skip to main content
article

Argos: an emulator for fingerprinting zero-day attacks for advertised honeypots with automatic signature generation

Published:18 April 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

As modern operating systems and software become larger and more complex, they are more likely to contain bugs, which may allow attackers to gain illegitimate access. A fast and reliable mechanism to discern and generate vaccines for such attacks is vital for the successful protection of networks and systems. In this paper we present Argos, a containment environment for worms as well as human orchestrated attacks. Argos is built upon a fast x86 emulator which tracks network data throughout execution to identify their invalid use as jump targets, function addresses, instructions, etc. Furthermore, system call policies disallow the use of network data as arguments to certain calls. When an attack is detected, we perform 'intelligent' process- or kernel-aware logging of the corresponding emulator state for further offline processing. In addition, our own forensics shellcode is injected, replacing the malevolent shellcode, to gather information about the attacked process. By correlating the data logged by the emulator with the data collected from the network, we are able to generate accurate network intrusion detection signatures for the exploits that are immune to payload mutations. The entire process can be automated and has few if any false positives, thus rapid global scale deployment of the signatures is possible.

References

  1. Diamondes openports. http://www.diamondes.com.au/openports/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Basic Architecture, volume 1 of Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual. Intel Corporation, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Aleph One. Smashing the stack for fun and profit. Phrack Magazine, 7(49), November 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. C. A. W. Alex Ho, Michael Fetterman and S. Hand. Practical taint-based protection using demand emulation. In Proc. of the 1st EuroSys Conference, April 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. F. Bellard. QEMU, a fast and portable dynamic translator. In In Proc. of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 41--46, April 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. H. Bos, W. de Bruijn, M. Cristea, T. Nguyen, and G. Portokalidis. FFPF: Fairly Fast Packet Filters. In Proceedings of OSDI'04, San Francisco, CA, December 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. bulba and Kil3r. Bypassing Stackguard and Stackshield. Phrack Magazine, 10(56), January 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. C. Cowan, C. Pu, D. Maier, J. Walpole, P. Bakke, S. Beattie, A. Grier, P. Wagle and Q. Zhang. StackGuard: Automatic adaptive detection and prevention of buffer-overflow attacks. In Proc. of the 7th USENIX Security Symposium, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Cowan, M. Barringer, S. Beattie and G. Kroah-Hartman. FormatGuard: Automatic protection from printf format string vulnerabilities. In In Proc. of the 10th Usenix Security Symposium, August 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. C. Cowan, S. Beattie, J. Johansen and P. Wagle. PointGuard: Protecting pointers from buffer overflow vulnerabilities. In In Proc. of the 12th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 91--104, August 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Conover. w00w00 on heap overflows. http://www.w00w00.org/articles.html, January 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. R. Crandall and F. T. Chong. Minos: Control data attack prevention orthogonal to memory model. In In Proc. of the 37th annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pages 221--232, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. R. Crandall, S. F. Wu, and F. T. Chong. Experiences using Minos as a tool for capturing and analyzing novel worms for unknown vulnerabilities. In Intrusion and Malware Detection and Vulnerability Assessment: Second International Conference (DIMVA05), Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. W. Cui, V. Paxson, N. Weaver, and R. Katz. Protocol-independent adaptive replay of application dialog. In The 13th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), San Diego, CA, February 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. D. Dagonand, X. Qin, G. Gu, W. Lee, J. Grizzard, J. Levine and Henry Owen. HoneyStat: Local worm detection using honeypots. In In Proc. of the 7th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. G. Barrantes, D. H. Ackley, S. Forrest, T. S. Palmer, D. Stefanovix and D. D. Zovi. Randomized instruction set emulation to disrupt code injection attacks. In In Proc. of the 10th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pages 281--289, October 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. G. E. Suh, J. W. Lee, D. Zhang and S. Devadas. Secure program execution via dynamic information flow tracking. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 38(5):86--96, December 2004. SESSION: Security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. G. S. Kc, A. D. Keromytis, and V. Prevelakis. Countering code-injection attacks with instruction-set randomization. In In Proc. of the ACM Computer and Communications Security (CCS) Conference, pages 272--280, October 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. G. W. Dunlap, S. T. King, S. Cinar, M. A. Basrai and P. M. Chen. ReVirt: Enabling intrusion analysis through virtual-machine logging and replay. In In Proc. of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Garfinkel and M. Rosenblum. A virtual machine introspection based architecture for intrusion detection. In In Proc. of the 10th ISOC Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems Security (SNDSS), February 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. gera and riq. Advances in format string exploitation. Phrack Magazine, 11(59), July 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. H. Bos and K. Huang. Towards software-based signature detection for intrusion prevention on the network card. In Proc of the 8th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. K. Hyang-Ah and B. Karp. Autograph: Toward automated, distributed worm signature detection. In In Proc. of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. C. Rabek, R. I. Khazan, S. M. Lewandowski and R. K. Cunningham. Detection of injected, dynamically generated, and obfuscated malicious code. In In Proc. of the ACM workshop on Rapid Malcode, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Etoh. GCC extension for protecting applications from stack-smashing attacks. Technical report, IBM, June 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. B. Jack. Remote windows kernel exploitation - step into the ring 0. eEye Digital Security Whitepaper, www.eeye.com/~data/publish/whitepapers/research/0T20050205.FILE.pdf, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Kreibich and J. Crowcroft. Honeycomb - creating intrusion detection signatures using honeypots. In 2nd Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-II), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Costa, J. Crowcroft, M. Castro, A Rowstron, L. Zhou, L. Zhang and P. Barham. Vigilante: End-to-end containment of internet worms. In In Proc. of the 20th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), Brighton, UK, October 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. Frantzen and M. Shuey. StackGhost: Hardware facilitated stack protection. In In Proc. of the 10th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 55--66, August 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. N. Dor, M. Rodeh, and M. Sagiv. CSSV: Towards a realistic tool for statically detecting all buffer overlows in C. In In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Application, October 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. Newsome and D. Song. Dynamic taint analysis for automatic detection, analysis, and signature generation of exploits on commodity software. In Proc. of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. G. Portokalidis and H. Bos. SweetBait: Zero-Hour Worm Detection and Containment Using Honeypots, (An extended version of this report was accepted by Elsevier Journal on Computer Networks, Special Issue on Security through Self-Protecting and Self-Healing Systems), TR IR-CS-015. Technical report, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, May 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. N. Provos. A virtual honeypot framework. In Proc. of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. rix. Smashing C++ VPTRS. Phrack Magazine, 10(56), January 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Roesch. Snort - lightweight intrusion detection for networks. In Proc. of LISA '99: 13th Systems Administration Conference, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. S. Bhatkar, D. C. Du Varney and R. Sekar. Address obfuscation: an efficient approach to combat a broad range of memory error exploits. In In Proc. of the 12th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 105--120, August 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Singh, C. Estan, G. Varghese and S. Savage. Automated worm fingerprinting. In In Proc. of the 6th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pages 45--60, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. S. Sidiroglou and A. D. Keromytis. Using execution transactions to recover from buffer overflow attacks. Cucs-031-04, Columbia University, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. D. Spyrit. Win32 buffer overows (location, exploitation, and prevention). Phrack 55, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. V. P. Stuart Staniford and N. Weaver. How to Own the internet in your spare time. In Proc. of the 11th USENIX Security Symposium, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. U. Shankar, K. Talwar, J. S. Foster, and D. Wagner. Detecting format string vulnerabilities with type qualifiers. In In Proc. of the 10th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 201--216, August 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. V. Kiriansky, D. Bruening and S. Amarasinghe. Secure execution via program shepherding. In In Proc. of the 11th USENIX Security Symposium, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. M. M. Williamson. Throttling Viruses: Restricting Propagation to Defeat Malicious Mobile Code. In Proc. of ACSAC Security Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Argos: an emulator for fingerprinting zero-day attacks for advertised honeypots with automatic signature generation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review
      ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review  Volume 40, Issue 4
      Proceedings of the 2006 EuroSys conference
      October 2006
      383 pages
      ISSN:0163-5980
      DOI:10.1145/1218063
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      • cover image ACM Conferences
        EuroSys '06: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2006
        April 2006
        420 pages
        ISBN:1595933220
        DOI:10.1145/1217935

      Copyright © 2006 Authors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2006

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader