Practical Analysis Framework for Software-Based Attestation Scheme

  • Li Li
  • Hong Hu
  • Jun Sun
  • Yang Liu
  • Jin Song Dong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8829)


An increasing number of ”smart” embedded devices are employed in our living environment nowadays. Unlike traditional computer systems, these devices are often physically accessible to the attackers. It is therefore almost impossible to guarantee that they are un-compromised, i.e., that indeed the devices are executing the intended software. In such a context, software-based attestation is deemed as a promising solution to validate their software integrity. It guarantees that the software running on the embedded devices are un-compromised without any hardware support. However, designing software-based attestation protocols are shown to be error-prone. In this work, we develop a framework for design and analysis of software-based attestation protocols. We first propose a generic attestation scheme that captures most existing software-based attestation protocols. After formalizing the security criteria for the generic scheme, we apply our analysis framework to several well-known software-based attestation protocols and report various potential vulnerabilities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first practical analysis framework for software-based attestation protocols.


Memory State Data Memory Memory Address Malicious Code Embed Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arbaugh, W.A., Farber, D.J., Smith, J.M.: A secure and reliable bootstrap architecture. In: S&P, pp. 65–71. IEEE CS (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    England, P., Lampson, B.W., Manferdelli, J., Peinado, M., Willman, B.: A trusted open platform. IEEE Computer 36(7), 55–62 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sailer, R., Zhang, X., Jaeger, T., van Doorn, L.: Design and implementation of a tcg-based integrity measurement architecture. In: USENIX Security, pp. 223–238. USENIX (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kil, C., Sezer, E.C., Azab, A.M., Ning, P., Zhang, X.: Remote attestation to dynamic system properties: Towards providing complete system integrity evidence. In: DSN, pp. 115–124. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seshadri, A., Perrig, A., van Doorn, L., Khosla, P.K.: Swatt: Software-based attestation for embedded devices. In: S&P, pp. 272–282. IEEE CS (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaneck, M., Mahadevan, K., Kher, V., Kim, Y.-D.: Remote software-based attestation for wireless sensors. In: Molva, R., Tsudik, G., Westhoff, D. (eds.) ESAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3813, pp. 27–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seshadri, A., Luk, M., Perrig, A., van Doorn, L., Khosla, P.K.: Scuba: Secure code update by attestation in sensor networks. In: WiSe, pp. 85–94. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shankar, U., Chew, M., Tygar, J.D.: Side effects are not sufficient to authenticate software. In: USENIX Security, pp. 89–102. USENIX (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castelluccia, C., Francillon, A., Perito, D., Soriente, C.: On the difficulty of software-based attestation of embedded devices. In: CCS, pp. 400–409. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, Y., McCune, J.M., Perrig, A.: Viper: verifying the integrity of peripherals’ firmware. In: CCS, pp. 3–16. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Seshadri, A., Luk, M., Shi, E., Perrig, A., van Doorn, L., Khosla, P.K.: Pioneer: verifying code integrity and enforcing untampered code execution on legacy systems. In: SOSP, pp. 1–16. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klimov, A., Shamir, A.: New cryptographic primitives based on multiword t-functions. In: Roy, B., Meier, W. (eds.) FSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3017, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi, Y.-G., Kang, J., Nyang, D.: Proactive code verification protocol in wireless sensor network. In: Gervasi, O., Gavrilova, M.L. (eds.) ICCSA 2007, Part II. LNCS, vol. 4706, pp. 1085–1096. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shacham, H.: The geometry of innocent flesh on the bone: return-into-libc without function calls (on the x86). In: CCS, pp. 552–561. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buchanan, E., Roemer, R., Shacham, H., Savage, S.: When good instructions go bad: generalizing return-oriented programming to risc. In: CCS, pp. 27–38. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennell, R., Jamieson, L.H.: Establishing the genuinity of remote computer systems. In: USENIX Security, p. 21. USENIX (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giffin, J.T., Christodorescu, M., Kruger, L.: Strengthening software self-checksumming via self-modifying code. In: ACSAC, pp. 23–32. IEEE CS (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, Y., Wang, X., Zhu, S., Cao, G.: Distributed software-based attestation for node compromise detection in sensor networks. In: SRDS, pp. 219–230. IEEE CS (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gardner, R.W., Garera, S., Rubin, A.D.: Detecting code alteration by creating a temporary memory bottleneck. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 4(4) (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    AbuHmed, T., Nyamaa, N., Nyang, D.: Software-based remote code attestation in wireless sensor network. In: GLOBECOM, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perito, D., Tsudik, G.: Secure code update for embedded devices via proofs of secure erasure. In: Gritzalis, D., Preneel, B., Theoharidou, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6345, pp. 643–662. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kovah, X., Kallenberg, C., Weathers, C., Herzog, A., Albin, M., Butterworth, J.: New results for timing-based attestation. In: S&P, pp. 239–253. IEEE CS (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Armknecht, F., Sadeghi, A.-R., Schulz, S., Wachsmann, C.: A security framework for the analysis and design of software attestation. In: CCS, pp. 1–12. ACM (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li Li
    • 1
  • Hong Hu
    • 1
  • Jun Sun
    • 2
  • Yang Liu
    • 3
  • Jin Song Dong
    • 1
  1. 1.National University of SingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Singapore University of Technology and DesignSingapore
  3. 3.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations