Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Julian Gonzalez

dblp:119/8097 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 94% Digital forensics and information hiding · 6%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › memory protection
code-pointer integrity
0.212015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Systems and software security › exploitation
control-flow hijacking
0.212015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Systems and software security
exploitation
0.212015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Systems and software security › exploitation
memory corruption attack
0.212015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Systems and software security
memory safety
0.212015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Digital forensics and information hiding
information hiding
0.112015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

static isolation analysis · 0.2proof-of-concept exploit · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity
abstract
Memory corruption attacks continue to be a major vector of attack for compromising modern systems. Numerous defenses have been proposed against memory corruption attacks, but they all have their limitations and weaknesses. Stronger defenses such as complete memory safety for legacy languages (C/C++) incur a large overhead, while weaker ones such as practical control flow integrity have been shown to be ineffective. A recent technique called code pointer integrity (CPI) promises to balance security and performance by focusing memory safety on code pointers thus preventing most control-hijacking attacks while maintaining low overhead. CPI protects access to code pointers by storing them in a safe region that is protected by instruction level isolation. On x86-32, this isolation is enforced by hardware, on x86-64 and ARM, isolation is enforced by information hiding. We show that, for architectures that do not support segmentation in which CPI relies on information hiding, CPI's safe region can be leaked and then maliciously modified by using data pointer overwrites. We implement a proof-of-concept exploit against Nginx and successfully bypass CPI implementations that rely on information hiding in 6 seconds with 13 observed crashes. We also present an attack that generates no crashes and is able to bypass CPI in 98 hours. Our attack demonstrates the importance of adequately protecting secrets in security mechanisms and the dangers of relying on difficulty of guessing without guaranteeing the absence of memory leaks.
Isaac Evans, Sam Fingeret, Julian Gonzalez, Ulziibayar Otgonbaatar, Tiffany Tang, Howard E. Shrobe, Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos, Martin C. Rinard, Hamed Okhravi
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy3