Advertisement

Determining the Integrity of Application Binaries on Unsecure Legacy Machines Using Software Based Remote Attestation

  • Raghunathan Srinivasan
  • Partha Dasgupta
  • Tushar Gohad
  • Amiya Bhattacharya
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6503)

Abstract

Integrity of computing platforms is paramount. A platform is as secure as the applications executing on it. All applications are created with some inherent vulnerability or loophole. Attackers can analyze the presence of flaws in a particular binary and exploit them. Traditional virus scanners are also binaries which can be attacked by malware. This paper implements a method known as Remote Attestation entirely in software to attest the integrity of a process using a trusted external server. The trusted external server issues a challenge to the client machine which responds to the challenge. The response determines the integrity of the application.

Keywords

remote attestation integrity measurement code injection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basili, V., Perricone, B.: Software errors and complexity: an empirical investigation0. Communications of the ACM 27(1), 52 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou, A., Yang, J., Chelf, B., Hallem, S., Engler, D.: An empirical study of operating systems errors. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 73–88. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, F.: Operating system protection through program evolution* 1. Computers & Security 12(6), 565–584 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garay, J., Huelsbergen, L.: Software integrity protection using timed executable agents. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, pp. 189–200. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garfinkel, T., Pfaff, B., Chow, J., Rosenblum, M., Boneh, D.: Terra: A virtual machine-based platform for trusted computing. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 37(5), 206 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldman, K., Perez, R., Sailer, R.: Linking remote attestation to secure tunnel endpoints. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Workshop on Scalable Trusted Computing, p. 24. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kennell, R., Jamieson, L.: Establishing the genuinity of remote computer systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Security Symposium. pp. 295–308 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ostrand, T., Weyuker, E.: The distribution of faults in a large industrial software system. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, p. 64. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petroni Jr., N., Fraser, T., Molina, J., Arbaugh, W.: Copilot-a coprocessor-based kernel runtime integrity monitor. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium, vol. 13, p. 13. USENIX Association (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahita, R., Savagaonkar, U., Dewan, P., Durham, D.: Mitigating the Lying-Endpoint Problem in Virtualized Network Access Frameworks. In: Clemm, A., Granville, L.Z., Stadler, R. (eds.) DSOM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4785, pp. 135–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sailer, R., Zhang, X., Jaeger, T., Van Doorn, L.: Design and implementation of a TCG-based integrity measurement architecture. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 223–238 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seshadri, A., Perrig, A., Van Doorn, L., Khosla, P.: Swatt: Software-based attestation for embedded devices. In: Proceedings of 2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 272–282. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seshadri, A., Luk, M., Shi, E., Perrig, A., van Doorn, L., Khosla, P.: Pioneer: verifying code integrity and enforcing untampered code execution on legacy systems. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 39(5), 1–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaneck, M., Mahadevan, K., Kher, V., Kim, Y.: Remote software-based attestation for wireless sensors. In: Molva, R., Tsudik, G., Westhoff, D. (eds.) ESAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3813, pp. 27–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srinivasan, R., Dasgupta, P.: Towards more effective virus detectors. Communications of the Computer Society of India 31(5), 21–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stumpf, F., Tafreschi, O., Röder, P., Eckert, C.: A robust integrity reporting protocol for remote attestation. In: Second Workshop on Advances in Trusted Computing, WATC 2006 Fall, Citeseer (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, L., Dasgupta, P.: Coprocessor-based hierarchical trust management for software integrity and digital identity protection. Journal of Computer Security 16(3), 311–339 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Web-link: Global ip network latency, http://ipnetwork.bgtmo.ip.att.net/pws/network_delay.html (retrieved on January 17, 2010)
  19. 19.
    Web-link: Vlc media player source code ftp repository, http://download.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/ (retrieved on February 24, 2010)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raghunathan Srinivasan
    • 1
  • Partha Dasgupta
    • 1
  • Tushar Gohad
    • 2
  • Amiya Bhattacharya
    • 1
  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.MontaVista Software, LLCUSA

Personalised recommendations