Related
I am developing a Windows Form Application in C#.I have heard that one should not use built in methods and functions in code since hackers have deep understanding of such built in methods and know how to fail them Instead one should always use his/her own functions and methods and if not then call built in functions intelligently from those newly made functions.How much is that true?
A supporting example in favour of my argument is that I have seen developer always develope there own made encryption algorithm like AES,DES,RC4 and Hash functions since they believe that built in encryption algorithm have many times backdoor in them.
What?! No, no, no! Whoever told you this is just wrong.
There is a common fallacy that published source code is more vulnerable to "h4ckerz" because it is available for anyone to spot the flaws in. However, I'm glad you mentioned crypto, because this is an area where this line of reasoning really stands out as the fallacy it is.
One of the most popular questions of all time on https://security.stackexchange.com/ is about a developer (in the OP he was given the pseudonym "Dave") who shared this fear of published code. Dave, like the developer you saw, was trying to homebrew his own encryption algorithm. Here's one of the most popular comments in that thread:
Dave has a fundamentally false premise, that the security of an algorithm relies on (even partially) its obscurity - that's not the case. The security of a hashing algorithm relies on the limits of our understanding of mathematics, and, to a lesser extent, the hardware ability to brute-force it. Once Dave accepts this reality (and it really is reality, read the Wikipedia article on hashing), it's a question of who is smarter - Dave by himself, or a large group of specialists devoted to this very particular problem. (emphasis added)
As a matter of fact, as it stands now, the top two memes on Security.SE are "Don't roll your own" and "Don't be a Dave".
While this has all been about crypto, this applies in general to most open-source software. The chance that a backdoor will get found and fixed goes up with each new set of eyes laid on the code. This should be a simple and uncontroversial premise: the more people are looking for something, the higher the chance it will be found. Yes, this applies to malicious users looking for exploits. However, it also applies to power users, white hat hackers, security researchers, cryptographers, professional developers, and others working for "good", which generally (hopefully) outnumber those working for "evil". This also implicitly relies on the false premise that hackers need to see the source code to do bad things. This should be obviously false based on the sheer number of proprietary systems whose source code has never been published (various Microsoft and Adobe programs come to mind) which have been inundated with vulnerabilities for years. Maybe having source code to read makes the hacker's job easier, but maybe not -- is it easier to pore over source code looking for an attack vector or to just use scanning tools and scripts against a compiled binary?
tl;dr Don't be a Dave. Rolling your own means you have to be the best at everything to succeed, instead of taking a sampling of the best the community has to offer.
Heartbleed
In your comment, you rebut:
Then why was the Heartbleed bug in openSSL not found and corrected [earlier]?
Because no one was looking at it. That's the sad truth. Here's the difference -- what happened once someone did find it? Now tens of thousands of security researchers, crypto experts, and others are looking at it. Suppose the same kind of vulnerability existed in one of the proprietary products I mentioned earlier, which it very well could. Once it's caught (if it's caught), ask yourself:
Could the team of programmers at the company responsible benefit from the help of the entire worldwide community of security experts, cryptographers, and other analysts right now?
If a bug this critical were discovered (and that's a big if!) in your software, would you be prepared to deal with the fallout caused by your custom implementation?
Unless you know of specific failure modes or weaknesses of the built-in methods your application would use and know how to minimize or eliminate them, it is probably better to use the methods provided by the language or library designers, which will often be both more efficient and more secure than what an average programmer would come up with on the fly for a particular project.
Your example absolutely does not support your view: developing your own encryption algorithm without some serious background in the domain and review by cryptanalysts, and then employing it in security-critical code, is a recipe for disaster. Even developing your own custom implementation of an industry standard encryption algorithm can present problems, and almost certainly will if you are inexperienced at it.
What are the methods for protecting an Exe file from Reverse Engineering.Many Packers are available to pack an exe file.Such an approach is mentioned in http://c-madeeasy.blogspot.com/2011/07/protecting-your-c-programexe-files-from.html
Is this method efficient?
The only good way to prevent a program from being reverse-engineered ("understood") is to revise its structure to essentially force the opponent into understanding Turing Machines. Essentially what you do is:
take some problem which generally proven to be computationally difficult
synthesize a version of that whose outcome you know; this is generally pretty easy compared to solving a version
make the correct program execution dependent on the correct answer
make the program compute nonsense if the answer is not correct
Now an opponent staring at your code has to figure what the "correct" computation is, by solving algorithmically hard problems. There's tons of NP-hard problems that nobody has solved efficiently in the literature in 40 years; its a pretty good bet if your program depends on one of these, that J. Random Reverse-Engineer won't suddenly be able to solve them.
One generally does this by transforming the original program to obscure its control flow, and/or its dataflow. Some techniques scramble the control flow by converting some control flow into essentially data flow ("jump indirect through this pointer array"), and then implementing data flow algorithms that require precise points-to analysis, which is both provably hard and has proven difficult in practice.
Here's a paper that describes a variety of techniques rather shallowly but its an easy read:
http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/faculty/stamp/students/kundu_deepti.pdf
Here's another that focuses on how to ensure that the obfuscating transformations lead to results that are gauranteed to be computationally hard:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/41135jkqxv9l3xme/
Here's one that surveys a wide variety of control flow transformation methods,
including those that provide levels of gaurantees about security:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g157gxr14m149l13/
This paper obfuscates control flows in binary programs with low overhead:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.167.3773&rank=2
Now, one could go through a lot of trouble to prevent a program from being decompiled. But if the decompiled one was impossible to understand, you simply might not bother; that's the approach I'd take.
If you insist on preventing decompilation, you can attack that by considering what decompilation is intended to accomplish. Decompilation essentially proposes that you can convert each byte of the target program into some piece of code. One way to make that fail, is to ensure that the application can apparently use each byte
as both computer instructions, and as data, even if if does not actually do so, and that the decision to do so is obfuscated by the above kinds of methods. One variation on this is to have lots of conditional branches in the code that are in fact unconditional (using control flow obfuscation methods); the other side of the branch falls into nonsense code that looks valid but branches to crazy places in the existing code. Another variant on this idea is to implement your program as an obfuscated interpreter, and implement the actual functionality as a set of interpreted data.
A fun way to make this fail is to generate code at run time and execute it on the fly; most conventional languages such as C have pretty much no way to represent this.
A program built like this would be difficult to decompile, let alone understand after the fact.
Tools that are claimed to a good job at protecting binary code are listed at:
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/1069/any-comprehensive-solutions-for-binary-code-protection-and-anti-reverse-engineeri
Packing, compressing and any other methods of binary protection will only every serve to hinder or slow reversal of your code, they have never been and never will be 100% secure solutions (though the marketing of some would have you believe that). You basically need to evaluate what sort of level of hacker you are up against, if they are script kids, then any packer that require real effort and skill (ie:those that lack unpacking scripts/programs/tutorials) will deter them. If your facing people with skills and resources, then you can forget about keeping your code safe (as many of the comments say: if the OS can read it to execute it, so can you, it'll just take a while longer). If your concern is not so much your IP but rather the security of something your program does, then you might be better served in redesigning in a manner where it cannot be attack even with the original source (chrome takes this approach).
Decompilation is always possible. The statement
This threat can be eliminated to extend by packing/compressing the
executable(.exe).
on your linked site is a plain lie.
Currently many solutions can be used to protect your application from being anti-compiled. Such as compressing, Obfuscation, Code snippet, etc.
You can looking for a company to help you achieve this.
Such as Nelpeiron, the website is:https://www.nalpeiron.com/
Which can cover many platforms, Windows, Linux, ARM-Linux, Android.
What is more Virbox is also can be taken into consideration:
The website is: https://lm-global.virbox.com/index.html
I recommend is because they have more options to protect your source code, such as import table protection, memory check.
I've heard a bit about using automated theorem provers in attempts to show that security vulnerabilities don't exist in a software system. In general this is fiendishly hard to do.
My question is has anyone done work on using similar tools to find vulnerabilities in existing or proposed systems?
Eidt: I'm NOT asking about proving that a software system is secure. I'm asking about finding (ideally previously unknown) vulnerabilities (or even classes of them). I'm thinking like (but an not) a black hat here: describe the formal semantics of the system, describe what I want to attack and then let the computer figure out what chain of actions I need to use to take over your system.
Yes, a lot of work has been done in this area. Satisfiability (SAT and SMT) solvers are regularly used to find security vulnerabilities.
For example, in Microsoft, a tool called SAGE is used to eradicate buffer overruns bugs from windows.
SAGE uses the Z3 theorem prover as its satisfiability checker.
If you search the internet using keywords such as “smart fuzzing” or “white-box fuzzing”, you will find several other projects using satisfiability checkers for finding security vulnerabilities.
The high-level idea is the following: collect execution paths in your program (that you didn't manage to exercise, that is, you didn't find an input that made the program execute it), convert these paths into mathematical formulas, and feed these formulas to a satisfiability solver.
The idea is to create a formula that is satisfiable/feasible only if there is an input that will make the program execute the given path.
If the produced formula is satisfiable (i.e., feasible), then the satisfiability solver will produce an assignment and the desired input values. White-box fuzzers use different strategies for selecting execution paths.
The main goal is to find an input that will make the program execute a path that leads to a crash.
So, at least in some meaningful sense, the opposite of proving something is secure is finding code paths for which it isn't.
Try Byron Cook's TERMINATOR project.
And at least two videos on Channel9. Here's one of them
His research is likely to be a good starting point for you to learn about this extremely interesting area of research.
Projects such as Spec# and Typed-Assembly-Language are related too. In their quest to move the possibility of safety checks from runtime back to compile-time, they allow the compiler to detect many bad code paths as compilation errors. Strictly, they don't help your stated intent, but the theory they exploit might be useful to you.
I'm currently writing a PDF parser in Coq together with someone else. While the goal in this case is to produce a secure piece of code, doing something like this can definitely help with finding fatal logic bugs.
Once you've familiarized yourself with the tool, most proof become easy. The harder proofs yield interesting test cases, that can sometimes trigger bugs in real, existing programs. (And for finding bugs, you can simply assume theorems as axioms once you're sure that there's no bug to find, no serious proving necessary.)
About a moth ago, we hit a problem parsing PDFs with multiple / older XREF tables. We could not prove that the parsing terminates. Thinking about this, I constructed a PDF with looping /Prev Pointers in the Trailer (who'd think of that? :-P), which naturally made some viewers loop forever. (Most notably, pretty much any poppler-based viewer on Ubuntu. Made me laugh and curse Gnome/evince-thumbnailer for eating all my CPU. I think they fixed it now, tho.)
Using Coq to find lower-level bugs will be difficult. In order to prove anything, you need a model of the program's behavior. For stack / heap problems, you'll probably have to model the CPU-level or at least C-level execution. While technically possible, I'd say this is not worth the effort.
Using SPLint for C or writing a custom checker in your language of choice should be more efficient.
STACK and KINT used constraint solvers to find vulnerabilities in many OSS projects, like the linux kernel and ffmpeg. The project pages point to papers and code.
It's not really related to theorem-proving, but fuzz testing is a common technique for finding vulnerabilities in an automated way.
There is the L4 verified kernel which is trying to do just that. However, if you look at the history of exploitation, completely new attack patterns are found and then a lot of software written up to that point is very vulnerable to attacks. For instance, format string vulnerabilities weren't discovered until 1999. About a month ago H.D. Moore released DLL Hijacking and literally everything under windows is vulnerable.
I don't think its possible to prove that a piece of software is secure against an unknown attack. At least not until a theorem is able to discover such an attack, and as far as I know this hasn't happened.
Disclaimer: I have little to no experience with automated theorem provers
A few observations
Things like cryptography are rarely ever "proven", just believed to be secure. If your program uses anything like that, it will only be as strong as the crypto.
Theorem provers can't analyze everything (or they would be able to solve the halting problem)
You would have to define very clearly what insecure means for the prover. This in itself is a huge challenge
Yes. Many theorem proving projects show the quality of their software by demonstrating holes or defects in software. To make it security related, just imagine finding a hole in a security protocol. Carlos Olarte's Ph.D. thesis under Ugo Montanari has one such example.
It is in the application. Not really the theorem prover itself that has anything to do with security or special knowledge thereof.
I've read quite a few times how I shouldn't use cryptography if I'm not an expert. Basically both Jeff and Eric tell you the same:
Cryptography is difficult, better buy the security solution from experts than doing it yourself.
I completely agree, for a start it's incredibly difficult to perceive all possible paths an scenario might take, all the possible attacks against it and against your solution... but then When should we use it?
I will face in a few months with the task of providing a security solution to a preexisting solution we have. That is, we exchange data between servers, second phase of the project is providing good security to it. Buying a third party solution will eat up the budget anyway so ... When is it good to use cryptography for a security solution? Even if you are not a TOP expert.
Edit: To clarify due to some comments.
The project is based on data transport across network locations, the current implementation allows for a security layer to be placed before transport and we can make any changes in implementation we like (assuming reasonable changes, the architecture is well design so changes should have an acceptable impact). The question revolves around this phrase from Eric Lippert:
I don’t know nearly enough about cryptography to safely design or implement a crypto-based security system.
We're not talking about reinventing the wheel, I had in mind a certain schema when I designed the system that implied secure key exchange, encryption and decryption and some other "counter measures" (man in the middle, etc) using C# .NET and the included cryptography primitives, but I'm by no means an expert in the field so when I read that, I of course start doubting myself. Am I even capable of implementing a secure system? Would it always be parts of the system that will be insecure unless I subcontract that part?
I think this blog posting (not mine!) gives some good guidelines.
Other than that there are some things you should never do unless you're an expert. This is stuff like implementing your own crypto algorithm (or your own version of a published algorithm). It's just crazy to do that yourself! (When there's CAPI, JCE, OpenSSL, ....)
Beyond that though if you're 'inventing' anything it's almost certainly wrong. In the Coding Horror post you linked to - the main mistake to my mind is that he's doing it a very low level and you just don't need to. If you were encrypting things in Java (I'm not so familiar with .NET) you could use Jasypt which uses strong default algorithms and parameters and doesn't require you to know about ECB and CBC (though, arguably, you should anyway just because...).
There is going to be a prebuilt system for just about anything you're going to want to do with crypto. If you're storing keys then theres KeyCzar, in other cases theres Jasypt. The point is if you're doing anything 'unusual' with crypto - you shouldn't be; if you're doing something not 'unusual' then you don't need to do the crypto yourself. Don't invent a new way to store keys, generate keys from passwords, verify signatures etc - it's not necessary, it's complicated and you'll almost certainly make a mistake unless you're very very careful...
So... I don't think you necessarily need to be afraid of encrypting things but be aware that if you're specifying algorithms and parameters to those algorithms directly in your code it is probably not good. There are exceptions to any rule but as in the blog post I linked above - if you type AES into your code you're doing it wrong!
The key "take-away" from the Matasano blog post is right at the end (note that TLS is a more precise name for SSL):
THOMAS PTACEK
GPG for data at rest. TLS for data in
motion.
NATE LAWSON
You can also use Guttman's cryptlib,
which has a sane API. Or Google
Keyczar. They both have really simple
interfaces, and they try to make it
hard to do the wrong thing. What we
need are fewer libraries with higher
level interfaces. But we also need
more testing for those libraries.
The rule of thumb with cryptography isn't that you shouldn't use it if you're not an expert; rather, it's that you shouldn't re-invent the wheel unless you're an expert. In other words, use existing implementations / libraries / algorithms as much as possible. For example, don't write your own cryptographic authentication algorithm, or come up with yet another way to store keys.
As for when to use it: whenever you have data that needs to be protected from having others see it. Beyond that, it comes down to which algorithms / approaches are best: SSL vs. IPsec vs. symmetric vs. PKI, etc.
Also, a word of advice: key management is often the most challenging part of any comprehensive cryptographic solution.
You have things backwards: first you must specify your actual requirements in detail ("provide a security solution" is meaningless marketing drivel). Then you look for ways to satisfy those specific requirements; croptography will satisfy some of them.
Example of requirements that cryptography can satisfy:
Protect data sent over publich channels from spying
Protect data against tampering (or rather, detect manipulated data)
Allow servers and clients as well as users to prove their identity to each other
You need to go through the same process as for any other requirement. What is the problem being solved, what is the outcome the users are looking for, how is the solution proposed going to be supported going forward, what are the timescales involved. Sometimes there is an off the shelf solution that does the job, sometimes what you want needs to be developed as a custom solution, and sometimes you'll choose a custom solution as it will work out more cost effective than an off the shelf one.
The same is true with security requirements, but the added complexity is that to do any sort of custom solution requires additional expertise in the technical teams (development, support etc). There is also the issue that the solution may need to be not only secure but recognised as secure. This may be far easier to achieve with an off the shelf solution.
And RickNZ is absolutely right - don't forget key management. Consider this right at the outset as part of the decision making process.
The question I would start by asking, is what are you trying to achieve.
If you are trying to just secure the transmission of the data from server a to server b, then there are a number of mechanisms you could use, which would require little work, such as SSL.
However if you are trying to secure all of the data stored in the application that is a far more difficult, although if it is a requirement, then I would suggest that any cryptography, regardless of how easy to break, is better than none.
As someone who has been asked to do similar things, you face a daunting number of questions in implementing your system. There are major difference between securing a system and implementing cryptography systems.
Implementing a cryptography system is very difficult and experts routinely get it wrong, both in theory and practice. A famous theoretical failure was the knapsack cryptosystem which has been largely abandoned due to the Lenstra–Lenstra–Lovász lattice basis reduction algorithm. On the other side, we saw in the last year how an incorrect seed in Debian's random number generator opened up any key generated by the OS. You want to use a prepackaged cryptosystem, not because its an "experts-only" field, but because you want a community tested and supported system. Almost every cryptographic algorithm I know of has bounds that assume certain tasks to be hard, and if those tasks turn out to be computable (as in the LLL algorithm) the whole system becomes useless over night.
But, I believe, the real heart of the question is how to use things in order to make a secure system. While there are many libraries out there to generate keys, cipher the text, and so on, there are very few systems that implement the entire package. But as always security boils down to two concepts: worth of protection and circle of trust.
If you are guarding the Hope diamond, you spend a lot of money designing a system to protect it, employ a constant force to watch it, and hire crackers to continually try to break in. If you are just discouraging bored teenagers from reading your email, you hack something up in an hour and you don't use that address for secret company documents.
Additionally managing the circle of trust is just as difficult of a task. If your circle includes tech savvy, like-minded friends, you make a system and give them a large amount of trust with the system. If it includes many levels of trust, such as users, admins, and so on, you have a tiered system. Since you have to manage more and more interactions with a larger circle, the bugs in the larger system become more weaknesses to hack and thus you must be extremely careful in designing this system.
Now to answer your question. You hire a security expert the moment the item you're protecting is valuable enough and your circle of trust includes those you cannot trust. You don't design cryptography systems unless you do it for a living and have a community to break them, it is a full time academic discipline. If you want to hack for fun, remember that it is only for fun and don't let the value of what you are protecting get too high.
Pay for security (of which cryptography is a part but only a part) what it is worth but no more. So your first task is to decide what your security is worth, or or how much various states of security are worth. Then invite whoever holds the budget to select which state to aim for and therefore how much to spend.
No absolutes here, it's all relative.
Why buy cryptography? It's one of the most developed area in open source software of great quality :) See for example TrueCrypt or OpenSSL
There is a good chance that whatever you need cryptography for there is already a good quality, reputable open source project for it! (And if you can see the source you can see what they did; I once saw an article about a commercial software supposed to "encrypt" a file that simply xorred every byte with a fixed value!)
And, also, why would you want to re-invent the wheel? It's unlikely that with no cryptography background you will do better or even come close to the current algorithms such as AES.
I think it totally depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Does the data need to be stored encrypted at either end or does it just need to be encrypted whilst in transit?
How are you transferring the data? FTP, HTTP etc?
Probably not a good idea to have security as a second phase as by that point presumably you've been moving data around insecurely for a period of time?
I'm modifying existing security code. The specifications are pretty clear, there is example code, but I'm no cryptographic expert. In fact, the example code has a disclaimer saying, in effect, "Don't use this code verbatim."
While auditing the code I'm to modify (which is supposedly feature complete) I ran across this little gem which is used in generating the challenge:
static uint16 randomSeed;
...
uint16 GetRandomValue(void)
{
return randomSeed++;/* This is not a good example of very random generation :o) */
}
Of course, the first thing I immediately did was pass it around the office so we could all get a laugh.
The programmer who produced this code knew it wasn't a good algorithm (as indicated by the comment), but I don't think they understood the security implications. They didn't even bother to call it in the main loop so it would at least turn into a free running counter - still not ideal, but worlds beyond this.
However, I know that the code I produce is going to similarly cause a real security guru to chuckle or quake.
What are the most common security problems, specific to cryptography, that I need to understand?
What are some good resources that will give me suitable knowledge about what I should know beyond common mistakes?
-Adam
Don't try to roll your own - use a standard library if at all possible. Subtle changes to security code can have a huge impact that aren't easy to spot, but can open security holes. For example, two modified lines to one library opened a hole that wasn't readily apparent for quite some time.
Applied Cryptography is an excellent book to help you understand crypto and code. It goes over a lot of fundamentals, like how block ciphers work, and why choosing a poor cipher mode will make your code useless even if you're using a perfectly implemented version of AES.
Some things to watch out for:
Poor Sources of Randomness
Trying to design your own algorithm or protocol - don't do it, ever.
Not getting it code reviewed. Preferably by publishing it online.
Not using a well established library and trying to write it yourself.
Crypto as a panacea - encrypting data does not magically make it safe
Key Management. These days it's often easier to steal the key with a side-channel attack than to attack the crypto.
Your question shows one of the more common ones: poor sources of randomness. It doesn't matter if you use a 256 bit key if they bits aren't random enough.
Number 2 is probably assuming that you can design a system better than the experts. This is an area where a quality implementation of a standard is almost certainly going to be better than innovation. Remember, it took 3 major versions before SSL was really secure. We think.
IMHO, there are four levels of attacks you should be aware of:
social engineering attacks. You should train your users not to do stupid things and write your software such that it is difficult for users to do stupid things. I don't know of any good reference about this stuff.
don't execute arbitrary code (buffer overflows, xss exploits, sql injection are all grouped here). The minimal thing to do in order to learn about this is to read Writing Secure Code from someone at MS and watching the How to Break Web Software google tech talk. This should also teach you a bit about defense in depth.
logical attacks. If your code is manipulating plain-text, certificates, signatures, cipher-texts, public keys or any other cryptographic objects, you should be aware that handling them in bad ways can lead to bad things. Minimal things you should be aware about include offline&online dictionary attacks, replay attacks, man-in-the-middle attacks. The starting point to learning about this and generally a very good reference for you is http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~abadi/Papers/gep-ieee.ps
cryptographic attacks. Cryptographic vulnerabilities include:
stuff you can avoid: bad random number generation, usage of a broken hash function, broken implementation of security primitive (e.g. engineer forgets a -1 somewhere in the code, which renders the encryption function reversible)
stuff you cannot avoid except by being as up-to-date as possible: new attack against a hash function or an encryption function (see e.g. recent MD5 talk), new attack technique (see e.g. recent attacks against protocols that send encrypted voice over the network)
A good reference in general should be Applied Cryptography.
Also, it is very worrying to me that stuff that goes on a mobile device which is probably locked and difficult to update is written by someone who is asking about security on stackoverflow. I believe your case would one of the few cases where you need an external (good) consultant that helps you get the details right. Even if you hire a security consultant, which I recommend you to do, please also read the above (minimalistic) references.
What are the most common security problems, specific to cryptography, that I need to understand?
Easy - you(1) are not smart enough to come up with your own algorithm.
(1) And by you, I mean you, me and everyone else reading this site...except for possibly Alan Kay and Jon Skeet.
I'm not a crypto guy either, but S-boxes can be troublesome when messed with (and they do make a difference). You also need a real source of entropy, not just a PRNG (no matter how random it looks). PRNGs are useless. Next, you should ensure the entropy source isn't deterministic and that it can't be tampered with.
My humble advice is: stick with known crypto algorithms, unless you're an expert and understand the risks. You could be better off using some tested, publicly-available open source / public domain code.