Scribd
Upload
25 views25 pages

Bufferoverflow Prevention

The document discusses buffer overflow attacks and methods to prevent them. Specifically: - Buffer overflows are a common vulnerability in C programs that can allow attackers to execute arbitrary code. - Defenses include using safe string functions like strncpy(), marking the stack as non-executable, static analysis, and runtime checks like StackGuard that add "canaries" to detect changes to the stack. - Other techniques discussed are format string vulnerabilities, timing attacks, and preventing overflows of buffers near function pointers or longjmp buffers.

Uploaded by

cse dept
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views25 pages

Bufferoverflow Prevention

The document discusses buffer overflow attacks and methods to prevent them. Specifically: - Buffer overflows are a common vulnerability in C programs that can allow attackers to execute arbitrary code. - Defenses include using safe string functions like strncpy(), marking the stack as non-executable, static analysis, and runtime checks like StackGuard that add "canaries" to detect changes to the stack. - Other techniques discussed are format string vulnerabilities, timing attacks, and preventing overflows of buffers near function pointers or longjmp buffers.

Uploaded by

cse dept
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 25

Preventing Buffer Overflow

Attacks
Some unsafe C lib functions
strcpy (char *dest, const char *src)
strcat (char *dest, const char *src)
gets (char *s)
scanf ( const char *format, … )
printf (conts char *format, … )
Preventing buf overflow attacks
• Main problem:
– strcpy(), strcat(), sprintf() have no range checking.
– Use “safe” versions strncpy(), strncat() very
carefully
• Defenses:
– Type safe languages (Java, ML). Legacy code?
– Mark stack as non-execute.
– Static source code analysis.
– Run time checking: StackGuard, Libsafe, SafeC, (Purify).
– Black box testing (e.g. eEye Retina, ISIC ).
Marking stack as non-execute
• Basic stack exploit can be prevented by marking
stack segment as non-executable
– Code patches exist for Linux and Solaris.

• Problems:
– Some apps need executable stack (e.g. LISP interpreters).

– Does not block more general overflow exploits:


• Overflow on heap: overflow buffer next to func pointer.
• Cannot make all the data segment non-executable
• More recent UNIX and MS windows emit dynamic code into
program data for performance optimizations
Static source code analysis
• Statically check source to detect buffer overflows.
– Several consulting companies.

• Several tools exist to automate the review process:


– Stanford: Engler, et al. Test trust inconsistency.
– @stake.com (l0pht.com): SLINT (designed for UNIX)

– Berkeley: Wagner, et al. Test constraint violations.

• Find lots of bugs, but not all.


Run time checking: StackGuard
• Many many run-time checking techniques …

• Solution: StackGuard (WireX)


– Run time tests for stack integrity.
– Enhance the code generator for emitting code to
set up and tear down functions
– Embeds “canaries” in stack frames and verify their
integrity prior to function return.

Frame 2 Frame 1
top
local canary sfp ret str local canary sfp ret str of
stack
Canary Types
• Random canary: (used in Visual Studio 2003)

– Choose random string at program startup.


– Insert canary string into every stack frame.
– Verify canary before returning from function.
– To corrupt random canary, attacker must learn current
random string.

• Terminator canary:
Canary = 0 (null), newline, linefeed, EOF
– String functions will not copy beyond terminator.
– Hence, attacker cannot use string functions to corrupt
stack.
StackGuard (Cont.)

• StackGuard implemented as a GCC patch.


– Program must be recompiled.
• Minimal performance effects
– Worst case: 8% for Apache.
Timing attacks
Timing attacks
• Timing attacks extract secret information
based on the time a device takes to respond.

• Applicable to:
– Smartcards.
– Cell phones.
– PCI cards.
Timing attacks: example
• Consider the following pwd checking code:
int password-check( char *inp, char *pwd)
if (strlen(inp) != strlen(pwd)) return 0;
for( i=0; i < strlen(pwd); ++i)
if ( *inp[i] != *pwd[i] )
return 0;
return 1;
• A simple timing attack will expose the password one
character at a time.
Backup Slides
Preventing buf overflow attacks
• Main problem:
– strcpy(), strcat(), sprintf() have no range checking.
– “Safe” versions strncpy(), strncat() are misleading
• strncpy() may leave buffer unterminated.
• strncpy(), strncat() encourage off by 1 bugs.

• Defenses:
– Type safe languages (Java, ML). Legacy code?
– Mark stack as non-execute. Random stack location.
– Static source code analysis.
– Run time checking: StackGuard, Libsafe, SafeC, (Purify).
– Black box testing (e.g. eEye Retina, ISIC ).
Buffer overflows
• Extremely common bug.
– First major exploit: 1988 Internet Worm. fingerd.

• 10 years later: over 50% of all CERT advisories:


– 1997: 16 out of 28 CERT advisories.
– 1998: 9 out of 13 -”-
– 1999: 6 out of 12 -”-

• Often leads to total compromise of host.


– Fortunately: exploit requires expertise and patience
– Two steps:
• Locate buffer overflow within an application.
• Design an exploit.
Exploiting buffer overflows
• Suppose web server calls func() with given URL.
• Attacker can create a 200 byte URL to obtain shell on
web server.
• Some complications:
– Program P should not contain the ‘\0’ character.
– Overflow should not crash program before func() exists.
• Sample remote buffer overflows of this type:
– Overflow in MIME type field in MS Outlook.

– Overflow in Symantec Virus Detection (Free ActiveX)

Set test = CreateObject("Symantec.SymVAFileQuery.1")


test.GetPrivateProfileString "file", [long string]
Causing program to exec attack code
• Stack smashing attack:
– Override return address in stack activation record by
overflowing a local buffer variable.

• Function pointers: (used in attack on Linux superprobe)

Heap
buf[128] FuncPtr or
stack
– Overflowing buf will override function pointer.

• Longjmp buffers: longjmp(pos) (used in attack on Perl 5.003)

– Overflowing buf next to pos overrides value of pos .


StackGuard (Cont.)
• StackGuard implemented as a GCC patch.
– Program must be recompiled.
• Minimal performance effects: 8% for Apache.

• Newer version: PointGuard.


– Protects function pointers and setjmp buffers by placing
canaries next to them.
– More noticeable performance effects.

• Note: Canaries don’t offer fullproof protection.


– Some stack smashing attacks can leave canaries untouched.
Run time checking: Libsafe
• Solutions 2: Libsafe (Avaya Labs)
– Dynamically loaded library.
– Intercepts calls to strcpy (dest, src)
• Validates sufficient space in current stack frame:
|frame-pointer – dest| > strlen(src)
• If so, does strcpy.
Otherwise, terminates application.
top
sfp ret-addr dest src buf sfp ret-addr of
stack

libsafe main
More methods …
• Address obfuscation. (Stony Brook ’03)

– Encrypt return address on stack by XORing with


random string. Decrypt just before returning
from function.
– Attacker needs decryption key to set return
address to desired value.

• PaX ASLR: Randomize location of libc.


– Attacker cannot jump directly to exec function.
Format string bugs
Format string problem
int func(char *user) {
fprintf( stdout, user);
}

Problem: what if user = “%s%s%s%s%s%s%s” ??


– Most likely program will crash: DoS.
– If not, program will print memory contents. Privacy?
– Full exploit using user = “%n”

Correct form:
int func(char *user) {
fprintf( stdout, “%s”, user);
}
History
• Danger discovered in June 2000.
• Examples:
– wu-ftpd 2.* : remote root.
– Linux rpc.statd: remote root
– IRIX telnetd: remote root
– BSD chpass: local root
Vulnerable functions
Any function using a format string.

Printing:
printf, fprintf, sprintf, …
vprintf, vfprintf, vsprintf, …

Logging:
syslog, err, warn
Exploit
• Dumping arbitrary memory:
– Walk up stack until desired pointer is found.

– printf( “%08x.%08x.%08x.%08x|%s|”)

• Writing to arbitrary memory:


– printf( “hello %n”, &temp) -- writes ‘6’ into temp.

– printf( “%08x.%08x.%08x.%08x.%n”)
Overflow using format string
char errmsg[512], outbuf[512];

sprintf (errmsg, “Illegal command: %400s”,


user);

sprintf( outbuf, errmsg );

• What if user = “%500d <nops> <shellcode>”


– Bypass “%400s” limitation.
– Will ovreflow outbuf.

You might also like