skip to main content
10.1145/3203422.3203433acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Detecting Data Exploits Using Low-level Hardware Information: A Short Time Series Approach

Published:24 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In recent years, scale, frequency and complexity of cyber-attacks have been continuously on the rise. As a result, it has significantly impacted our daily lives and society as a whole. Never before have we had such an urgent need to defend against cyber-attacks. Previous studies suggest that it is possible to detect rootkits and control-flow attacks with high accuracy using information collected from hardware level. For data-only exploits, however, where the control-flow of the victim application is strictly conserved while its behavior may only be slightly modified, high accuracy detection is much more difficult to achieve. In this study, we propose the use of low-level hardware information collected as a short time series for the detection of data-only malware attacks. We employed several representative classification algorithms, e.g., linear regression (LR), autoencoder (AE), stacked denoising autoencoder (SDA), and echo state network (ESN). We build one-class classifiers that either use individual samples collected via monitoring hardware-level events or use multiple samples of hardware events collected at different time during execution, but all with only the knowledge from regular behavior. Using several real-life attacks as case studies, we examined their detection accuracy when confronted with malicious behavior. Our experimental results show that our SDA- and ESN-based approaches can achieve an average detection accuracy of 97.75% and 98.36% for the exploits studied, respectively. Our study suggests that when the hardware events are monitored at different time spots during the execution of the vulnerable application, our SDA- and ESN-based approaches have the potential to boost the detection accuracy for data exploits.

References

  1. 2017. The Heartbleed Bug. (2017). http://www.heartbleed.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. Nginx web server. http://www.nginx.org. (2018). http://www.nginx.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Martín Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Dan Mané, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek Murray, Chris Olah, Mike Schuster, Jonathon Shlens, Benoit Steiner, Ilya Sutskever, Kunal Talwar, Paul Tucker, Vincent Vanhoucke, Vijay Vasudevan, Fernanda Viégas, Oriol Vinyals, Pete Warden, Martin Wattenberg, Martin Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang Zheng. 2015. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. (2015). http://tensorflow.org/ Software available from tensorflow.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Martín Abadi, Mihai Budiu, Úlfar Erlingsson, and Jay Ligatti. 2009. Control-flow Integrity Principles, Implementations, and Applications. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 13, 1, Article 4 (Nov. 2009), 40 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Beurdouche, K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, A. Pironti, P. Strub, and J. Zinzindohour. 2015. State Machine Attacks against TLS (SMACK TLS). (2015). Smacktls.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Eep Bhatkar, Daniel C. Duvarney, and R. Sekar. 2003. Address obfuscation: an efficient approach to combat a broad range of memory error exploits. In In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Security Symposium. 105--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Shuo Chen, Jun Xu, Emre C. Sezer, Prachi Gauriar, and Ravishankar K. Iyer. 2005. Non-control-data Attacks Are Realistic Threats. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 14 (SSYM'05). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 12--12. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1251398.1251410 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. John Demme, Matthew Maycock, Jared Schmitz, Adrian Tang, Adam Waksman, Simha Sethumadhavan, and Salvatore Stolfo. 2013. On the Feasibility of Online Malware Detection with Performance Counters. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 559--570. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Roy T. Fielding, James Gettys, Jeffrey C. Mogul, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Larry Masinter, Paul J. Leach, and Tim Berners-Lee. 1999. Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1. RFC 2616. RFC Editor. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. 2009. The elements of statistical learning. Vol. 2. Springer series in statistics Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2016. Deep Learning. MIT Press. http://www.deeplearningbook.org. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hong Hu, Zheng Leong Chua, Sendroiu Adrian, Prateek Saxena, and Zhenkai Liang. 2015. Automatic Generation of Data-Oriented Exploits. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15). USENIX Association, Washington, D.C., 177--192. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/hu Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Intel. 2013. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer Manual. Technical Report. Intel. http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-manual-325462.pdf{Dec. 5,2013}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Herbert Jaeger. 2001. The "Jecho state" approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks-with an erratum note. Bonn, Germany: German National Research Center for Information Technology GMD Technical Report 148, 34 (2001), 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Herbert Jaeger. 2003. Adaptive nonlinear system identification with echo state networks. networks 8, 9 (2003), 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. H. Jaeger. 2007. Echo state network. Scholarpedia 2, 9 (2007), 2330. revision #151757.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. David Mosberger and Tai Jin. 1998. Httperf&Mdash;a Tool for Measuring Web Server Performance. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 26, 3 (Dec. 1998), 31--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Adrian Tang, Simha Sethumadhavan, and Salvatore J. Stolfo. 2014. Unsupervised Anomaly-Based Malware Detection Using Hardware Features. In Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses, Angelos Stavrou, Herbert Bos, and Georgios Portokalidis (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8688. Springer International Publishing, 109--129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gildo Torres and Chen Liu. 2014. Adaptive Virtual Machine Management in the Cloud: A Performance-Counter-Driven Approach. Int. J. Syst. Serv.-Oriented Eng. 4, 2 (April 2014), 28--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Gildo Torres and Chen Liu. 2016. Can Data-Only Exploits Be Detected at Runtime Using Hardware Events?: A Case Study of the Heartbleed Vulnerability. In Proceedings of the Hardware and Architectural Support for Security and Privacy 2016 (HASP 2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 7 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Isabelle Lajoie, Yoshua Bengio, and Pierre-Antoine Manzagol. 2010. Stacked Denoising Autoencoders: Learning Useful Representations in a Deep Network with a Local Denoising Criterion. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11 (Dec. 2010), 3371--3408. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1756006.1953039 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Xueyang Wang and R. Karri. 2013. NumChecker: Detecting kernel control-flow modifying rootkits by using Hardware Performance Counters. In Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2013 50th ACM/EDAC/IEEE. 1--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lichen Weng, Chen Liu, and Jean-Luc Gaudiot. 2013. Scheduling Optimization in Multicore Multithreaded Microprocessors Through Dynamic Modeling. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Wucherl Yoo, Kevin Larson, Lee Baugh, Sangkyum Kim, and Roy H. Campbell. 2012. ADP: Automated Diagnosis of Performance Pathologies Using Hardware Events (SIGMETRICS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Chao Zhang, Tao Wei, Zhaofeng Chen, Lei Duan, Laszlo Szekeres, Stephen Mc- Camant, Dawn Song, and Wei Zou. 2013. Practical Control Flow Integrity and Randomization for Binary Executables. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP '13). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 559--573. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Detecting Data Exploits Using Low-level Hardware Information: A Short Time Series Approach

    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 Conferences
      RESEC '18: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Radical and Experiential Security
      May 2018
      78 pages
      ISBN:9781450357579
      DOI:10.1145/3203422

      Copyright © 2018 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: 24 May 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      RESEC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate7of19submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate7of19submissions,37%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader