Biblio

Security engineers have been fighting with C compilers for years. A careful programmer would test for null pointer dereferencing or division by zero; but the compiler would fail to understand, and optimize the test away. Modern compilers now have dedicated options to mitigate this. But when a programmer tries to control side effects of code, such as to make a cryptographic algorithm execute in constant time, the problem remains. Programmers devise complex tricks to obscure their intentions, but compiler writers find ever smarter ways to optimize code. A compiler upgrade can suddenly and without warning open a timing channel in previously secure code. This arms race is pointless and has to stop. We argue that we must stop fighting the compiler, and instead make it our ally. As a starting point, we analyze the ways in which compiler optimization breaks implicit properties of crypto code; and add guarantees for two of these properties in Clang/LLVM. Our work explores what is actually involved in controlling side effects on modern CPUs with a standard toolchain. Similar techniques can and should be applied to other security properties; achieving intentions by compiler commands or annotations makes them explicit, so we can reason about them. It is already understood that explicitness is essential for cryptographic protocol security and for compiler performance; it is essential for language security too. We therefore argue that this should be only the first step in a sustained engineering effort.

At the first Information Hiding Workshop in 1996 we tried to clarify the models and assumptions behind information hiding. We agreed the terminology of cover text and stego text against a background of the game proposed by our keynote speaker Gus Simmons: that Alice and Bob are in jail and wish to hatch an escape plan without the fact of their communication coming to the attention of the warden, Willie. Since then there have been significant strides in developing technical mechanisms for steganography and steganalysis, with new techniques from machine learning providing ever more powerful tools for the analyst, such as the ensemble classifier. There have also been a number of conceptual advances, such as the square root law and effective key length. But there always remains the question whether we are using the right security metrics for the application. In this talk I plan to take a step backwards and look at the systems context. When can stegosystems actually be used? The deployment history is patchy, with one being Trucrypt's hidden volumes, inspired by the steganographic file system. Image forensics also find some use, and may be helpful against some adversarial machine learning attacks (or at least help us understand them). But there are other contexts in which patterns of activity have to be hidden for that activity to be effective. I will discuss a number of examples starting with deception mechanisms such as honeypots, Tor bridges and pluggable transports, which merely have to evade detection for a while; then moving on to the more challenging task of designing deniability mechanisms, from leaking secrets to a newspaper through bitcoin mixes, which have to withstand forensic examination once the participants come under suspicion. We already know that, at the system level, anonymity is hard. However the increasing quantity and richness of the data available to opponents may move a number of applications from the deception category to that of deniability. To pick up on our model of 20 years ago, Willie might not just put Alice and Bob in solitary confinement if he finds them communicating, but torture them or even execute them. Changing threat models are historically one of the great disruptive forces in security engineering. This leads me to suspect that a useful research area may be the intersection of deception and forensics, and how information hiding systems can be designed in anticipation of richer and more complex threat models. The ever-more-aggressive censorship systems deployed in some parts of the world also raise the possibility of using information hiding techniques in censorship circumvention. As an example of recent practical work, I will discuss Covertmark, a toolkit for testing pluggable transports that was partly inspired by Stirmark, a tool we presented at the second Information Hiding Workshop twenty years ago.