTP Server project. http://httpd.apache.org]]
    [4]
    Apache Software Foundation. ASF bulletin 20020617, June 2002. http://httpd.apache.org/info/security_bulletin_20020617.txt]]
    [5]
    Apache Software Foundation.ASF bulletin 20020620, June 2002. http://httpd.apache.org/info/security_bulletin_20020620.txt]]
    [6]
    E. G. Barrantes, D. H. Ackley, T. S. Palmer, D. Stefanovic, and D. D. Zovi. Randomized instruction set emulation to disrupt binary code injection attacks. In Proc. 10th ACM Conf. Comp. and Comm. Sec. CCS 2003. pages 281--9. ACM Press, Oct. 2003.]]
    [7]
    S. Bhatkar, D. DuVarney, and R. Sekar. Address obfuscation: An efficient approach to combat a broad range of memory error exploits. In V. Paxson, editor, Proc. 12th USENIX Sec. Symp., pages 105--20. USENIX, Aug. 2003.]]
    [8]
    Bulba and Kil3r. Bypassing StackGuard and StackShield. Phrack Magazine 56(5), May 2000. http://www.phrack.org/phrack/56/p56-0x05]]
    [9]
    CERT, June 2002. http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-17.html]]
    [10]
    CERT. CERT advisory CA-2002-08: Multiple vulnerabilities in Oracle servers, Mar. 2002. http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-08.html]]
    [11]
    CERT. CERT advisory CA-2003-04: MS-SQLServer worm, Jan. 2003. http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-04.html]]
    [12]
    J. S. Chase, H. M. Levy, M. Baker-Harvey, and E. D. Lazowska. How to use a 64-bit address space. Technical Report 92-03-02, University of Washington, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, March 1992.]]
    [13]
    C. Cowan, S. Beattie, J. Johansen, and P. Wagle. PointGuard: Protecting pointers from buffer over flow vulnerabilities. In V. Paxson, editor, Proc. 12th USENIX Sec. Symp., pages 91--104. USENIX, Aug. 2003.]]
    [14]
    C. Cowan, C. Pu, D. Maier, H. Hinton, P. Bakke, S. Beattie, A. Grier, P. Wagle, and Q. Zhang. StackGuard: Automatic detection and prevention of buffer-overflow attacks. In A. Rubin, editor, Proc. 7th USENIX Sec. Symp., pages 63--78. USENIX, Jan. 1998.]]
    [15]
    T. Durden. Bypassing PaX ASLR protect on. Phrack Magazine 59(9),June 2002. http://www.phrack.org/phrack/59/p59-0x09]]
    [16]
    H. Etoh and K. Yoda. ProPolice: Improved stack-smashing attack detect on. IPSJ SIGNotes Computer SECurity 014(025), Oct.2001. http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp]]
    [17]
    FedCIRC. BotNets: Detect on and mitigation, Feb. 2003. http://www.fedcirc.gov/library/documents/botNetsv32.doc]]
    [18]
    S. Forrest, A. Somayaji, and D. Ackley. Building diverse computer systems. In J. Mogul, editor, Proc. 6th Work. Hot Topics in Operating Sys. HotOS 1997. pages 67--72. IEEE Computer Society, May 1997.]]
    [19]
    D. Geer, R. Bace, P. Gutmann, P. Metzger, C. Pfleeger, J. Quarterman, and B. Schneier. Cybersecurity: The cost of monopoly--how the dominance of Microsoft 's products poses a risk to security. Technical report, Comp. and Comm. Ind. Assn., 2003.]]
    [20]
    M. Kaempf. Vudo malloc tricks. Phrack Magazine 57(8), Aug. 2001. http://www.phrack.org/phrack/57/p57-0x08]]
    [21]
    G. S. Kc, A. D. Keromytis, and V. Prevelakis. Countering code-injection attacks with instruction-set randomization. In Proc. 10th ACM Conf. Comp. and Comm. Sec., pages 272--80. ACM Press, Oct. 2003.]]
    [22]
    D. Litchfield. Hackproofing Oracle Application Server, Jan. 2002. http://www.nextgenss.com/papers/hpoas.pdf]]
    [23]
    L. McLaughlin. Bot software spreads, causes new worries. IEEE Distributed Systems Online 5(6), June 2004. http://csdl.computer.org/comp/mags/ds/2004/06/o6001.pdf]]
    [24]
    Nergal. The advanced return-nto-lib(c)exploits (PaX case study). Phrack Magazine 58(4), Dec. 2001. http://www.phrack.org/phrack/58/p58-0x04]]
    [25]
    D. Patterson. A simple way to estimate the cost of downtime. In A. Couch, edtor, Proc. 16th Systems Administration Conf. --LISA 2002 pages 185--8. USENIX, Nov. 2002.]]
    [26]
    PaX Team. PaX. http://pax.grsecurity.net]]
    [27]
    PaX Team. PaX address space layout randomization (ASLR). http://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/aslr.txt]]
    [28]
    Scut/team teso. Exploiting format string vulnerabilities. http://www.team-teso.net 2001.]]
    [29]
    Solar Designer. StackPatch. http://www.openwall.com/linux]]
    [30]
    Solar Designer."return-to-libc" attack. Bugtraq, Aug. 1997.]]
    [31]
    S. Staniford, V. Paxson, and N. Weaver. How to own the Internet in your spare time. In D. Boneh, editor, Proc. 11th USENIX Sec. Symp., pages 149--67. USENIX, Aug. 2002.]]
    [32]
    Vendicator. StackShield. http://www.angelfire.com/sk/stackshield]]
    [33]
    J. Xu, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. Iyer. Transparent runtime randomization for security. In A. Fantechi, editor, Proc. 22nd Symp. on Reliable Distributed Systems --SRDS 2003 pages 260--9. IEEE Computer Society, Oct. 2003.]]
    [34]
    C. Yarvin, R. Bukowski, and T. Anderson. Anonymous RPC: Low-latency protection in a 64-bit address space. In Proc. USENIX Summer 1993 Technical Conf., pages 175--86. USENIX, June 1993.]]
    [35]
    M. Zalewski. Remote vulnerability in SSH daemon CRC32 compression attack detector, Feb. 2001. http://www.bindview.com/Support/RAZOR/Advisories/2001/adv_ssh1crc.cfm]]

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Object-oriented Unified Encrypted Memory Management for Heterogeneous Memory ArchitecturesProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549582:3(1-29)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
    • (2024)DROPSYS: Detection of ROP attacks using system informationComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.103813(103813)Online publication date: Mar-2024
    • (2024)Buffer Overflow AttacksEncyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy10.1007/978-3-642-27739-9_502-2(1-4)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. On the effectiveness of address-space randomization

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CCS '04: Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
      October 2004
      376 pages
      ISBN:1581139616
      DOI:10.1145/1030083
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed 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 must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 25 October 2004

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. address-space randomization
      2. automated attacks
      3. diversity

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Conference

      CCS04
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,261 of 6,999 submissions, 18%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)242
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Object-oriented Unified Encrypted Memory Management for Heterogeneous Memory ArchitecturesProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549582:3(1-29)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
      • (2024)DROPSYS: Detection of ROP attacks using system informationComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.103813(103813)Online publication date: Mar-2024
      • (2024)Buffer Overflow AttacksEncyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy10.1007/978-3-642-27739-9_502-2(1-4)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2024
      • (2023)Protection Mechanism of Kernel Data Using Memory Protection KeyIEICE Transactions on Information and Systems10.1587/transinf.2022ICP0013E106.D:9(1326-1338)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2023
      • (2023)Remote attestation of confidential VMs using ephemeral vTPMsProceedings of the 39th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference10.1145/3627106.3627112(732-743)Online publication date: 4-Dec-2023
      • (2023)FAEG: Feature-Driven Automatic Exploit GenerationProceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware10.1145/3609437.3609461(165-173)Online publication date: 4-Aug-2023
      • (2023)Survey on Architectural Attacks: A Unified Classification and Attack ModelACM Computing Surveys10.1145/360480356:2(1-32)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2023
      • (2023)Multiclass Classification of Software Vulnerabilities with Deep LearningProceedings of the 2023 15th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computing10.1145/3587716.3587738(134-140)Online publication date: 17-Feb-2023
      • (2023)ThreadLock: Native Principal Isolation Through Memory Protection KeysProceedings of the 2023 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3579856.3595797(966-979)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2023
      • (2023)Decker: Attack Surface Reduction via On-Demand Code MappingProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 210.1145/3575693.3575734(192-206)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2023
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media