Making Abstract Interpretation Incomplete: Modeling the Potency of Obfuscation

  • Roberto Giacobazzi
  • Isabella Mastroeni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7460)

Abstract

Recent studies on code protection showed that incompleteness, in the abstract interpretation framework, has a key role in understanding program obfuscation. In particular, it is well known that completeness corresponds to exactness of a given analysis for a fixed program semantics, hence incompleteness implies the imprecision of an analysis with respect to the program semantics. In code protection, if the analysis corresponds to attacker capability of understanding a program semantics, then to study incompleteness means to study how to make an attacker harmless. We recently showed that this is possible by transforming the program semantics towards incompleteness, which corresponds to a code obfuscation. In this paper, we show that incompleteness can be induced also by transforming abstract domains. In this way we can associate with each obfuscated program (semantics) the most imprecise, harmless, analysis. We show that, for both the forms of completeness, backward and forward, we can uniquely simplify domains towards incompleteness, while in general it is not possible to uniquely refine domains. Finally, we show some examples of known code protection techniques that can be characterized in the new framework of abstract interpretation incompleteness.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Birkhoff, G.: Lattice Theory, 3rd edn. AMS Colloquium Publication, AMS (1967)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collberg, C., Nagra, J.: Surreptitious Software: Obfuscation, Watermarking, and Tamperproofing for Software Protection. Addison-Wesley Professional (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C.: Breaking abstrcations and unstructural data structures. In: Proc. of the 1994 IEEE Internat. Conf. on Computer Languages, ICCL 1998, pp. 28–37 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C.: Watermarking, tamper-proofing, and obduscation-tools for software protection. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 735–746 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collberg, C., Thomborson, C.D., Low, D.: Manufactoring cheap, resilient, and stealthy opaque constructs. In: Proc. of Conf. Record of the 25th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1998, pp. 184–196. ACM Press (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Static determination of dynamic properties of programs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Programming, pp. 106–130. Dunod, Paris (1976)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Conference Record of the 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1977, pp. 238–252. ACM Press (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Conference Record of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1979, pp. 269–282. ACM Press (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Comparing the Galois Connection and Widening/Narrowing Approaches to Abstract Interpretation (Invited Paper). In: Bruynooghe, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) PLILP 1992. LNCS, vol. 631, pp. 269–295. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drape, S., Thomborson, C., Majumdar, A.: Specifying Imperative Data Obfuscations. In: Garay, J.A., Lenstra, A.K., Mambo, M., Peralta, R. (eds.) ISC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4779, pp. 299–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filé, G., Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F.: A unifying view of abstract domain design. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(2), 333–336 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filé, G., Ranzato, F.: Complementation of abstract domains made easy. In: Maher, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, JICSLP 1996, pp. 348–362. The MIT Press (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher, K.B., Lyle, J.R.: Using program slicing in software maintenance. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 17(8), 751–761 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giacobazzi, R.: 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 2008), pp. 7–20. IEEE Press (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giacobazzi, R., Mastroeni, I.: Transforming Abstract Interpretations by Abstract Interpretation. In: Alpuente, M., Vidal, G. (eds.) SAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5079, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giacobazzi, R., Quintarelli, E.: Incompleteness, Counterexamples, and Refinements in Abstract Model-Checking. In: Cousot, P. (ed.) SAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2126, pp. 356–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F.: Refining and Compressing Abstract Domains. In: Degano, P., Gorrieri, R., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A. (eds.) ICALP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1256, pp. 771–781. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F.: Uniform closures: order-theoretically reconstructing logic program semantics and abstract domain refinements. Inform. and Comput. 145(2), 153–190 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F., Scozzari, F.: Making abstract interpretation complete. Journal of the ACM 47(2), 361–416 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horwitz, S., Reps, T.W., Binkley, D.: Interprocedural slicing using dependence graphs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12(1), 26–60 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Janowitz, M.F.: Residuated closure operators. Portug. Math. 26(2), 221–252 (1967)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones, N.D., Giacobazzi, R., Mastroeni, I.: Obfuscation by partial evaluation of distorted interpreters. In: Kiselyov, O., Thompson, S. (eds.) Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM 2012), pp. 63–72. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Majumdar, A., Drape, S.J., Thomborson, C.D.: Slicing obfuscations: design, correctness, and evaluation. In: DRM 2007: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, pp. 70–81. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mastroeni, I., Zanardini, D.: 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 2008), pp. 125–134. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reps, T., Turnidge, T.: Program Specialization via Program Slicing. In: Danvy, O., Gltick, R., Thiemann, P. (eds.) Partial Evaluation. LNCS, vol. 1110, pp. 409–429. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ward, M.: The Closure Operators of a Lattice. Annals of Mathematics 43(2), 191–196 (1942)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiser, M.: Program slicing. In: ICSE 1981: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 439–449. IEEE Press (1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Giacobazzi
    • 1
  • Isabella Mastroeni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations