Injection Attacks on Node.js Automatically Preventing...

1

Michael PradelTU Darmstadt

Understanding andAutomatically PreventingInjection Attacks on Node.js

Joint work with Cristian Staicu (TU Darmstadt)and Ben Livshits (Microsoft Research, Redmond)

2

Why JavaScript?

Relevant and challenging

Rank of top languages on GitHub over time(Source: GitHub.com)

3

Why JavaScript?

1096 pages 153 pages

Relevant and challenging

4

Motivation: JavaScript (In)Security

JavaScript: Popular beyond the browser

Client-sideweb app

Browser

Operatingsystem

4


JavaScript: Popular beyond the browser

Client-sideweb app

Server-side ordesktop app

Mobileapp

Dalvik VMNode.jsBrowser

Operatingsystem

Operatingsystem

Operatingsystem

4


JavaScript: Popular beyond the browserSandbox Sandbox

Client-sideweb app


Mobileapp


Operatingsystem

Operatingsystem

Operatingsystem

4


JavaScript: Popular beyond the browserSandbox SandboxNo sandbox!

Client-sideweb app


Mobileapp


Operatingsystem

Operatingsystem

Operatingsystem

5

Culture of Naive Reuse

Node.js code: Builds on 3rd-party code

� Over 300.000 modules

� No specified trust relationshipsbetween modules

� Many indirect dependences

5

Culture of Naive Reuse

Node.js code: Builds on 3rd-party code

� Over 300.000 modules

� No specified trust relationshipsbetween modules

� Many indirect dependences

Risk of vulnerable and malicious code

6

Real Example: Growl Module

var msg = /* receive

from network */

growl(msg);

6

Real Example: Growl Module

var msg = /* receive

from network */

growl(msg);

Growl module:� Platform-specific command to show notifications� Pass message to command without any checks

7

Running Examplefunction backupFile(name, ext) {

var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");

cmd.push(name + "." + ext);

cmd.push("̃ /.localBackup/");

exec(cmd.join(" "));

var kind = (ext === "jpg") ? "pics" : "other";

console.log(eval("messages.backup_" + kind));

}

7


var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");






}

Constructshell command

Execute it

7


var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");






} Construct JavaScript codeand execute it

7


var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");






}

Injection APIs:Interpret stringas code

7


var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");






} Injection attack:backupFile("-h && rm -rf * && echo ", "")

8

Our Contributions

1. Study of injection vulnerabilities� First large-scale study of Node.js security

� 236K modules, 816M lines of JavaScript

2. Repair of vulnerabilities� Static analysis and runtime enforcement

� Automatic and easy to deploy

� Small overhead and high accuracy

9

Study: Prevalence

Are injection vulnerabilities widespread?

9

Study: Prevalence


Direct uses

9

Study: Prevalence


Indirectuses viaothermodules

9

Study: Prevalence


Manual inspection of 150 call sites

� Attacker-controlled data may reach API: 58%

� Defense mechanisms� None: 90%� Regular expression: 9%

10

Study: Developer Reactions

Do developers fix vulnerabilities?

� Reported 20 previously unknownvulnerabilities

� After several months, only 3 fixed

10

Study: Developer Reactions

Do developers fix vulnerabilities?

� Reported 20 previously unknownvulnerabilities

� After several months, only 3 fixed

Need mitigation technique thatrequires very little developer attention

11

Our Contributions

1. Study of injection vulnerabilities� First large-scale study of Node.js security

� 236K modules, 816M lines of JavaScript

2. Repair of vulnerabilities� Static analysis and runtime enforcement

� Automatic and easy to deploy

� Small overhead and high accuracy

12

Preventing Injections

Vulnerable code

Code withruntime checks

Saferuntimebehavior

Stringtemplates

Staticallysafe code

Runtimeinputs

Static analysis

Dynamic enforcement

Synthesize policy

13

Static Analysis: Template Trees

1. Backward data flow analysis� Overapproximate strings passed to injection API� Represent possible values as a tree

13



function backupFile(name, ext) {

var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");




}

13



$cmd

join

” ”


var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");




}

13




var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");




}

$cmd

push

join

” ”

”˜/.localBackup/”

13




var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");




}$name ”.” $ext

$cmd

push

push

join

” ”


+

13




var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");




}$cmd ”cp” $name ”.” $ext

push

push

push

join

” ”


+

13




var cmd = [];

cmd.push("cp");




}emptyarray

”cp” $name ”.” $ext

push

push

push

join

” ”


+

14

Static Analysis: Templates

2. Evaluate template trees into templates� Statically model operations (bottom-up)� Unknown parts to be filled at runtime

14

Static Analysis: Templates

2. Evaluate template trees into templates� Statically model operations (bottom-up)� Unknown parts to be filled at runtime

”cp $name.$ext ˜/.localBackup/”

emptyarray

”cp” $name ”.” $ext

push

push

push

join

” ”


+

15

Synthesizing a Policy

Create runtime policy from templates� Enforce structure via partial AST� For unknown parts, allow only benign AST nodes

15

Synthesizing a Policy

Create runtime policy from templates� Enforce structure via partial AST� For unknown parts, allow only benign AST nodes

”cp $name.$ext ˜/.localBackup/”

Bashgrammar

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp

??? ˜/.localBackup/

16

Runtime Enforcement

Enforce policy on strings passed toinjection APIsPolicy:

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp


16

Runtime Enforcement

Enforce policy on strings passed toinjection APIsPolicy: Runtime string:

”cp f.txt ˜/.localBackup/”

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp

f.txt ˜/.localBackup/

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp


16

Runtime Enforcement


”cp f.txt ˜/.localBackup/”

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp

f.txt ˜/.localBackup/

AcceptedCommand

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp


16

Runtime Enforcement


”cp -h && rm -rf * &&echo ˜/.localBackup/”

CompoundCmd

Command Command

Literal

Command

... ...

...

...

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp


16

Runtime Enforcement

Enforce policy on strings passed toinjection APIs

Rejected

Policy: Runtime string:”cp -h && rm -rf * &&

echo ˜/.localBackup/”CompoundCmd

Command Command

Literal

Command

... ...

...

...

Command

Literal Arguments

Literal Literalcp


17

Evaluation: Static Analysis

Setup:� 51K call sites of injection APIs

Statically safe:36.7%

To be checked at runtime: 63.3%

Most call sites:� At least 10 known characters� Only 1 hole

Precision:

Performance:� 4.4 seconds per module

18

Evaluation: Runtime Enforcement

Setup� 24 modules� 56 benign and 65 malicious inputs

Results:� Zero false negatives (i.e., no missed injections)� Five false positives (i.e., overly conservative)� Overhead (avg.): 0.74 milliseconds per call

19

Conclusion

Understand injection vulnerabilities� First large-scale empirical study of Node.js

(in)security

Detect and prevent injections� Static inference of expected string values� AST-based runtime policy

→ Automated repair of vulnerabilities

More details: Technical report on my web site

Injection Attacks on Node.js Automatically Preventing...

Documents

Transcript of Injection Attacks on Node.js Automatically Preventing...