skip to main content
10.1145/2897795.2897805acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescisrcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Double Helix and RAVEN: A System for Cyber Fault Tolerance and Recovery

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cyber security research has produced numerous artificial diversity techniques such as address space layout randomization, heap randomization, instruction-set randomization, and instruction location randomization. To be most effective, these techniques must be high entropy and secure from information leakage which, in practice, is often difficult to achieve. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that well-funded, determined adversaries can often circumvent these defenses. To allow use of low-entropy diversity, prevent information leakage, and provide provable security against attacks, previous research proposed using low-entropy but carefully structured artificial diversity to create variants of an application and then run these constructed variants within a fault-tolerant environment that runs each variant in parallel and cross check results to detect and mitigate faults. If the variants are carefully constructed, it is possible to prove that certain classes of attack are not possible. This paper presents an overview and status of a cyber fault tolerant system that uses a low overhead multi-variant execution environment and precise static binary analysis and efficient rewriting technology to produce structured variants which allow automated verification techniques to prove security properties of the system. Preliminary results are presented which demonstrate that the system is capable of detecting unknown faults and mitigating attacks.

References

  1. E. G. Barrantes, D. H. Ackley, S. Forrest, and D. Stefanović. Randomized instruction set emulation. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 8(1):3--40, Feb. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Bittau, A. Belay, A. Mashtizadeh, D. Mazières, and D. Boneh. Hacking blind. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP '14, pages 227--242, Washington, DC, USA, 2014. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. Bruschi, L. Cavallaro, and A. Lanzi. Diversified process replicae for defeating memory error exploits. In IEEE International Conference on Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference, IPCCC'07, pages 434--441, April 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. C. Cowan, C. Pu, D. Maier, H. Hintony, J. Walpole, P. Bakke, S. Beattie, A. Grier, P. Wagle, and Q. Zhang. StackGuard: Automatic adaptive detection and prevention of buffer-overflow attacks. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 7, SSYM'98, pages 5--5, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1998. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Cox, D. Evans, A. Filipi, J. Rowanhill, W. Hu, J. Davidson, J. Knight, A. Nguyen-Tuong, and J. Hiser. N-variant systems: A secretless framework for security through diversity. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 15, USENIX-SS'06, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Hiser, A. Nguyen-Tuong, M. Co, M. Hall, and J. W. Davidson. ILR: Where'd my gadgets go? In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP '12, pages 571--585, Washington, DC, USA, 2012. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Le Goues, T. V. Nguyen, S. Forrest, and W. Weimer. GenProg: A generic method for automatic software repair. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 38(1):54--72, Jan. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. B. Rodes, A. Nguyen-Tuong, J. D. Hiser, J. C. Knight, M. Co, and J. W. Davidson. Defense against stack-based attacks using speculative stack layout transformation. In S. Qadeer and S. Tasiran, editors, Runtime Verification, volume 7687 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 308--313. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. G. F. Roglia, L. Martignoni, R. Paleari, and D. Bruschi. Surgically returning to randomized libC. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC '09, pages 60--69, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Salamat, T. Jackson, A. Gal, and M. Franz. Orchestra: Intrusion detection using parallel execution and monitoring of program variants in user-space. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys '09, pages 33--46, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. Scott and J. Davidson. Strata: A software dynamic translation infrastructure. In IEEE Workshop on Binary Translation, September 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. H. Shacham. The geometry of innocent flesh on the bone: Return-into-libc without function calls (on the x86). In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '07, pages 552--561, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. H. Shacham, M. Page, B. Pfaff, E.-J. Goh, N. Modadugu, and D. Boneh. On the effectiveness of address-space randomization. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '04, pages 298--307, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. N. Sovarel, D. Evans, and N. Paul. Where's the FEEB? the effectiveness of instruction set randomization. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 14, SSYM'05, pages 10--10, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2005. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Volckaert, B. De Sutter, T. De Baets, and K. De Bosschere. GHUMVEE: Efficient, effective, and flexible replication. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Foundations and Practice of Security, FPS'12, pages 261--277, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Checkpoint/restore in userspace. http://criu.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. D. Williams, W. Hu, J. W. Davidson, J. D. Hiser, J. C. Knight, and A. Nguyen-Tuong. Security through diversity: Leveraging virtual machine technology. IEEE Security & Privacy, 7(1):26--33, Jan.--Feb. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Xu, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. Iyer. Transparent runtime randomization for security. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, pages 260--269, oct. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    CISRC '16: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Cyber and Information Security Research Conference
    April 2016
    150 pages
    ISBN:9781450337526
    DOI:10.1145/2897795

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    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]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 5 April 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    CISRC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate11of28submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate69of136submissions,51%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader