Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

BSD Cafe Billboard

  1. Home
  2. BSD
  3. OpenBSD
  4. [Dr Brian R. Callahan]

[Dr Brian R. Callahan]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved OpenBSD
openbsdantirop
1 Posts 1 Posters 19 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • CiotBSDC Offline
    CiotBSDC Offline
    CiotBSD
    wrote last edited by CiotBSD
    #1

    (06/10)

    ⇒ A Final Return for OpenBSD Anti-Return-Oriented Programming Mitigations

    Return-Oriented Programming (ROP) continues to be a serious attack taking advantage of flaws in memory unsafe languages, particularly buffer overflows, to launch arbitrary code execution attacks by chaining together pieces of already existing code in loaded binaries and shared libraries, called gadgets. With the continued reliance on x86_64 CPUs in cloud and personal servers, mitigations that can meaningfully reduce the success of ROP attacks without significant overhead continue to be attractive. We propose the porting of one such software-based anti-ROP mitigation proposed by OpenBSD: compile-time instruction rewriting to avoid opportunities for ROP exploitation. We bring this mitigation, originally developed for the custom OpenBSD implementation of the LLVM compiler suite, to GCC by way of a standalone utility that sits in between the compiler and the assembler and rewrites potential gadget instructions before assembly into object code. Our utility provides a minimal reduction in gadgets with some penalties in binary sizes and performance impacts. We compare our GCC-ported standalone utility to the original OpenBSD LLVM mitigation and discovered that our standalone utility is weaker compared to the original LLVM-based mitigation. However, due to the overall weak reduction in gadgets for both the LLVM-based and GCC-based implementations, we conclude that seemingly obvious mitigations may prove to be anything but, and caution providing security improvements without significant testing and evaluation.

    • https://www.researchgate.net/publication/405728967_A_Final_Return_for_OpenBSD_Anti-Return-Oriented_Programming_Mitigations

    ping: https://bsd.network/@bcallah/116725877009964245


    It seems to be my 200th post here… 😉


    Enjoy-ID!
    Enjoy-IT!

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • horia@honk.vedetta.comH horia@honk.vedetta.com shared this topic

    Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

    Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

    With your input, this post could be even better 💗

    Register Login
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    Powered by NodeBB Contributors
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups