Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 3–31 | Cite as

Maximal incompleteness as obfuscation potency

  • Roberto Giacobazzi
  • Isabella Mastroeni
  • Mila Dalla Preda
Original Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Obfuscation is the art of making code hard to reverse engineer and understand. In this paper, we propose a formal model for specifying and understanding the strength of obfuscating transformations with respect to a given attack model. The idea is to consider the attacker as an abstract interpreter willing to extract information about the program’s semantics. In this scenario, we show that obfuscating code is making the analysis imprecise, namely making the corresponding abstract domain incomplete. It is known that completeness is a property of the abstract domain and the program to analyse. We introduce a framework for transforming abstract domains, i.e., analyses, towards incompleteness. The family of incomplete abstractions for a given program provides a characterisation of the potency of obfuscation employed in that program, i.e., its strength against the attack specified by those abstractions. We show this characterisation for known obfuscating transformations used to inhibit program slicing and automated disassembly.

Keywords

Abstract interpretation Static program analysis Program semantics Program transformation Lattice theory Closure operators Code obfuscation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BGI+12.
    Barak B, Goldreich O, Impagliazzo R, Rudich S, Sahai A, Vadhan SP, Yang K (2012) On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs. J ACM 59(2): 6MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. BJ72.
    Blyth TS, Janowitz MF (1972) Residuation theory. Pergamon Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. BN15.
    Brunton F, Nissenbaum H (2015) Obfuscation—a User’s Guide for Privacy and Protest. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CC77.
    Cousot P, Cousot R (1977) Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fix-points. In: Conference Record of the 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’77). ACM Press, pp 238–252Google Scholar
  5. CC79b.
    Cousot P, Cousot R (1979) Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Conference Record of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’79). ACM Press, pp 269–282Google Scholar
  6. CC92a.
    Cousot P, Cousot R (1992) Abstract interpretation frameworks. J Logic Comput 2(4): 511–547MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. CC92b.
    Cousot P, Cousot R (1992) Comparing the Galois connection and widening/narrowing approaches to abstract interpretation (invited paper). In: Bruynooghe M, Wirsing M (eds) Proc. of the 4th Internat. Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP ’92), vol. 631 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 269–295Google Scholar
  8. CFG+95.
    Cortesi A, Filé G, Giacobazzi R, Palamidessi C, Ranzato F (1995) Complementation in abstract interpretation. In: Mycroft A (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd International Static Analysis Symposium (SAS ’95), vol. 983 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 100–117Google Scholar
  9. CFR+91.
    Cytron R, Ferrante J, Rosen BK, Wegman MN, Zadeck FK (1991) Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 13(4): 451–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CN09.
    Collberg C, Nagra J (2009) Surreptitious Software: obfuscation, watermarking, and tamperproofing for software protection. Addison-Wesley Professional, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cou99.
    Cousot P (1999) The calculational design of a generic abstract interpreter. In: Broy M, Steinbrüggen R (eds) Calculational system design, vol 173. NATO science series, Series F: computer and systems sciences, vol 173. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 421–505Google Scholar
  12. CTL98.
    Collberg C, Thomborson CD, Low D (1998) Manufactoring cheap, resilient, and stealthy opaque constructs. In: Proc. of Conf. Record of the 25st ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’98). ACM Press, pp 184–196Google Scholar
  13. DG05.
    Dalla Preda M, Giacobazzi R (2005) Semantic-based code obfuscation by abstract interpretation. In: Proc. of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP ’05), vol. 3580 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp. 1325–1336Google Scholar
  14. DG09.
    Dalla Preda M, Giacobazzi R (2009) Semantics-based code obfuscation by abstract interpretation. J Comput Secur 17(6): 855–908CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. DTM07.
    Drape S, Thomborson C, Majumdar A (2007) Specifying imperative data obfuscations. In: Garay JA, Lenstra AK, Mambo M, Peralta R (eds) ISC—Information Security, vol. 4779 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 299–314Google Scholar
  16. FR96.
    Filé G, Ranzato F (1996) Complementation of abstract domains made easy. In: Maher M (ed) Proceedings of the 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (JICSLP ’96). The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 348–362Google Scholar
  17. GGH+13.
    Garg S, Gentry C, Halevi S, Raykova M, Sahai A, Waters B (2013) Candidate indistinguishability obfuscation and functional encryption for all circuits. In: 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2013. IEEE Computer Society, Berkeley, pp 40–49Google Scholar
  18. Gia08.
    Giacobazzi R (2008) Hiding information in completeness holes—new perspectives in code obfuscation and watermarking. In: Proc. of The 6th IEEE International Conferences on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM’08). IEEE Press, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  19. GL91.
    Gallagher KB, Lyle JR (1991) Using program slicing in software maintenance. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 17(8): 751–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GLR15.
    Giacobazzi R, Logozzo F, Ranzato F (2015) Analyzing program analyses. In: Rajamani SK, Walker D (eds) Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2015. ACM, Mumbai, pp 261–273Google Scholar
  21. GM12.
    Giacobazzi R, Mastroeni I (2012) Making abstract interpretation incomplete: Modeling the potency of obfuscation. In: Static analysis—19th International Symposium, SAS 2012, Proceesings. Deauville, France, pp 129–145Google Scholar
  22. GQ01.
    Giacobazzi R, Quintarelli E (2001) Incompleteness, counterexamples and refinements in abstract model-checking. In: Cousot P (ed) Proc. of The 8th Internat. Static Analysis Symp. (SAS’01), vol. 2126 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 356–373Google Scholar
  23. GR97.
    Giacobazzi R, Ranzato F (1997) Refining and compressing abstract domains. In: Degano P, Gorrieri R, Marchetti-Spaccamela A (eds) Proc. of the 24th Internat. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP ’97), vol. 1256 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 771–781Google Scholar
  24. GR98.
    Giacobazzi R, Ranzato F (1998) Uniform closures: order-theoretically reconstructing logic program semantics and abstract domain refinements. Inform Comput 145(2): 153–190MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. GRS00.
    Giacobazzi R, Ranzato F, Scozzari F (2000) Making abstract interpretation complete. J ACM 47(2): 361–416MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. HRB90.
    Horwitz S, Reps TW, Binkley D (1990) Interprocedural slicing using dependence graphs. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 12(1): 26–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jan67.
    Janowitz MF (1967) Residuated closure operators. Port Math 26(2): 221–252MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. JGM12.
    Jones ND, Giacobazzi R, Mastroeni I (2012) Obfuscation by partial evaluation of distorted interpreters. In: Kiselyov O and Thompson S (eds) Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’12). ACM Press, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  29. JGS93.
    Jones ND, Gomard CK, Sestoft P (1993) Partial evaluation and automatic program generation. Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle RiverMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. LD03.
    Linn C, Debray S (2003) Obfuscation of executable code to improve resistance to static disassembly. In: CCS ’03: Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, pp 290–299Google Scholar
  31. LL09.
    Laviron V, Logozzo F (2009) Refining abstract interpretation-based static analyses with hints. In: Proc. of APLAS’09, vol. 5904 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 343–358Google Scholar
  32. MDT07.
    Majumdar A, Drape SJ, Thomborson CD (2007) Slicing obfuscations: design, correctness, and evaluation. In: DRM ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Digital Rights Management. ACM, pp 70–81Google Scholar
  33. MG15.
    Mastroeni I, Giacobazzi R (2015) Weakening residuation in adjoining closures. Order. RR 95/2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11562/925745 (to appear)
  34. MZ08.
    Mastroeni I, Zanardini D (2008) Data dependencies and program slicing: From syntax to abstract semantics. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’08). ACM Press, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  35. Rep91.
    Reps T (1991) Algebraic properties of program integration. Sci Comput Program 17: 139–215MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. RT96.
    Reps T, Turnidge T (1996) Program specialization via program slicing. In Danvy O, Glueck R, Thiemann P (eds) Proceedings of the Dagstuhl seminar on Partial evaluation. Springer, New York, pp 409–429Google Scholar
  37. RY89.
    Reps T, Yang W (1989) The semantics of program slicing and program integration. In: Diaz J, Orejas F (eds)Proc. of the Colloq. on Current Issues in Programming Languages, vol. 352 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 360–374Google Scholar
  38. Wei81.
    Weiser M (1981) Program slicing. In: ICSE ’81: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering. IEEE Press, pp 439–449Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Giacobazzi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Isabella Mastroeni
    • 1
  • Mila Dalla Preda
    • 1
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.IMDEA Software InstituteMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations