skip to main content
10.1145/3339252.3340511acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaresConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

IO-Trust: An out-of-band trusted memory acquisition for intrusion detection and Forensics investigations in cloud IOMMU based systems

Published:26 August 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern malware is complex, stealthy, and employ anti-forensics techniques to evade detection. In order to detect malware, data must be collected, such, allows further analyses of the malware's behaviour. However, when both the malware and the detecting system run on the same domain (the CPU) it's questionable whether the data acquired by the acquisition method is not tampered with. Hardware based techniques, such as acquiring data out-of-band using a PCIe device allow for data acquisition that is deemed trusted when the acquisition method does not rely on any data present on the host memory. Unfortunately, in Input-Output Memory Management Unit (IOMMU) based systems, peripheral devices access to host memory go through a stage of translation by the IOMMU. The translation tables which reside in the host's memory are subject to malware control, hence are not trustworthy. In this paper we present a method that allows acquiring the data reliably without dependant on data residing in host memory, even when IOMMU is being used to restrict devices. We show how accessing host physical memory is achieved and discuss why this is not a vulnerability in some platforms, but rather a powerful tool for securing data acquisition when the host is not trusted to perform the acquisition.

References

  1. Damien Aumaitre and Christophe Devine. 2010. Subverting windows 7 x64 kernel with dma attacks. HITBSecConf Amsterdam (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Michael Becher, Maximillian Dornseif, and Christian N Klein. 2005. FireWire: all your memory are belong to us. Proceedings of CanSecWest (2005), 67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Rory Breuk and Albert Spruyt. 2012. Integrating DMA attacks in exploitation frameworks. Retrieved on January 14, 2014 (2012), 2011--2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ravi Budruk, Don Anderson, and Tom Shanley. 2004. PCI express system architecture. Addison-Wesley Professional. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Guoxing Chen, Sanchuan Chen, Yuan Xiao, Yinqian Zhang, Zhiqiang Lin, and Ten H Lai. 2018. Sgxpectre attacks: Leaking enclave secrets via speculative execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09085 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Intel Corporation. {n. d.}. ArriaÂő 10 GX FPGA Development Kit. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/programmable/products/boards_and_kits/dev-kits/altera/kit-a10-gx-fpga.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Francis M David, Ellick M Chan, Jeffrey C Carlyle, and Roy H Campbell. 2008. Cloaker: Hardware supported rootkit concealment. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008). IEEE, 296--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Zhui Deng, Xiangyu Zhang, and Dongyan Xu. 2013. Spider: Stealthy binary program instrumentation and debugging via hardware virtualization. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. ACM, 289--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Artem Dinaburg, Paul Royal, Monirul Sharif, and Wenke Lee. 2008. Ether: malware analysis via hardware virtualization extensions. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 51--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tal Garfinkel, Mendel Rosenblum, et al. 2003. A Virtual Machine Introspection Based Architecture for Intrusion Detection.. In Ndss, Vol. 3. Citeseer, 191--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Github. 2017. Boardbase Management Controller. https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Robert P Goldberg. 1974. Survey of virtual machine research. Computer 7, 6 (1974), 34--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Brian Kelly. 2018. Cerberus Architecture. https://github.com/opencomputeproject/Project_Olympus/tree/master/Project_Cerberus.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhilung Kirat, Giovanni Vigna, and Christopher Kruegel. 2014. Barecloud: bare-metal analysis-based evasive malware detection. In 23rd {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 14). 287--301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Paul Kocher, Daniel Genkin, Daniel Gruss, Werner Haas, Mike Hamburg, Moritz Lipp, Stefan Mangard, Thomas Prescher, Michael Schwarz, and Yuval Yarom. 2018. Spectre attacks: Exploiting speculative execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01203 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Moritz Lipp, Misiker Tadesse Aga, Michael Schwarz, Daniel Gruss, Clémentine Maurice, Lukas Raab, and Lukas Lamster. 2018. Nethammer: Inducing rowhammer faults through network requests. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04956 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Moritz Lipp, Michael Schwarz, Daniel Gruss, Thomas Prescher, Werner Haas, Stefan Mangard, Paul Kocher, Daniel Genkin, Yuval Yarom, and Mike Hamburg. 2018. Meltdown. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01207 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ben Martini and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. 2012. An integrated conceptual digital forensic framework for cloud computing. Digital Investigation 9, 2 (2012), 71--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Nick L Petroni Jr, Timothy Fraser, Jesus Molina, and William A Arbaugh. 2004. Copilot-a Coprocessor-based Kernel Runtime Integrity Monitor.. In USENIX Security Symposium. San Diego, USA, 179--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Darren Quick and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. 2014. Impacts of increasing volume of digital forensic data: A survey and future research challenges. Digital Investigation 11, 4 (2014), 273--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Danny Quist, Val Smith, and Offensive Computing. 2006. Detecting the presence of virtual machines using the local data table. Offensive Computing (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas Raffetseder, Christopher Kruegel, and Engin Kirda. 2007. Detecting system emulators. In International Conference on Information Security. Springer, 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Michael Rushanan and Stephen Checkoway. 2015. Run-dma. In 9th {USENIX} Workshop on Offensive Technologies ({WOOT} 15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Joanna Rutkowska. 2007. Beyond the CPU: Defeating hardware based RAM acquisition. Proceedings of BlackHat DC 2007 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernand Lone Sang, Eric Lacombe, Vincent Nicomette, and Yves Deswarte. 2010. Exploiting an I/OMMU vulnerability. In 2010 5th International Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software. IEEE, 7--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Fernand Lone Sang, Vincent Nicomette, and Yves Deswarte. 2011. I/O attacks in Intel PC-based architectures and countermeasures. In 2011 First SysSec Workshop. IEEE, 19--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Dawn Song, David Brumley, Heng Yin, Juan Caballero, Ivan Jager, Min Gyung Kang, Zhenkai Liang, James Newsome, Pongsin Poosankam, and Prateek Saxena. 2008. BitBlaze: A new approach to computer security via binary analysis. In International Conference on Information Systems Security. Springer, 1--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Chad Spensky, Hongyi Hu, and Kevin Leach. 2016. LO-PHI: Low-Observable Physical Host Instrumentation for Malware Analysis.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Patrick Stewin and Iurii Bystrov. 2012. Understanding DMA malware. In International Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment. Springer, 21--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Andrei Tatar, Radhesh Krishnan Konoth, Elias Athanasopoulos, Cristiano Giuffrida, Herbert Bos, and Kaveh Razavi. 2018. Throwhammer: Rowhammer attacks over the network and defenses. In 2018 {USENIX} Annual Technical Conference ({USENIX}{ATC} 18). 213--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jiang Wang, Angelos Stavrou, and Anup Ghosh. 2010. Hypercheck: A hardware-assisted integrity monitor. In International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer, 158--177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Filip Wecherowski. 2009. A real smm rootkit: Reversing and hooking bios smi handlers. Phrack Magazine 13, 66 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lok-Kwong Yan, Manjukumar Jayachandra, Mu Zhang, and Heng Yin. 2012. V2E: combining hardware virtualization and softwareemulation for transparent and extensible malware analysis. ACM Sigplan Notices 47, 7 (2012), 227--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. IO-Trust: An out-of-band trusted memory acquisition for intrusion detection and Forensics investigations in cloud IOMMU based systems

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ARES '19: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security
        August 2019
        979 pages
        ISBN:9781450371643
        DOI:10.1145/3339252

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 August 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate228of451submissions,51%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader