1 / 26

Remote Software-based Attestation for Wireless Sensors

Remote Software-based Attestation for Wireless Sensors. July 13, 2005 Mark Shaneck, Karthikeyan Mahadevan Vishal Kher, Yongdae Kim Department of Computer Science University of Minnesota. Introduction. Securing sensors in critical applications is important E.g. military applications

ingo
Download Presentation

Remote Software-based Attestation for Wireless Sensors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Remote Software-based Attestation for Wireless Sensors July 13, 2005 Mark Shaneck, Karthikeyan Mahadevan Vishal Kher, Yongdae Kim Department of Computer Science University of Minnesota

  2. Introduction • Securing sensors in critical applications is important • E.g. military applications • Compromise of a sensor can enable attacker to inject false sensing information • Compromise of shared keys can enable attacker to compromise secure communications

  3. Attestation • How to detect compromise? Attest! • Ensure that the contents of the memory are unchanged • Detects sensor compromise that involves a modification of the program memory • Compute a checksum of the memory contents

  4. Naïve Attestation Model Program Memory of Sensor • Attestation routine reads memory and computes a checksum • Attacker must offset memory reads to avoid detection • Offsets incur measurable delay in execution • Attester can measure execution time to detect compromise Attest Malcode Unmodified Copy Of Original

  5. Limitations • Suitable for directly connected devices • Slight execution delays can be accurately measured • What about remote attestation? • Code is located on device - attacker can use static analysis to analyze the code offline and insert conditional offsets • Slight execution delays cannot be accurately measured - overshadowed by unpredictable network latency

  6. Remote Attestation • How can we adapt the attestation model to work in a remote setting? • Prevent attacker from analyzing attestation code offline • Send the attestation routine to the sensor • Make it different each time • Prevent attacker from modifying attestation code • Use techniques to make it difficult to statically analyze

  7. Why Remote Attestation? • Is remote attestation really necessary? • Physical access to the sensors is not always feasible • Military setting - sensors are located in hostile, enemy territory • Building monitoring - sensors could be located in dangerous/inaccessible locations

  8. Outline • Problem Scope • Building Blocks • Attestation Procedure Construction • Discussion/Conclusion

  9. Assumptions • Base Station is secure • Base Station to sensor communication is encrypted/authenticated using a pairwise shared key • Base Station has an exact memory image of each sensor • Sensors do not have virtual memory • Sensors can receive and execute binary code

  10. Threat Model • Attacker can perform any software based attack on the attestation routine • Attacker cannot tamper with hardware • Impersonation and DoS attacks are out of scope

  11. Requirements • Resistance to • Replay • Prediction • Static Analysis • Loose dependence on execution time • Complete memory coverage • Efficient construction

  12. Building Blocks • Randomization • Encryption • Self-Modifying Code • Obfuscation • Opaque Predicates/Pointer Aliasing • Junk Instructions

  13. 0x40 = “inc %eax” Self Modifying Code 1: 0xFFF6 nop 2: 0xFFF7 nop 3: 0xFFF8 mov $0x05, %eax 4: 0xFFF9 inc %eax 5: 0xFFFA xor %eax, %eax inc %eax 6: 0xFFFB test %eax, %eax 7: 0xFFFC jnz 0xFFFF 8: 0xFFFD mov 0x40, 0xFFFA 9: 0xFFFE jmp 0xFFF9 10: 0xFFFF nop

  14. Opaque Predicates • Conditions that always evaluate to true or always evaluate to false • Evaluation result is not obvious from static analysis • Can be formed through pointer aliasing • known to be an NP-hard problem

  15. B A B A Opaque Predicates Does A == B ?

  16. Junk Instructions • Full or partial machine code instructions • Full - distract analysis • Partial - confuse analysis

  17. Attestation Routine Checksum Result Attestation Protocol Generate Attestation Routine Precompute Result Base Execute Attestation Routine Sensor Compare Results Measure Response Time

  18. Attestation Routine Overview • Randomly step through program memory, adding values to the checksum result • Loop repeats O(n log n) times to ensure complete coverage of the memory • Routine will incorporate the building blocks to prevent attacks on the routine itself

  19. Jump Junk Instructions Junk Instructions Seed Calculation Decryption Routine Jump Memory Reads & Jump Junk Instructions Main Attestation Loop Junk Instructions Encrypted Code Memory Reads & Jump Junk Instructions Hash Calculation Random Number Generator Self Modifying Code Attestation Routine

  20. Security Analysis • What can the attacker do? • Replay response • Countered by randomization and random memory read pattern (seed) • Attacker must attack each code • Goal: force attacker to do intensive computation for each attestation procedure

  21. What Attacker Must Do • Break Encryption • Find key, which is protected by opaque predicates • Determine Seed • Protected the same way as the encryption key • Examine self-modifying code • Rewrite this portion of the code to insert conditional offsets

  22. Emulation • Attacker could install an emulator • Each read is directed to the appropriate offset • Computation is not I/O bound - significant overhead • Attack will be foiled with an appropriate choice of the timeout period

  23. Extension • Fill sensor’s free memory space with random values (known to base station) • Attest entire memory contents • Malicious code would be limited in size by data memory • Copy of original is forced to be located in data memory

  24. Related Work • SWATT (Seshadri et al.) • Genuinity (Kennell et al.) • Trusted Hardware - TPM, BIND, Copilot (Sailer et al., Shi et al., N. L. P. Jr et al.) • Obfuscation (Collberg et al., Barak et al., etc) • Program Evolution (F. Cohen) • Self-checksumming (Chang et al., Horne et al.) • Integrity Verification Kernel (D. Aucsmith)

  25. Future Work • Implementation • Test and measure how lightweight/heavyweight the attestation procedure is • Measure and test to determine appropriate timeout period • Impersonation Attack • May require hardware support • Enhance the attestation protocol to work in multihop settings

  26. Questions?

More Related