Publications

Memory corruption attacks against unsafe programming languages like C/C++ have been a major threat to computer systems for multiple decades. Various sanitizers and runtime exploit mitigation techniques have been shown to only provide partial protection at best. Recently developed ‘safe’ programming languages such as Rust and Go hold the promise to change this paradigm by preventing memory corruption bugs using a strong type system and proper compile-time and runtime checks. Gradual deployment of these languages has been touted as a way of improving the security of existing applications before entire applications can be developed in safe languages. This is notable in popular applications such as Firefox and Tor. In this paper, we systematically analyze the security of multi-language applications. We show that because language safety checks in safe languages and exploit mitigation techniques applied to unsafe languages (e.g., Control-Flow Integrity) break different stages of an exploit to prevent control hijacking attacks, an attacker can carefully maneuver between the languages to mount a successful attack. In essence, we illustrate that the incompatible set of assumptions made in various languages enables attacks that are not possible in each language alone. We study different variants of these attacks and analyze Firefox to illustrate the feasibility and extent of this problem. Our findings show that gradual deployment of safe programming languages, if not done with extreme care, can indeed be detrimental to security.

Commodity operating system kernels remain monolithic for practical and historical reasons. All kernel code shares a single address space, executes with elevated processor privileges, and has largely unhindered access to all data, including data irrelevant to the completion of a specific task. Applying the principle of least privilege, which limits available resources only to those needed to perform a particular task, to compartmentalize the kernel would realize major security gains, similar to microkernels yet without the major redesign effort. Here, we introduce a compartmentalization design, called a Hardware-Assisted Kernel Compartmentalization (HAKC), that approximates least privilege separation, while minimizing both developer effort and performance overhead. HAKC divides code and data into separate partitions, and specifies an access policy for each partition. Data is owned by a single partition, and a partition’s access-control policy is enforced at runtime, preventing unauthorized data access. When a partition needs to transfer control flow to outside itself, data ownership is transferred to the target, and transferred back upon return. The HAKC design allows for isolating code and data from the rest of the kernel, without utilizing any additional Trusted Computing Base while compartmentalized code is executing. Instead, HAKC relies on hardware for enforcement. Loadable kernel modules (LKMs), which dynamically load kernel code and data providing specialized functionality, are the single largest part of the Linux source base. Unfortunately, their collective size and complexity makes LKMs the cause of the majority of CVEs issued for the Linux kernel. The combination of a large attack surface in kernel modules, and the monolithic design of the Linux kernel, make LKMs ideal candidates for compartmentalization. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we implement HAKC in Linux v5.10 using extensions to the Arm v8.5-A ISA, and compartmentalize the ipv6.ko LKM, which consists of over 55k LOC. The average overhead measured in Apachebench tests was just 1.6%–24%. Additionally, we compartmentalize the nf_tables.ko packet filtering LKM, and measure the combined impact of using both LKMs. We find a reasonable linear growth in overhead when both compartmentalized LKMs are used. Finally, we measure no significant difference in performance when using the compartmentalized ipv6.ko LKM over the unmodified LKM during real-world web browsing experiments on the Alexa Top 50 websites.

Rust is a programming language that simultaneously offers high performance and strong security guarantees. Safe Rust (i.e., Rust code that does not use the unsafe keyword) is memory and type safe. However, these guarantees are violated when safe Rust interacts with unsafe code, most notably code written in other programming languages, including in legacy C/C++ applications that are incrementally deploying Rust. This is a significant problem as major applications such as Firefox, Chrome, AWS, Windows, and Linux have either deployed Rust or are exploring doing so. It is important to emphasize that unsafe code is not only unsafe itself, but also it breaks the safety guarantees of ‘safe’ Rust; e.g., a dangling pointer in a linked C/C++ library can access and overwrite memory allocated to Rust even when the Rust code is fully safe. This paper presents Galeed, a technique to keep safe Rust safe from interference from unsafe code. Galeed has two components: a runtime defense to prevent unintended interactions between safe Rust and unsafe code and a sanitizer to secure intended interactions. The runtime component works by isolating Rust’s heap from any external access and is enforced using Intel Memory Protection Key (MPK) technology. The sanitizer uses a smart data structure that we call pseudo-pointer along with automated code transformation to avoid passing raw pointers across safe/unsafe boundaries during intended interactions (e.g., when Rust and C++ code exchange data). We implement and evaluate the effectiveness and performance of Galeed via micro- and macro-benchmarking, and use it to secure a widely used component of Firefox.

Today's computer systems trace their roots to an era of trusted users and highly constrained hardware; thus, their designs fundamentally emphasize performance and discount security. This article presents a vision for how small steps using existing technologies can be combined into one giant leap for computer security.

Cyber-physical systems (CPSs) are increasingly targeted in high-profile cyber attacks. Examples of such attacks include Stuxnet, which targeted nuclear centrifuges; Crashoverride, and Triton, which targeted power grids; and the Mirai botnet, which targeted internet-of-things (IoT) devices such as cameras to carry out a large-scale distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. Such attacks demonstrate the importance of securing current and future cyber-physical systems. Therefore, next-generation operating systems (OSes) for CPS need to be designed to provide security features necessary, as well as be secure in and of themselves. CPSs are designed with one of three broad classes of OSes: (a) bare-metal applications with effectively no operating system, (b) embedded systems executing on impoverished platforms running an embedded or real-time operating system (RTOS) such as FreeRTOS, or (c) more performant platforms running general purpose OSes such as Linux, sometimes tuned for real-time performance such as through the PREEMPT_RT patch. In cases (a) and (b), the OS, if any, is very minimal to facilitate improved resource utilization in real-time or latency-sensitive applications, especially running on impoverished hardware platforms. In such OSes, security is often overlooked, and many important security features (e.g. process/kernel memory isolation) are notably absent. In case (c), the general-purpose OS inherits many of the security-related features that are critical in enterprise and general-purpose applications, such as virtual memory and address-space layout randomization (ASLR). However, the highly complex nature of general-purpose OSes can be problematic in the development of CPSs, as they are highly non-deterministic and difficult to formally reason about for cyber-physical applications, which often have real-time constraints. These issues motivate the need for a next generation OS that is highly capable, predictable and deterministic for real-time performance, but also secure in the face of many of the next generation of cyber threats. In order to design such a next-generation OS, it is necessary to first reflect on the types of threats that CPSs face, including the attacker intentions and types of effects that can be achieved, as well as the type of access that attackers have. While threat models are not the same for all CPSs, it is important to understand how the threat models for CPSs compare to general-purpose or enterprise computing environments. We discuss these issues next (Sec. 2), before providing insights and recommendations for approaches to incorporate in next-generation OSes for CPS in Sec. 3.