Advertisement

Guest-Transparent Prevention of Kernel Rootkits with VMM-Based Memory Shadowing

  • Ryan Riley
  • Xuxian Jiang
  • Dongyan Xu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5230)

Abstract

Kernel rootkits pose a significant threat to computer systems as they run at the highest privilege level and have unrestricted access to the resources of their victims. Many current efforts in kernel rootkit defense focus on the detection of kernel rootkits – after a rootkit attack has taken place, while the smaller number of efforts in kernel rootkit prevention exhibit limitations in their capability or deployability. In this paper we present a kernel rootkit prevention system called NICKLE which addresses a common, fundamental characteristic of most kernel rootkits: the need for executing their own kernel code. NICKLE is a lightweight, virtual machine monitor (VMM) based system that transparently prevents unauthorized kernel code execution for unmodified commodity (guest) OSes. NICKLE is based on a new scheme called memory shadowing, wherein the trusted VMM maintains a shadow physical memory for a running VM and performs real-time kernel code authentication so that only authenticated kernel code will be stored in the shadow memory. Further, NICKLE transparently routes guest kernel instruction fetches to the shadow memory at runtime. By doing so, NICKLE guarantees that only the authenticated kernel code will be executed, foiling the kernel rootkit’s attempt to strike in the first place. We have implemented NICKLE in three VMM platforms: QEMU+KQEMU, VirtualBox, and VMware Workstation. Our experiments with 23 real-world kernel rootkits targeting the Linux or Windows OSes demonstrate NICKLE’s effectiveness. Furthermore, our performance evaluation shows that NICKLE introduces small overhead to the VMM platform.

Keywords

Kernel Module Malicious Code Kernel Space Virtual Machine Monitor Kernel Code 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jiang, X., Wang, X., Xu, D.: Stealthy Malware Detection through VMM-Based “Out-of-the-Box” Semantic View Reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2007) (October 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petroni Jr., N.L., Fraser, T., Walters, A., Arbaugh, W.A.: An Architecture for Specification-based Detection of Semantic Integrity Violations in Kernel Dynamic Data. In: Proceedings of the 15th USENIX Security Symposium (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Petroni Jr., N.L., Hicks, M.: Automated Detection of Persistent Kernel Control-Flow Attacks. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2007) (October 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petroni, N., Fraser, T., Molina, J., Arbaugh, W.: Copilot: A Coprocessor-based Kernel Runtime Integrity Monitor. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 179–194 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilhelm, J., Chiueh, T.-c.: A Forced Sampled Execution Approach to Kernel Rootkit Identification. In: Kruegel, C., Lippmann, R., Clark, A. (eds.) RAID 2007. LNCS, vol. 4637, pp. 219–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garfinkel, T., Rosenblum, M.: A Virtual Machine Introspection Based Architecture for Intrusion Detection. In: Proc. Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (NDSS 2003) (February 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seshadri, A., Luk, M., Qu, N., Perrig, A.: SecVisor: A Tiny Hypervisor to Guarantee Lifetime Kernel Code Integrity for Commodity OSes. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP 2007) (October 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellard, F.: QEMU: A Fast and Portable Dynamic Translator. In: Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, FREENIX Track, pp. 41–46 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Innotek: Virtualbox (Last accessed, September 2007), http://www.virtualbox.org/
  10. 10.
    Intel: Vanderpool Technology (2005), http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech
  11. 11.
    AMD: AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual Volume 2: System Programming, 3.12 edition (September 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunlap, G., King, S., Cinar, S., Basrai, M., Chen, P.: ReVirt: Enabling Intrusion Analysis through Virtual Machine Logging and Replay. In: Proc. USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garfinkel, T., Pfaff, B., Chow, J., Rosenblum, M., Boneh, D.: Terra: A Virtual Machine-Based Platform for Trusted Computing. In: Proc. of ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles (SOSP 2003) (October 2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang, X., Wang, X.: “Out-of-the-Box” Monitoring of VM-Based High-Interaction Honeypots. In: Kruegel, C., Lippmann, R., Clark, A. (eds.) RAID 2007. LNCS, vol. 4637, pp. 198–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joshi, A., King, S., Dunlap, G., Chen, P.: Detecting Past and Present Intrusions through Vulnerability-specific Predicates. In: Proc. ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP 2005), pp. 91–104 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riley, R., Jiang, X., Xu, D.: Guest-Transparent Prevention of Kernel Rootkits with VMM-based Memory Shadowing. Technical report CERIAS TR 2001-146, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arbaugh, W.A., Farber, D.J., Smith, J.M.: A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 1997, pp. 65–71 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    sd, devik: Linux on-the-fly Kernel Patching without LKM. Phrack 11(58) Article 7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    fuzen_op: Fu rootkit (Last accessed, September 2007), http://www.rootkit.com/project.php?id=12
  20. 20.
    Shacham, H.: The Geometry of Innocent Flesh on the Bone: Return-into-libc without Function Calls (on the x86). In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2007) (October 2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen, S., Xu, J., Sezer, E.C., Gauriar, P., Iyer, R.: Non-Control-Data Attacks Are Realistic Threats. In: Proceedings of the 14th USENIX Security Symposium (August 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baliga, A., Kamat, P., Iftode, L.: Lurking in the Shadows: Identifying Systemic Threats to Kernel Data. In: Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland 2007) (May 2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abadi, M., Budiu, M., Erlingsson, U., Ligatti, J.: Control Flow Integrity: Principles, Implementations, and Applications. In: Proc. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2005) (November 2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grizzard, J.B.: Towards Self-Healing Systems: Re-establishing Trust in Compromised Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (May 2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Castro, M., Costa, M., Harris, T.: Securing Software by Enforcing Data-Flow Integrity. In: Proc. of USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein, T.: Scooby Doo - VMware Fingerprint Suite (2003), http://www.trapkit.de/research/vmm/scoopydoo/index.html
  27. 27.
    Rutkowska, J.: Red Pill: Detect VMM Using (Almost) One CPU Instruction (November 2004), http://invisiblethings.org/papers/redpill.html
  28. 28.
    F-Secure Corporation: Agobot, http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/agobot.shtml
  29. 29.
    Kortchinsky, K.: Honeypots: Counter Measures to VMware Fingerprinting (January 2004), http://seclists.org/lists/honeypots/2004/Jan-Mar/0015.html
  30. 30.
    Liston, T., Skoudis, E.: On the Cutting Edge: Thwarting Virtual Machine Detection (2006), http://handlers.sans.org/tliston/ThwartingVMDetection_Liston_Skoudis.pdf
  31. 31.
    Chen, X., Garfinkel, T., Lewis, E.C., Subrahmanyam, P., Waldspurger, C.A., Boneh, D., Dwoskin, J., Ports, D.R.K.: Overshadow: A Virtualization-Based Approach to Retrofitting Protection in Commodity Operating Systems. In: Proc. of the 13th Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS 2008) (March 2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Kruegel, C., Robertson, W., Vigna, G.: Detecting Kernel-Level Rootkits Through Binary Analysis. In: Yew, P.-C., Xue, J. (eds.) ACSAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3189, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang, X., van Doorn, L., Jaeger, T., Perez, R., Sailer, R.: Secure Coprocessor-based Intrusion Detection. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop, pp. 239–242 (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, Y.M., Beck, D., Vo, B., Roussev, R., Verbowski, C.: Detecting Stealth Software with Strider GhostBuster. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2005), pp. 368–377 (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kennell, R., Jamieson, L.H.: Establishing the Genuinity of Remote Computer Systems. In: Proc. of the 12th USENIX Security Symposium (August 2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sailer, R., Jaeger, T., Zhang, X., van Doorn, L.: Attestation-based Policy Enforcement for Remote Access. In: Proc. of ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2004) (October 2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sailer, R., Zhang, X., Jaeger, T., van Doorn, L.: Design and Implementation of a TCG-based Integrity Measurement Architecture. In: Proc. of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium (August 2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan Riley
    • 1
  • Xuxian Jiang
    • 2
  • Dongyan Xu
    • 1
  1. 1.CERIAS and Department of Computer SciencePurdue University 
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State University 

Personalised recommendations