ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Merlin: specification inference for explicit information flow problems
Full text PdfPdf (787 KB)
Source
Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation archive
Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation table of contents
Dublin, Ireland
SESSION: Program analysis for security table of contents
Pages 75-86  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-392-1
Also published in ...
Authors
Benjamin Livshits  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA
Aditya V. Nori  Microsoft Research, Bangalore, India
Sriram K. Rajamani  Microsoft Research, Bangalore, India
Anindya Banerjee  IMDEA Software, Madrid, Spain
Sponsors
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 34,   Downloads (12 Months): 133,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1542476.1542485
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The last several years have seen a proliferation of static and runtime analysis tools for finding security violations that are caused by explicit information flow in programs. Much of this interest has been caused by the increase in the number of vulnerabilities such as cross-site scripting and SQL injection. In fact, these explicit information flow vulnerabilities commonly found in Web applications now outnumber vulnerabilities such as buffer overruns common in type-unsafe languages such as C and C++. Tools checking for these vulnerabilities require a specification to operate. In most cases the task of providing such a specification is delegated to the user. Moreover, the efficacy of these tools is only as good as the specification. Unfortunately, writing a comprehensive specification presents a major challenge: parts of the specification are easy to miss, leading to missed vulnerabilities; similarly, incorrect specifications may lead to false positives.

This paper proposes Merlin, a new approach for automatically inferring explicit information flow specifications from program code. Such specifications greatly reduce manual labor, and enhance the quality of results, while using tools that check for security violations caused by explicit information flow. Beginning with a data propagation graph, which represents interprocedural flow of information in the program, Merlin aims to automatically infer an information flow specification. Merlin models information flow paths in the propagation graph using probabilistic constraints. A naive modeling requires an exponential number of constraints, one per path in the propagation graph. For scalability, we approximate these path constraints using constraints on chosen triples of nodes, resulting in a cubic number of constraints. We characterize this approximation as a probabilistic abstraction, using the theory of probabilistic refinement developed by McIver and Morgan. We solve the resulting system of probabilistic constraints using factor graphs, which are a well-known structure for performing probabilistic inference.

We experimentally validate the Merlin approach by applying it to 10 large business-critical Web applications that have been analyzed with CAT.NET, a state-of-the-art static analysis tool for .NET. We find a total of 167 new confirmed specifications, which result in a total of 322 additional vulnerabilities across the 10 benchmarks. More accurate specifications also reduce the false positive rate: in our experiments, Merlin-inferred specifications result in 13 false positives being removed; this constitutes a 15% reduction in the CAT.NET false positive rate on these 10 programs. The final false positive rate for CAT.NET after applying Merlin in our experiments drops to under 1%.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
D. Chandra and M. Franz. Fine-grained information flow analysis and enforcement in a java virtual machine. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 463--475, 2007.
2
3
 
4
Fortify. Fortify code analyzer. http://www.ouncelabs.com/, 2008.
 
5
 
6
7
8
 
9
 
10
11
 
12
F. R. Kschischang, B. J. Frey, and H. A. Loeliger. Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47(2):498--519, 2001.
13
 
14
 
15
16
17
 
18
M. Martin, B. Livshits, and M. S. Lam. SecuriFly: Runtime vulnerability protection for Web applications. Technical report, Stanford University, Oct. 2006.
 
19
20
 
21
Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Code Analysis Tool .NET (CAT.NET). http://www.microsoft. com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId= 0178e2ef-9da8-445e-9348-c93f24cc9f9d&displaylang=en, 3 2009.
 
22
T. Minka, J.Winn, J. Guiver, and A. Kannan. Infer.NET 2.2, 2009. Microsoft Research Cambridge. http://research.microsoft.com/infernet.
 
23
A. Nguyen-Tuong, S. Guarnieri, D. Greene, J. Shirley, and D. Evans. Automatically hardening Web applications using precise tainting. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Information Security Conference, June 2005.
 
24
OunceLabs, Inc. Ounce. http://www.ouncelabs.com/, 2008.
 
25
T. Pietraszek and C. V. Berghe. Defending against injection attacks through context-sensitive string evaluation. In Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Sept. 2005.
26
 
27
A. Sabelfeld and A. Myers. Language-based information-flow security. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 21(1):5--19, January 2003.
28
29
 
30
L. Wall. Perl security. http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl/ pod/perlsec.pod.
 
31
W.Weimer and G. C. Necula. Mining temporal specifications for error detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 461--476, 2005.
32
 
33
34
 
35
 
36

Collaborative Colleagues:
Benjamin Livshits: colleagues
Aditya V. Nori: colleagues
Sriram K. Rajamani: colleagues
Anindya Banerjee: colleagues