![]() ![]() Buffer overflow attack examplesīuffer overflows typically have a high severity ranking because they can lead to unauthorized code execution in cases where attackers can control the overwritten memory space outside the targeted buffer and can redirect a function pointer to their malicious code.Įven when arbitrary code execution is not possible, a buffer overflow often results in a crash, leading to a denial of service (DoS) condition that affects the availability of the application and the processes it handles. What has changed is the growing number of such devices on the internet, on business networks and inside households. The firmware of embedded systems has historically been riddled with buffer overflow issues and that hasn't improved much over the years because those obscure code bases don't typically get major overhauls. So, the list reflects the overall risk associated with certain types of weaknesses based on both prevalence and the danger they pose.Īnother reason why buffer overflows are back in the spotlight might be the rise of internet-of-things (IoT) devices, which, based on research over the past few years, have exhibited poor code quality compared to modern desktop applications from established vendors. However, this is the first time MITRE updated the top 25 weaknesses list since 2011 and the ranking is based on a new scoring formula that combines the frequency of vulnerabilities in the National Vulnerabilities Database (NVD) observed over 20 with their average severity scores. ![]() The fact that buffer overflows still rank at the top after many years of efforts to eliminate them from computer software is somewhat surprising. The top rank went to CWE-119 or "Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer," a larger class of buffer handling errors that includes buffer overflows and out-of-bound reads. In September 2019, The MITRE Corporation, which maintains the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) catalog, published a list of the top 25 types of software vulnerabilities. Buffer overflow vulnerabilities on the rise To avoid them, the developer community has developed secure coding practices and major software vendors have adopted them as part of their secure development life cycles. This causes data to overflow to adjacent memory space, overwriting the information there, which often leads to crashes and exploitable conditions.īuffer overflows are one of the oldest and most common causes for arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities, and applications written in programming languages like C and C++ are more prone to such coding mistakes than other languages. In: USENIX security symposium, San Francisco, pp 191–206Īkritidis P, Markatos E, Polychronakis M, Anagnostakis K (2005) STRIDE: polymorphic sled detection through instruction sequence analysis.A buffer overflow or overrun is a memory safety issue where a program does not properly check the boundaries of an allocated fixed-length memory buffer and writes more data than it can hold. Kiriansky V, Bruening D, Amarasinghe S (2002) Secure execution via program shepherding. In: ASPLOS, New York, pp 85–96Ĭrandall J, Chong F (2004) Minos: control data attack prevention orthogonal to memory model. Suh G, Lee J, Zhang D, Devadas S (2004) Secure program execution via dynamic information flow tracking. In: ACM CCS, Washington, DC, pp 281–289Ībadi M, Budiu M, Erlingsson U, Ligatti J (2005) Control-flow integrity. In: ACM CCS, Washington, DC, pp 272–280īarrantes E, Ackley D, Forrest S, Palmer T, Stefanovic D, Zovi D (2003) Randomized instruction set emulation to disrupt binary code injection attacks. Kc G, Keromytis A, Prevelakis V (2003) Countering code-injection attacks with instruction-set randomization. In: USENIX security symposium, San Antonio, pp 63–78 In: ACM CCS, Washington, DC, pp 298–307Ĭowan C, Pu C, Maier D, Hinton H, Bakke P, Beattie S, Grier A, Wagle P, Zhang Q (1998) Stackguard: automatic detection and prevention of buffer-overflow attacks. Shacham H, Page M, Pfaff B, Goh EJ, Modadugu N, Boneh D (2004) On the effectiveness of address-space randomization. In: USENIX security symposium, Washington, DC, pp 105–120 In: ACM CCS, Alexandria, pp 322–335īhatkar S, DuVarney D, Sekar R (2003) Address obfuscation: an efficient approach to combat a broad range of memory error exploits. In: USENIX security symposium, Baltimore, pp 177–192Ĭadar C, Ganesh V, Pawlowski P, Dill D, Engler D (2006) EXE: automatically generating inputs of death. In: ACM CCS, Alexandria, pp 552–561Ĭhen S, Xu J, Sezer E, Gauriar P, Iyer R (2005) Non-control-data attacks are realistic threats. Shacham H (2007) The geometry of innocent flesh on the bone: return-into-libc without function calls (on the x86). Levy E (1996) Smashing the stack for fun and profit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |