Advertisement

On the Concept of Software Obfuscation in Computer Security

  • Nikolay Kuzurin
  • Alexander Shokurov
  • Nikolay Varnovsky
  • Vladimir Zakharov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4779)

Abstract

Program obfuscation is a semantic-preserving transformation aimed at bringing a program into such a form, which impedes the understanding of its algorithm and data structures or prevents extracting of some valuable information from the text of a program. Since obfuscation could find wide use in computer security, information hiding and cryptography, security requirements to program obfuscators became a major focus of interests for pioneers of theory of software obfuscation. In this paper we also address the issue of defining security of program obfuscation. We argue that requirements to obfuscation may be different and dependent on potential applications. Therefore, it makes sense to deal with a broad spectrum of security definitions for program obfuscation. In this paper we analyze five models for studying various aspects of obfuscation: “black box” model of total obfuscation, “grey box” model of total obfuscation, obfuscation for software protection, constant hiding, and predicate obfuscation. For each of these models we consider the applications where the model may be valid, positive and negative results on the existence of secure obfuscation in the framework of the model, and relationships with other models of program obfuscation.

Keywords

Program obfuscation security Turing machine encryption 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aucsmith, D.: Tamper resistant software: an implementation. In: Anderson, R. (ed.) Information Hiding. LNCS, vol. 1174, pp. 317–333. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arboit, G.: A method for watermarking java programs via opaque predicates. 5-th International Conference on Electronic Commerce Research (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S., Yang, K.: On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatkar, S., DuVarney, D.C., Sekar, R.: Efficient techniques for comprehensive protection from memory error exploits. USENIX Security (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canetti, R.: Towards realizing random oracles: hash functions that hide all partial information. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 455–469. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canetti, R., Micciancio, D.D., Reingold, O.: Perfectly one-way probabilistic hash functions. In: 30-th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 131–140 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chess, D., White, S.: An undetectable computer virus. In: 2000 Virus Bulletin Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow, S., Gu, Y., Johnson, H., Zakharov, V.: An approach to obfuscation of control-flow of sequential programs. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) Informatics. LNCS, vol. 2000, pp. 144–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, F.: Operating system protection through program evolution. Computers and Security 12(6), 565–584 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C., Low, D.: A Taxonomy of Obfuscating Transformations. Tech. Report, N 148, Univ. of Auckland (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C., Low, D., Collberg, C., Thomborson, C., Low, D.: Manufacturing cheap, resilient and stealthy opaque constructs. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 184–196 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C.: Watermarking, Tamper-Proofing, and Obfuscation - Tools for Software Protection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(6) (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalla Preda, M., Giacobazzi, R.: Semantic-based code obfuscation by abstract interpretation. In: Caires, L., Italiano, G.F., Monteiro, L., Palamidessi, C., Yung, M. (eds.) ICALP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3580, pp. 1325–1336. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D’Anna, L., Matt, B., Reisse, A., Van Vleck, T., Schwab, S., LeBlanc, P.: Self- Protecting Mobile Agents Obfuscation Report, Report #03-015, Network Associates Laboratories (June 2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diffie, W., Hellman, M.: New directions in cryptography. IEEE Transactions om Information Theory IT-22(6), 644–654 (1976)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodis, Y., Smith, A.: Correcting errors without leaking partial informtion. In: 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 654–663 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldreich, O., Levin, L: A hard-core predicate to any one-way function. In: 21th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 210–217 (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldwasser, S., Tauman Kalai, Y.: On the impossibility of obfuscation with auxiliary input. In: 46th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 553–562 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldwasser, S., Rothblum, G.N.: On best possible obfuction. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 194–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hada, S.: Zero-knowledge and code obfuscation. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976, pp. 443–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hohl, F.: Time limited blackbox security: protecting mobile agents from malicious hosts. In: Vigna, G. (ed.) Mobile Agents and Security. LNCS, vol. 1419, pp. 92–113. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofheinz, D., Malone-Lee, J., Stam, M.: Obfuscation for cryptographic purpose. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 214–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Linn, C., Debray, S.: Obfuscation of executable code to improve resistance to static disassambly. In: 10th ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security, pp. 290–299 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lynn, B., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Positive results and techniques for obfuscation. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 20–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ogiso, T., Sakabe, Y., Soshi, M., Miyaji, A.: Software obfuscation on a theoretical basis and its implementation. IEEE Trans. Fundamentals E86-A(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ostrovsky, R., Skeith, W.E.: Private searching on streaming data. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 223–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szor, P., Ferrie, P.: Hunting for metamorphic. In: 2001 Virus Bulletin Conference, pp. 123–144 (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Valiant, L.: A theory of learnable. Communications of the ACM 27(11), 1134–1142 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Varnovsky, N.P., Zakharov, V.A.: On the possibility of provably secure obfuscating programs. In: Broy, M., Zamulin, A.V. (eds.) PSI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2890, pp. 91–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Varnovsky, N.P.: A note on the concept of obfuscation. In: Proceedings of Institute for System Programming, Moscow, vol. 6, pp. 127–137 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, C., Davidson, J., Hill, J., Knight, J.: Protection of software-based survivability mechanisms. In: International Conference of Dependable Systems and Networks (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: 37th Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 523–532 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolay Kuzurin
    • 1
  • Alexander Shokurov
    • 1
  • Nikolay Varnovsky
    • 2
  • Vladimir Zakharov
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for System Programming, MoscowRussia
  2. 2.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityRussia

Personalised recommendations