Topic
Address space layout randomization
About: Address space layout randomization is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 162 publications have been published within this topic receiving 14829 citations. The topic is also known as: ASLR.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
Proceedings Article•
26 Jan 1998TL;DR: StackGuard is described: a simple compiler technique that virtually eliminates buffer overflow vulnerabilities with only modest performance penalties, and a set of variations on the technique that trade-off between penetration resistance and performance.
Abstract: This paper presents a systematic solution to the persistent problem of buffer overflow attacks. Buffer overflow attacks gained notoriety in 1988 as part of the Morris Worm incident on the Internet. While it is fairly simple to fix individual buffer overflow vulnerabilities, buffer overflow attacks continue to this day. Hundreds of attacks have been discovered, and while most of the obvious vulnerabilities have now been patched, more sophisticated buffer overflow attacks continue to emerge.
We describe StackGuard: a simple compiler technique that virtually eliminates buffer overflow vulnerabilities with only modest performance penalties. Privileged programs that are recompiled with the StackGuard compiler extension no longer yield control to the attacker, but rather enter a fail-safe state. These programs require no source code changes at all, and are binary-compatible with existing operating systems and libraries. We describe the compiler technique (a simple patch to gcc), as well as a set of variations on the technique that trade-off between penetration resistance and performance. We present experimental results of both the penetration resistance and the performance impact of this technique.
1,651 citations
7 Nov 2005
TL;DR: Control-Flow Integrity provides a useful foundation for enforcing further security policies, as it is demonstrated with efficient software implementations of a protected shadow call stack and of access control for memory regions.
Abstract: Current software attacks often build on exploits that subvert machine-code execution. The enforcement of a basic safety property, Control-Flow Integrity (CFI), can prevent such attacks from arbitrarily controlling program behavior. CFI enforcement is simple, and its guarantees can be established formally even with respect to powerful adversaries. Moreover, CFI enforcement is practical: it is compatible with existing software and can be done efficiently using software rewriting in commodity systems. Finally, CFI provides a useful foundation for enforcing further security policies, as we demonstrate with efficient software implementations of a protected shadow call stack and of access control for memory regions.
1,151 citations
25 Oct 2004
TL;DR: Aderandomization attack is demonstrated that will convert any standard buffer-overflow exploit into an exploit that works against systems protected by address-space randomization, and it is concluded that, on 32-bit architectures, the only benefit of PaX-like address- space randomization is a small slowdown in worm propagation speed.
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 derandomization attack 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.
1,039 citations
27 Oct 2003
TL;DR: A new, general approach for safeguarding systems against any type of code-injection attack, by creating process-specific randomized instruction sets of the system executing potentially vulnerable software that can serve as a low-overhead protection mechanism, and can easily complement other mechanisms.
Abstract: We describe a new, general approach for safeguarding systems against any type of code-injection attack. We apply Kerckhoff's principle, by creating process-specific randomized instruction sets (e.g., machine instructions) of the system executing potentially vulnerable software. An attacker who does not know the key to the randomization algorithm will inject code that is invalid for that randomized processor, causing a runtime exception. To determine the difficulty of integrating support for the proposed mechanism in the operating system, we modified the Linux kernel, the GNU binutils tools, and the bochs-x86 emulator. Although the performance penalty is significant, our prototype demonstrates the feasibility of the approach, and should be directly usable on a suitable-modified processor (e.g., the Transmeta Crusoe).Our approach is equally applicable against code-injecting attacks in scripting and interpreted languages, e.g., web-based SQL injection. We demonstrate this by modifying the Perl interpreter to permit randomized script execution. The performance penalty in this case is minimal. Where our proposed approach is feasible (i.e., in an emulated environment, in the presence of programmable or specialized hardware, or in interpreted languages), it can serve as a low-overhead protection mechanism, and can easily complement other mechanisms.
830 citations
TL;DR: Control-flow integrity (CFI) as discussed by the authors is a basic safety property, which can prevent malicious code from arbitrarily controlling program behavior, even with respect to powerful adversaries, and can be enforced formally.
Abstract: Current software attacks often build on exploits that subvert machine-code execution. The enforcement of a basic safety property, control-flow integrity (CFI), can prevent such attacks from arbitrarily controlling program behavior. CFI enforcement is simple and its guarantees can be established formally, even with respect to powerful adversaries. Moreover, CFI enforcement is practical: It is compatible with existing software and can be done efficiently using software rewriting in commodity systems. Finally, CFI provides a useful foundation for enforcing further security policies, as we demonstrate with efficient software implementations of a protected shadow call stack and of access control for memory regions.
723 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 |
| 2021 | 9 |
| 2020 | 10 |
| 2019 | 14 |
| 2018 | 10 |
| 2017 | 15 |