Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
CortexFiend (talk | contribs) Link suggestions feature: 2 links added. |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Software security techniques}}
'''Buffer overflow protection''' is any of various techniques used during software development to enhance the security of executable programs by detecting [[buffer overflow]]s on [[call stack|stack]]-allocated variables, and preventing them from causing program misbehavior or from becoming serious [[computer security|security]] vulnerabilities. A stack buffer overflow occurs when a program writes to a memory address on the program's call stack outside of the intended data structure, which is usually a fixed-length buffer. Stack buffer overflow bugs are caused when a program writes more data to a buffer located on the stack than what is actually allocated for that buffer. This almost always results in corruption of adjacent data on the stack, which could lead to program crashes, incorrect operation, or security issues.▼
▲'''Buffer overflow protection''' is any of various techniques used during software development to enhance the security of executable programs by detecting [[buffer overflow]]s on [[call stack|stack]]-allocated variables, and preventing them from causing program misbehavior or from becoming serious [[computer security|security]] vulnerabilities. A stack buffer overflow occurs when a program writes to a [[memory address]] on the program's call stack outside of the intended data structure, which is usually a fixed-length buffer. Stack buffer overflow bugs are caused when a program writes more data to a buffer located on the stack than what is actually allocated for that buffer. This almost always results in corruption of adjacent data on the stack, which could lead to program crashes, incorrect operation, or security issues.
Typically, buffer overflow protection modifies the organization of stack-allocated data so it includes a ''[[stack canary|canary]]'' value that, when destroyed by a stack buffer overflow, shows that a buffer preceding it in memory has been overflowed. By verifying the canary value, execution of the affected program can be terminated, preventing it from misbehaving or from allowing an attacker to take control over it. Other buffer overflow protection techniques include ''[[bounds checking]]'', which checks accesses to each allocated block of memory so they cannot go beyond the actually allocated space, and ''tagging'', which ensures that memory allocated for storing data cannot contain executable code.
Line 13 ⟶ 15:
Stack buffer overflow can be caused deliberately as part of an attack known as [[stack smashing]]. If the affected program is running with special privileges, or if it accepts data from untrusted network hosts (for example, a public [[webserver]]), then the bug is a potential security vulnerability that allows an [[hacker (computer security)|attacker]] to inject executable code into the running program and take control of the process. This is one of the oldest and more reliable methods for attackers to gain unauthorized access to a computer.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Levy |first=Elias |author-link=Elias Levy |title=Smashing The Stack for Fun and Profit |journal=[[Phrack]] |volume=7 |issue=49 |page=14 |date=1996-11-08 |url=http://www.phrack.org/issues/49/14.html#article }}</ref>
Typically, buffer overflow protection modifies the organization of data in the [[stack frame]] of a [[function call]] to include a "canary" value that, when destroyed, shows that a buffer preceding it in memory has been overflowed. This provides the benefit of preventing an entire class of attacks. According to some researchers,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cpe.ku.ac.th/~mcs/courses/2005_02/214573/papers/buffer_overflows.pdf |title=Buffer Overflows: Attacks and Defenses for the Vulnerability of the Decade* |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130309083252/http://tmp-www.cpe.ku.ac.th/~mcs/courses/2005_02/214573/papers/buffer_overflows.pdf |archive-date=2013-03-09 }}</ref> the performance impact of these techniques is negligible.
Stack-smashing protection is unable to protect against certain forms of attack. For example, it cannot protect against buffer overflows in the heap. There is no sane way to alter the layout of data within a [[Data structure|structure]]; structures are expected to be the same between modules, especially with shared libraries. Any data in a structure after a buffer is impossible to protect with canaries; thus, programmers must be very careful about how they organize their variables and use their structures.
==Canaries==
{{Unreferenced section|date=November 2023}}
''Canaries'' or ''canary words'' or ''stack cookies'' are known values that are placed between a buffer and control data on the stack to monitor buffer overflows. When the buffer overflows, the first data to be corrupted will usually be the canary, and a failed verification of the canary data will therefore alert of an overflow, which can then be handled, for example, by invalidating the corrupted data. A canary value should not be confused with a [[sentinel value]].
The terminology is a reference to the historic practice of using [[animal sentinel#Toxic gases|canaries in coal mines]], since they would be affected by toxic gases earlier than the miners, thus providing a biological warning system. Canaries are alternately known as ''stack cookies'', which is meant to evoke the image of a "broken cookie" when the value is corrupted.
There are three types of canaries in use: ''terminator'', ''random'', and ''random [[XOR]]''. Current versions of StackGuard support all three, while ProPolice supports ''terminator'' and ''random'' canaries.
Line 30 ⟶ 33:
''Random canaries'' are randomly generated, usually from an [[entropy (computing)|entropy]]-gathering [[daemon (computer software)|daemon]], in order to prevent an attacker from knowing their value. Usually, it is not logically possible or plausible to read the canary for exploiting; the canary is a secure value known only by those who need to know it—the buffer overflow protection code in this case.
Normally, a random canary is generated at program initialization, and stored in a [[global variable]]. This variable is usually [[Padding (cryptography)|padded]] by unmapped pages
===Random XOR canaries===
''Random XOR canaries'' are random canaries that are [[Exclusive or|XOR]]-scrambled using all or part of the control data. In this way, once the canary or the control data is clobbered, the canary value is wrong.
Random XOR canaries have the same vulnerabilities as random canaries, except that the "read from stack" method of getting the canary is a bit more complicated. The attacker must get the canary, the algorithm, and the control data in order to re-generate the original canary needed to spoof the protection.
In addition, random XOR canaries can protect against a certain type of attack involving overflowing a buffer in a structure into a [[Pointer (computer programming)|pointer]] to change the pointer to point at a piece of control data. Because of the XOR encoding, the canary will be wrong if the control data or return value is changed. Because of the pointer, the control data or return value can be changed without overflowing over the canary.
Although these canaries protect the control data from being altered by clobbered pointers, they do not protect any other data or the pointers themselves. Function pointers especially are a problem here, as they can be overflowed into and can execute [[shellcode]] when called.
Line 44 ⟶ 47:
{{Main|Bounds checking}}
Bounds checking is a compiler-based technique that adds run-time bounds information for each allocated block of memory, and checks all pointers against those at run-time. For C and C++, bounds checking can be performed at pointer calculation time<ref name="joneskelly">{{cite web |url=http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~phjk/BoundsChecking.html |title=Bounds Checking for C |publisher=Doc.ic.ac.uk |access-date=2014-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160326081542/https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~phjk/BoundsChecking.html |archive-date=2016-03-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref> or at [[Dereferencing|dereference]] time.<ref name="safecodesva">{{cite web|url=http://sva.cs.illinois.edu/sva.html |title=SAFECode: Secure Virtual Architecture |publisher=Sva.cs.illinois.edu |date=2009-08-12 |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref><ref name="asan">{{cite web|url=https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/|title=google/sanitizers|date=19 June 2021}}</ref><ref name="failsafec">{{cite web |url=http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.oiwa/FailSafeC/index-en.html |title=Fail-Safe C: Top Page |publisher=Staff.aist.go.jp |date=2013-05-07 |access-date=2014-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160707163127/https://staff.aist.go.jp/y.oiwa/FailSafeC/index-en.html |archive-date=2016-07-07 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Implementations of this approach use either a central repository, which describes each allocated block of memory,<ref name="joneskelly"/><ref name="safecodesva"/><ref name="asan"/> or [[fat pointer]]s,<ref name="failsafec"/> which contain both the pointer and additional data, describing the region that they point to.
Line 51 ⟶ 54:
Tagging<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.feustel.us/Feustel%20&%20Associates/Advantages.pdf |title=Tuesday, April 05, 2005 |website=Feustel.us |access-date=2016-09-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623195112/http://www.feustel.us/Feustel%20%26%20Associates/Advantages.pdf |archive-date=June 23, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> is a compiler-based or hardware-based (requiring a [[tagged architecture]]) technique for tagging the type of a piece of data in memory, used mainly for type checking. By marking certain areas of memory as non-executable, it effectively prevents memory allocated to store data from containing executable code. Also, certain areas of memory can be marked as non-allocated, preventing buffer overflows.
Historically, tagging has been used for implementing high-level programming languages;<ref>{{cite journal
==Implementations==
Line 63 ⟶ 66:
In 2012, [[Google]] engineers implemented the <kbd>-fstack-protector-strong</kbd> flag to strike a better balance between security and performance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00974.html |title=Han Shen(ææ) - [PATCH] Add a new option "-fstack-protector-strong" (patch / doc inside) |publisher=Gcc.gnu.org |date=2012-06-14 |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref> This flag protects more kinds of vulnerable functions than <kbd>-fstack-protector</kbd> does, but not every function, providing better performance than <kbd>-fstack-protector-all</kbd>. It is available in GCC since its version 4.9.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Edge|first1=Jake|title="Strong" stack protection for GCC|url=https://lwn.net/Articles/584225/|website=Linux Weekly News|access-date=28 November 2014|date=February 5, 2014|quote=It has made its way into GCC 4.9}}</ref>
All [[Fedora (operating system)|Fedora]] packages are compiled with <kbd>-fstack-protector</kbd> since Fedora Core 5, and <kbd>-fstack-protector-strong</kbd> since Fedora 20.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security_Features#Stack_Smash_Protection.2C_Buffer_Overflow_Detection.2C_and_Variable_Reordering |title=Security Features |publisher=FedoraProject |date=2013-12-11 |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1128 |title=#1128 (switching from "-fstack-protector" to "-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20) – FESCo |publisher=Fedorahosted.org |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref> Most packages in [[
StackGuard and ProPolice cannot protect against overflows in automatically allocated structures that overflow into function pointers. ProPolice at least will rearrange the allocation order to get such structures allocated before function pointers. A separate mechanism for [[
===Microsoft Visual Studio===
Line 74 ⟶ 77:
===Clang/[[LLVM]]===
Clang supports the same <kbd>-fstack-protector</kbd> options as GCC<ref>{{cite web|url=https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-April/053662.html |publisher=Clang.llvm.org |title=Clang mailing list |date=28 April 2017 |access-date=2022-11-16}}</ref> and a stronger "safe stack" ({{tt|1=-fsanitize=safe-stack}}) system with similarly low performance impact.<ref>{{cite web |title=SafeStack — Clang 17.0.0git documentation |url=https://releases.llvm.org/15.0.0/tools/clang/docs/SafeStack.html |website=clang.llvm.org}}</ref> Clang also has three buffer overflow detectors, namely [[AddressSanitizer]] (<code>-fsanitize=address</code>),<ref name="asan"/> UBSan (<code>-fsanitize=bounds</code>),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html |title=Clang Compiler User's Manual — Clang 3.5 documentation |publisher=Clang.llvm.org |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref>
and the unofficial SafeCode (last updated for LLVM 3.0).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://safecode.cs.illinois.edu/ |title=SAFECode |publisher=Safecode.cs.illinois.edu |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref>▼
▲and SafeCode.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://safecode.cs.illinois.edu/ |title=SAFECode |publisher=Safecode.cs.illinois.edu |access-date=2014-04-27}}</ref>
These systems have different tradeoffs in terms of performance penalty, memory overhead, and classes of detected bugs. Stack protection is standard in certain operating systems, including [[OpenBSD]].<ref>{{cite web| url = https://man.openbsd.org/clang-local.1| title = OpenBSD's clang-local(1) manual page| quote = clang comes with stack protection enabled by default, equivalent to the ''-fstack-protector-strong'' option on other systems.}}</ref>
Line 88 ⟶ 90:
===StackGhost (hardware-based)===
Invented by [[Mike Frantzen]], StackGhost is a simple tweak to the register window spill/fill routines which makes buffer overflows much more difficult to exploit. It uses a unique hardware feature of the [[Sun Microsystems]] [[SPARC]] architecture (that being: deferred on-stack in-frame register window spill/fill) to detect modifications of return [[Pointer (computer programming)|pointers]] (a common way for an [[exploit (computer security)|exploit]] to hijack execution paths) transparently, automatically protecting all applications without requiring binary or source modifications. The performance impact is negligible, less than one percent. The resulting [[gdb]] issues were resolved by [[Mark Kettenis]] two years later, allowing enabling of the feature. Following this event, the StackGhost code was integrated (and optimized) into [[OpenBSD]]/SPARC.
==See also==
{{Portal|Computer programming}}
* [[Control-flow integrity]]
* [[Address space layout randomization]]
Line 142 ⟶ 101:
==References==
{{Reflist
==External links==
| |||