Advertisement

Code Obfuscation against Static and Dynamic Reverse Engineering

  • Sebastian Schrittwieser
  • Stefan Katzenbeisser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6958)

Abstract

The process of reverse engineering allows attackers to understand the behavior of software and extract proprietary algorithms and data structures (e.g. cryptographic keys) from it. Code obfuscation is frequently employed to mitigate this risk. However, while most of today’s obfuscation methods are targeted against static reverse engineering, where the attacker analyzes the code without actually executing it, they are still insecure against dynamic analysis techniques, where the behavior of the software is inspected at runtime. In this paper, we introduce a novel code obfuscation scheme that applies the concept of software diversification to the control flow graph of the software to enhance its complexity. Our approach aims at making dynamic reverse engineering considerably harder as the information an attacker can retrieve from the analysis of a single run of the program with a certain input, is useless for understanding the program behavior on other inputs. Based on a prototype implementation we show that our approach improves resistance against both static disassembling tools and dynamic reverse engineering at a reasonable performance penalty.

Keywords

Code obfuscation reverse engineering software protection diversification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anckaert, B., De Bosschere, K.: Diversity for Software ProtectionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anckaert, B., De Sutter, B., De Bosschere, K.: Software piracy prevention through diversity. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, DRM 2004, pp. 63–71. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S.P., Yang, K.: On the (Im)possibility of obfuscating programs. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billet, O., Gilbert, H., Ech-Chatbi, C.: Cryptanalysis of a white box AES implementation. In: Handschuh, H., Hasan, M.A. (eds.) SAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3357, pp. 227–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cappaert, J., Preneel, B.: A general model for hiding control flow. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chidamber, S., Kemerer, C.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(6) (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chow, S., Eisen, P., Johnson, H., van Oorschot, P.: A white-box DES implementation for DRM applications. In: Digital Rights Management, pp. 1–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C., Low, D.: A taxonomy of obfuscating transformations (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Sutter, B., Anckaert, B., Geiregat, J., Chanet, D., De Bosschere, K.: Instruction set limitation in support of software diversity. In: Lee, P.J., Cheon, J.H. (eds.) ICISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5461, pp. 152–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franz, M.: E unibus pluram: massive-scale software diversity as a defense mechanism. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on New Security Paradigms. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halstead, M.: Elements of software science. Elsevier, New York (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison, W., Magel, K.: A complexity measure based on nesting level. ACM Sigplan Notices 16(3) (1981)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henry, S., Kafura, D.: Software Structure Metrics Based on Information Flow. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 7(5), 510–518 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacob, M., Boneh, D., Felten, E.: Attacking an obfuscated cipher by injecting faults. In: Digital Rights Management, pp. 16–31 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kinder, J., Veith, H.: Jakstab: A static analysis platform for binaries. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 423–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linn, C., Debray, S.: Obfuscation of executable code to improve resistance to static disassembly. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lynn, B., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Positive results and techniques for obfuscation. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 20–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Madou, M., Anckaert, B., De Sutter, B., De Bosschere, K.: Hybrid static-dynamic attacks against software protection mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, pp. 75–82. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCabe, T.: A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (1976)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michiels, W., Gorissen, P.: Mechanism for software tamper resistance: an application of white-box cryptography. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, pp. 82–89. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munson Taghi, M., John, C.: Measurement of data structure complexity. Journal of Systems and Software 20(3), 217–225 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oviedo, E.: Control flow, data flow and program complexity. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wyseur, B., Michiels, W., Gorissen, P., Preneel, B.: Cryptanalysis of white-box DES implementations with arbitrary external encodings. In: Adams, C., Miri, A., Wiener, M. (eds.) SAC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4876, pp. 264–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Schrittwieser
    • 1
  • Stefan Katzenbeisser
    • 2
  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyAustria
  2. 2.Darmstadt University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations