CS155: Computer Security

Isolation

The confinement
principle
Dan Boneh
 Running untrusted code
We often need to run buggy/unstrusted code:
– programs from untrusted Internet sites:
• apps, extensions, plug-ins, codecs for media player

– exposed applications: pdf viewers, outlook

– legacy daemons: sendmail, bind

– honeypots

Goal: if application “misbehaves” ⇒ kill it

Dan Boneh
 Approach: confinement
Confinement: ensure misbehaving app cannot harm rest of system
Can be implemented at many levels:
– Hardware: run application on isolated hw (air gap)

app 1 app 2

Network 2 air gap network 1

⇒ difficult to manage
Dan Boneh
 Approach: confinement
Confinement: ensure misbehaving app cannot harm rest of system
Can be implemented at many levels:
– Virtual machines: isolate OS’s on a single machine

app1 app2
OS1 OS2

Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM)

Dan Boneh
 Approach: confinement
Confinement: ensure misbehaving app cannot harm rest of system
Can be implemented at many levels:
– Process: System Call Interposition
Isolate a process in a single operating system

process 1
process 2

Operating System
Dan Boneh
 Approach: confinement
Confinement: ensure misbehaving app cannot harm rest of system
Can be implemented at many levels:
– Threads: Software Fault Isolation (SFI)
• Isolating threads sharing same address space

– Application: e.g. browser-based confinement

Dan Boneh
 Implementing confinement
Key component: reference monitor
– Mediates requests from applications
• Implements protection policy
• Enforces isolation and confinement
– Must always be invoked:
• Every application request must be mediated
– Tamperproof:
• Reference monitor cannot be killed
• … or if killed, then monitored process is killed too
– Small enough to be analyzed and validated
Dan Boneh
 A old example: chroot
Often used for “guest” accounts on ftp sites

To use do: (must be root)

chroot /tmp/guest root dir “/” is now “/tmp/guest”

su guest EUID set to “guest”

Now “/tmp/guest” is added to file system accesses for applications in jail

open(“/etc/passwd”, “r”) 
open(“/tmp/guest/etc/passwd” , “r”)

Þ application cannot access files outside of jail Dan Boneh

 Jailkit
Problem: all utility progs (ls, ps, vi) must live inside jail

• jailkit project: auto builds files, libs, and dirs needed in jail env
• jk_init: creates jail environment
• jk_check: checks jail env for security problems
• checks for any modified programs,
• checks for world writable directories, etc.
• jk_lsh: restricted shell to be used inside jail

• note: simple chroot jail does not limit network access

Dan Boneh
 Escaping from jails
Early escapes: relative paths

open( “../../etc/passwd”, “r”) 

open(“/tmp/guest/../../etc/passwd”, “r”)

chroot should only be executable by root.

– otherwise jailed app can do:
• create dummy file “/aaa/etc/passwd”
• run chroot “/aaa”
• run su root to become root (bug in Ultrix 4.0)
Dan Boneh
Many ways to escape jail as root
• Create device that lets you access raw disk

• Send signals to non chrooted process

• Reboot system

• Bind to privileged ports

Dan Boneh
 Freebsd jail
Stronger mechanism than simple chroot

To run: jail jail-path hostname IP-addr cmd

– calls hardened chroot (no “../../” escape)
– can only bind to sockets with specified IP address
and authorized ports
– can only communicate with processes inside jail
– root is limited, e.g. cannot load kernel modules
Dan Boneh
 Not all programs can run in a jail
Programs that can run in jail:
• audio player
• web server

Programs that cannot:

• web browser
• mail client

Dan Boneh
 Problems with chroot and jail
Coarse policies:
– All or nothing access to parts of file system
– Inappropriate for apps like a web browser
• Needs read access to files outside jail
(e.g. for sending attachments in Gmail)

Does not prevent malicious apps from:

– Accessing network and messing with other machines
– Trying to crash host OS
Dan Boneh
Isolation

System Call
Interposition
Dan Boneh
 System call interposition
Observation: to damage host system (e.g. persistent changes)
app must make system calls:
– To delete/overwrite files: unlink, open, write
– To do network attacks: socket, bind, connect, send

Idea: monitor app’s system calls and block unauthorized calls

Implementation options:
– Completely kernel space (e.g. GSWTK)
– Completely user space (e.g. program shepherding)
– Hybrid (e.g. Systrace)
Dan Boneh
 Initial implementation (Janus) [GWTB’96]

Linux ptrace: process tracing

process calls: ptrace (… , pid_t pid , …)
and wakes up when pid makes sys call.
user space
monitored
application monitor
(browser)

open(“/etc/passwd”, “r”)

OS Kernel
Monitor kills application if request is disallowed
Dan Boneh
 Complications cd(“/tmp”)
open(“passwd”, “r”)
• If app forks, monitor must also fork
– forked monitor monitors forked app cd(“/etc”)
open(“passwd”, “r”)

• If monitor crashes, app must be killed

• Monitor must maintain all OS state associated with app

– current-working-dir (CWD), UID, EUID, GID
– When app does “cd path” monitor must update its CWD
• otherwise: relative path requests interpreted incorrectly
Dan Boneh
 Problems with ptrace
Ptrace is not well suited for this application:
– Trace all system calls or none
inefficient: no need to trace “close” system call
– Monitor cannot abort sys-call without killing app

Security problems: race conditions

– Example: symlink: me ⟶ mydata.dat
proc 1: open(“me”)
time

monitor checks and authorizes

proc 2: me ⟶ /etc/passwd not atomic
OS executes open(“me”)

Classic TOCTOU bug: time-of-check / time-of-use Dan Boneh

Alternate design: systrace [P’02]
user space
monitored
application monitor policy file
(browser) for app
open(“etc/passwd”, “r”)

sys-call systrace
gateway
permit/deny OS Kernel
• systrace only forwards monitored sys-calls to monitor (efficiency)

• systrace resolves sym-links and replaces sys-call

path arguments by full path to target
• When app calls execve, monitor loads new policy file Dan Boneh
 Ostia: a delegation architecture [GPR’04]

Previous designs use filtering:

• Filter examines sys-calls and decides whether to block
• Difficulty with syncing state between app and monitor (CWD, UID, ..)
– Incorrect syncing results in security vulnerabilities (e.g. disallowed file opened)

A delegation architecture:
user space
monitored
agent
application policy file
open(“etc/passwd”, “r”) for app

OS Kernel Dan Boneh

 Ostia: a delegation architecture [GPR’04]

• Monitored app disallowed from making monitored sys calls

– Minimal kernel change (… but app can call close() itself )

• Sys-call delegated to an agent that decides if call is allowed

– Can be done without changing app
(requires an emulation layer in monitored process)

• Incorrect state syncing will not result in policy violation

• What should agent do when app calls execve?

– Process can make the call directly. Agent loads new policy file.
Dan Boneh
 Policy
Sample policy file:
path allow /tmp/*
path deny /etc/passwd
network deny all

Manually specifying policy for an app can be difficult:

– Systrace can auto-generate policy by learning how app
behaves on “good” inputs
– If policy does not cover a specific sys-call, ask user
… but user has no way to decide

Difficulty with choosing policy for specific apps (e.g. browser) is

the main reason this approach is not widely used Dan Boneh
 NaCl: a modern day example
Browser game
NPAPI
HTML
JavaScript
NaCl runtime

• game: untrusted x86 code

• Two sandboxes:
– outer sandbox: restricts capabilities using system call interposition

– Inner sandbox: uses x86 memory segmentation to isolate

application memory among apps Dan Boneh
 Isolation

Isolation via
Virtual Machines

Dan Boneh
 Virtual Machines
VM2 VM1
Apps Apps

Guest OS 2 Guest OS 1
Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM)
Host OS
Hardware
Example: NSA NetTop
single HW platform used for both classified and unclassified data
Dan Boneh
 Why so popular now?
VMs in the 1960’s:
– Few computers, lots of users
– VMs allow many users to shares a single computer

VMs 1970’s – 2000: non-existent

VMs since 2000:
– Too many computers, too few users
• Print server, Mail server, Web server, File server, Database , …
– Wasteful to run each service on different hardware
– More generally: VMs heavily used in cloud computing
Dan Boneh
 VMM security assumption
VMM Security assumption:
– Malware can infect guest OS and guest apps
– But malware cannot escape from the infected V M
• Cannot infect host OS
• Cannot infect other VMs on the same hardware

Requires that VMM protect itself and is not buggy

– VMM is much simpler than full OS
… but device drivers run in Host OS Dan Boneh
 Problem: covert channels
• Covert channel: unintended communication channel
between isolated components
– Can be used to leak classified data from secure
component to public component

Classified VM Public VM
secret covert
malware

doc listener
channel

VMM
Dan Boneh
 An example covert channel
Both VMs use the same underlying hardware

To send a bit b  {0,1} malware does:

– b= 1: at 1:00am do CPU intensive calculation
– b= 0: at 1:00am do nothing

At 1:00am listener does CPU intensive calc. and measures completion time
b=1  completion-time > threshold

Many covert channels exist in running system:

– File lock status, cache contents, interrupts, …
– Difficult to eliminate all
Dan Boneh
Suppose the system in question has two CPUs: the classified VM
runs on one and the public VM runs on the other.
Is there a covert channel between the VMs?

There are covert channels, for example, based on the

time needed to read from main memory

Dan Boneh
VMM Introspection: [GR’03]

protecting the anti-virus system

Dan Boneh
 Intrusion Detection / Anti-virus
Runs as part of OS kernel and user space process
– Kernel root kit can shutdown protection system
– Common practice for modern malware

Standard solution: run IDS system in the network

– Problem: insufficient visibility into user’s machine

Better: run IDS as part of VMM (protected from malware)

– VMM can monitor virtual hardware for anomalies
– VMI: Virtual Machine Introspection
• Allows VMM to check Guest OS internals Dan Boneh
 Infected VM

malware Guest OS

IDS VMM

Hardware

Dan Boneh
 Sample checks
Stealth root-kit malware:
– Creates processes that are invisible to “ps”
– Opens sockets that are invisible to “netstat”

1. Lie detector check

– Goal: detect stealth malware that hides processes
and network activity
– Method:
• VMM lists processes running in GuestOS
• VMM requests GuestOS to list processes (e.g. ps)
• If mismatch: kill VM
Dan Boneh
 Sample checks
2. Application code integrity detector
– VMM computes hash of user app code running in VM
– Compare to whitelist of hashes
• Kills VM if unknown program appears

3. Ensure GuestOS kernel integrity

– example: detect changes to sys_call_table

4. Virus signature detector

– Run virus signature detector on GuestOS memory

Dan Boneh
Isolation

Subvirting VM
Isolation
Dan Boneh
 Subvirt [King et al. 2006]

Virus idea:
– Once on victim machine, install a malicious VMM
– Virus hides in VMM
– Invisible to virus detector running inside VM

anti-virus
anti-virus

 OS
OS VMM and virus
HW HW
Dan Boneh
The MATRIX

Dan Boneh
Dan Boneh
 VM Based Malware (blue pill virus)
• VMBR: a virus that installs a malicious VMM (hypervisor)

• Microsoft Security Bulletin: (Oct, 2006)

– Suggests disabling hardware virtualization features
by default for client-side systems

• But VMBRs are easy to defeat

– A guest OS can detect that it is running on top of VMM

Dan Boneh
 VMM Detection
Can an OS detect it is running on top of a VMM?
Applications:
– Virus detector can detect VMBR
– Normal virus (non-VMBR) can detect VMM
• refuse to run to avoid reverse engineering
– Software that binds to hardware (e.g. MS Windows) can
refuse to run on top of VMM
– DRM systems may refuse to run on top of VMM
Dan Boneh
 VMM detection (red pill techniques)
• VM platforms often emulate simple hardware
– VMWare emulates an ancient i440bx chipset
… but report 8GB RAM, dual CPUs, etc.

• VMM introduces time latency variances

– Memory cache behavior differs in presence of VMM
– Results in relative time variations for any two operations
• VMM shares the TLB with GuestOS
– GuestOS can detect reduced TLB size

• … and many more methods [GAWF’07]

Dan Boneh
 VMM Detection
Bottom line: The perfect VMM does not exist

VMMs today (e.g. VMWare) focus on:

Compatibility: ensure off the shelf software works
Performance: minimize virtualization overhead

• VMMs do not provide transparency

– Anomalies reveal existence of VMM

Dan Boneh
Isolation

Software Fault
Isolation
Dan Boneh
 Software Fault Isolation [Whabe et al., 1993]

Goal: confine apps running in same address space

– Codec code should not interfere with media player
– Device drivers should not corrupt kernel

Simple solution: runs apps in separate address spaces

– Problem: slow if apps communicate frequently
• requires context switch per message

Dan Boneh
 Software Fault Isolation
SFI approach:
– Partition process memory into segments

code data code data

segment segment segment segment

app #1 app #2

• Locate unsafe instructions: jmp, load, store

– At compile time, add guards before unsafe instructions
Dan Boneh
 Segment matching technique
• Designed for MIPS processor. Many registers available.
Guard ensures code does not
• dr1, dr2: dedicated registers not used by binary
– compiler pretendsload
thesedata fromdon’t
registers another
exist segment
– dr2 contains segment ID
• Indirect load instruction R12  [R34] becomes:
dr1  R34
scratch-reg  (dr1 >> 20) : get segment ID
compare scratch-reg and dr2 : validate seg. ID
trap if not equal
R12  [dr1] : do load
Dan Boneh
 Address sandboxing technique
• dr2: holds segment ID
• Indirect load instruction R12  [R34] becomes:
dr1  R34 & segment-mask : zero out seg bits
dr1  dr1 | dr2 : set valid seg ID
R12  [dr1] : do load

• Fewer instructions than segment matching

… but does not catch offending instructions
• Similar guards places on all unsafe instructions
Dan Boneh
Problem: what if jmp [addr] jumps directly into indirect load?
(bypassing guard)

Solution:

jmp guard must ensure [addr] does not bypass load guard

Dan Boneh
 Cross domain calls
caller callee
domain domain
call stub draw:
call draw

return

br addr br addr
br addr ret stub br addr
br addr br addr
• Only stubs allowed to make cross-domain jumps
• Jump table contains allowed exit points
– Addresses are hard coded, read-only segment
Dan Boneh
 SFI Summary
• Shared memory: use virtual memory hardware
– map same physical page to two segments in addr space

• Performance
– Usually good: mpeg_play, 4% slowdown

• Limitations of SFI: harder to implement on x86 :

– variable length instructions: unclear where to put guards
– few registers: can’t dedicate three to SFI
– many instructions affect memory: more guards needed
Dan Boneh
 Isolation: summary
• Many sandboxing techniques:
Physical air gap, Virtual air gap (VMMs),
System call interposition, Software Fault isolation
Application specific (e.g. Javascript in browser)

• Often complete isolation is inappropriate

– Apps need to communicate through regulated interfaces

• Hardest aspects of sandboxing:

– Specifying policy: what can apps do and not do
– Preventing covert channels
Dan Boneh
THE END

Dan Boneh