Month: April 2007

Bright future for counter-attacks

~ Nate Lawson ~ 3 Comments

Counter-attack stories come and go, but this time it’s supported by the courts. The question was whether the defendant’s 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated by the campus system administrator logging into his dorm computer without authorization. Campus police and the administrator then followed up by visiting the dorm room and gathering evidence.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled that the physical search was not justified, but since the same evidence was found independently by the remote search that the court ruled was justified, it did not violate the defendant’s 4th Amendment rights and was admissible.

Electronic access was justified, under a “special needs” exemption. The administrator supposedly went against Qualcomm requests to wait for an FBI warrant and didn’t make an effort to collect extensive evidence (or create/delete files), reinforcing the point that it was not an evidentiary search. The claim that he was acting to protect the campus email server (and not on behalf of stopping the Qualcomm intrusion, which was outside campus jurisdiction) also helped.

The conclusion is that “requiring a warrant … would disrupt the operation of the university and the network that it relies upon to function.” This seems like a very weak claim. The administrator had already successfully blocked the connection to the email server once, and could presumably have put in a firewall rule blocking all SSH (or backdoor) TCP connections to the email server from the dorms.The ruling presumably quotes his testimony that the “user had obtained access … restricted to specific system administrators, none of whom would be working from the university’s dormitories.” The IP addresses the attacker used were referenced only by the last 8-bits, indicating a simple class-C filter rule would have been sufficient. Better yet, block all Internet access by disabling the Ethernet port on the switch the attacker connected through.

A member of the University of Wisconsin IT staff posted a curious commentary along these lines:

If you hack University servers from your computer (or even if the computer is being used a zombie), and then take steps to hide your identity or otherwise conceal your activities, your network access will be removed, such removal will be actively enforced and verified, and any immediate actions required to protect the security and integrity of the University network and computing resources will be taken.

In other words, we can and will block your access. But then later,

Academic, legal, and possible criminal action will then follow, as warranted. These were exigent circumstances, and not done under the guise of law enforcement, but rather the protection of critical university resources from activities clearly and explicitly disallowed by numerous University information technology, housing, academic, and general policies (not to mention various federal and state laws).

Sorry, but if you’re so capable of removing, enforcing, and verifying network access, why was a raid of the dorm room by the administrator and campus police so urgent that a warrant couldn’t be obtained? They can’t say “because he might destroy evidence since he probably knew we’d detected him” without treading into the waters of this being a law enforcement action, and thus an illegal search. So they try to have it both ways, claiming that the electronic and subsequent physical search were necessary to take immediate action to protect the email server, and not for evidentiary reasons, while their previous actions showed that they were fully aware and capable of preventing the attacker from accessing the email server via filter rules.

The court also ruled that computers and the data they contain are considered private, even when attached to the university network. However, connecting a computer to the network implies assent to the network owner’s policies (even more vague an action than click-through licenses since it’s not clear you have the policy in front of you when you plug into a network jack.)

The university should have had a monitoring clause in their computer policy. Instead they had limitations on access to data (“[i]n general, all computer and electronic files should be free from access by any but the authorized users of those files.”) This helped reinforce the point that his computer could be considered private.

Finally, if you’re a hacker:

  • Don’t hack hosts on your local network. The more entities (read: bureaucracy) you can layer between you and the target, the better.
  • Don’t do activities from your computer that identify you (check email, log into your legit account, etc.) while hacking.
  • Don’t hack from your own computer or any computer remotely associated with you.

If you’re a security vendor:

  • Core Impact just got a whole lot more valuable. Ivan, can we have a “just looking” mode that gathers info without touching anything that looks private?
  • NAC doesn’t solve the problem of taking a set of connections and tracking it back to a port. Who’s going to help administrators like this who have problems installing firewall rules?

Mesh design pattern: hash-and-decrypt

~ Nate Lawson ~ 4 Comments

Hash functions are an excellent way to tie together various parts of a protection mechanism. Our first mesh design pattern, hash-and-decrypt, uses a hash function to derive a key that is then used to decrypt the next stage. Since a cryptographic hash (e.g., SHA-1) is sensitive to a change of even a single bit of input, this pattern provides a strong way to insure the next stage (code, data, more checks) is not accessible unless all the input bits are correct.

Diagram of hashing and then decrypting

For example, consider a game with different levels, each encrypted with a different AES key. The key to decrypt level N+1 can be derived by hashing together data which only is present in RAM after the player has beat level N with an unmodified game (e.g., correct items in inventory, state of treasure chests, map of locations visited, etc.) If an attacker tries to cheat on level N by modifying the game state, they won’t know what items they need to have, may load up their character with items that are impossible to have at that point in the game, or one or more map positions won’t have been marked as visited. In this case, the hash and thus the next level key will be incorrect. Any difference in the hashed data produces an incorrect key and the level cannot be decrypted without the exact key.

In software protection, the focus is on verifying that security checks are intact and running properly. Hash-and-decrypt would cover code and data locations that might be modified by an attacker who is debugging or patching the application in order to reverse engineer it. This includes locations that might be changed by setting breakpoints (i.e., int 3 or Detours-style function hooking, debug registers DR0-3, IDTR a la Red Pill) or self-check functions that may be disabled or paused while analyzing the executable. The encrypted stage N+1 can be parts of the application as well as other self-check functions.

To tie together multiple self-check functions, hash-and-decrypt can also be layered. For example, each self-check function, which monitors one or more different hook points, can iteratively hash a unique seed each time it runs along with the data it observes. The unlock function hashes each self-check’s hash, decrypts, and then executes the protected code. If an attacker pauses one or more of the self-check threads, the hash will be incorrect when the unlock function runs.

multicheck.png

To slow down the attacker, invariants that are not security-critical can be included in the hash (“chaff”). For example, the game could hash parts of RAM that are known to be constants or map data. This keeps the hashed addresses from pointing out what’s important. This falls under the category of obfuscation techniques, but is a good example of how each software protection method mutually enforces each other.

Finally, this technique can be implemented in hardware to prevent glitching attacks. In a glitching attack, a pulse is used to disrupt a processor’s execution (usually via the clock line), causing some operation to be performed incorrectly. Attackers can use this to target internal logic and trigger malicious code execution in tamper-resistant devices. To counter this, the internal state (i.e. pipeline registers, address lines, caches, IR) of the processor can be hashed by custom hardware each clock cycle. At the end of each instruction, the final hash is used to unlock the next operation. If a glitch caused the value of any flip-flop in the CPU to be incorrect during any of the intermediate clock cycles, the next operation will not decrypt properly.

JTAG attacks and PR submarines

~ Nate Lawson ~ 37 Comments

Security research publication comes in two varieties: genuine advances and PR submarines (stories that sound like real advances but are more clever PR than substance.) Barnaby Jack’s recent announcement of attacking embedded systems via JTAG is definitely the latter. Since the trade press is always looking for interesting angles, they are especially susceptible to PR submarines.

Background: the attack uses the standard JTAG port present on nearly all chipsets and CPUs. This port is used for factory and field diagnostics and provides device-specific access to the internal flip-flops that store all the chip’s state. A technician typically uses a GUI (aka in-circuit emulator) on the host PC to set breakpoints, read/write internal registers, dump memory, and perform other debugger-like functions. Secure processors like smart cards already disable JTAG before the chips leave the factory to prevent this kind of attack.

Like Schneier’s snake oil crypto test, let’s examine how to identify security PR submarines.

1. Attack has been done before (bonus: no citation of prior work in the same area)

Check. Since JTAG access gives the hardware equivalent of a software debugger, attackers have been using it from the beginning. The first attackers were probably competitors reverse engineering designs to copy them or improve their own. Currently, a packaged version of this attack has been in use for years to get free satellite TV. No mention of any of this history can be found in the article.

2. Researcher previously gave same talk at another conference

Check. Keep these slides open for reference below. He is probably speaking on another application of the same attack, but count on the talk being quite similar.

3. Implications of attack wildly speculative

An attacker with physical access to the circuit board can control a device. Yes, that’s what JTAG is for. But there is no way this allows an attacker to “redirect Internet traffic on routers” without physical access to those routers. Perhaps Mr. Jack was unaware that this attack primarily matters to tamper-resistant devices (i.e., smart cards) where the device itself must protect stored cash, authentication secrets, or other data subject to physical attacks. That may be why he added a nice, but wholly-unnecessary application of modifying the software on a home router to insert trojan code in EXEs (slides 35-38.)

4. Attack uses very polished, mature tools and requires little or no custom development

Check. Note use of GUI in-circuit emulator on slides 18 and 21. The only custom development I can see is for the ARM code to modify the TCP packets. He could have inserted that code via a socketed flash chip instead of using JTAG but that would not sound as cool.

5. Deployed systems already have defenses against the attack

Check. JTAG is already disabled with any use of a tamper-resistant processor, and nearly every microcontroller made has a fuse to disable JTAG.

6. New researcher or new field for existing researcher

Barnaby Jack (formerly of eEye) has done awesome work on win32 kernel shellcode. Not to slight his previous work, but hardware is a new direction for him.

7. Venue is a talk at a minor conference, not a peer-reviewed paper (bonus: no details given)

Check. CanSecWest does not require a paper, and I don’t expect Mr. Jack to publish one although it’s possible he might. And what’s this about Juniper, his employer, sponsoring CanSecWest?

8. Announcement first appears in trade press or Slashdot

Check and check.

9. Slogan or catch-phrase consistently used to advertise attack

Check. Closing quote for the article is “I’m looking at my microwave oven right now, but I don’t think there’s much I could do with that.” See also intro slide 3 for the previous talk.

What is it about CanSecWest that attracts such sensationalism? Is there just no other way to justify a trip to Canada in your travel budget?