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

Ulziibayar Otgonbaatar

dblp:165/5439 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-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 · 2

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
2 papers
Systems and software security · 96% Digital forensics and information hiding · 4%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program analysis · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › exploitation
control-flow hijacking
0.422015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Control Jujutsu: On the Weaknesses of Fine-Grained Control Flow Integrity · CCS 2015
Systems and software security › exploitation
memory corruption attack
0.422015
Missing the Point(er): On the Effectiveness of Code Pointer Integrity · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2015
Control Jujutsu: On the Weaknesses of Fine-Grained Control Flow Integrity · CCS 2015
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 › memory safety
control-flow integrity
0.212015
Control Jujutsu: On the Weaknesses of Fine-Grained Control Flow Integrity · CCS 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
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
Program analysis › control flow analysis
control flow graph construction
0.112015
Control Jujutsu: On the Weaknesses of Fine-Grained Control Flow Integrity · CCS 2015

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

proof-of-concept exploit · 0.7static analysis · 0.4static isolation analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Control Jujutsu: On the Weaknesses of Fine-Grained Control Flow Integrity
abstract
Control flow integrity (CFI) has been proposed as an approach to defend against control-hijacking memory corruption attacks. CFI works by assigning tags to indirect branch targets statically and checking them at runtime. Coarse-grained enforcements of CFI that use a small number of tags to improve the performance overhead have been shown to be ineffective. As a result, a number of recent efforts have focused on fine-grained enforcement of CFI as it was originally proposed. In this work, we show that even a fine-grained form of CFI with unlimited number of tags and a shadow stack (to check calls and returns) is ineffective in protecting against malicious attacks. We show that many popular code bases such as Apache and Nginx use coding practices that create flexibility in their intended control flow graph (CFG) even when a strong static analyzer is used to construct the CFG. These flexibilities allow an attacker to gain control of the execution while strictly adhering to a fine-grained CFI. We then construct two proof-of-concept exploits that attack an unlimited tag CFI system with a shadow stack. We also evaluate the difficulties of generating a precise CFG using scalable static analysis for real-world applications. Finally, we perform an analysis on a number of popular applications that highlights the availability of such attacks.
Isaac Evans, Fan Long, Ulziibayar Otgonbaatar, Howard E. Shrobe, Martin C. Rinard, Hamed Okhravi, Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos
CCS3
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 Privacy4