Hengkai Ye (The Pennsylvania State University), Hong Hu (The Pennsylvania State University)

Code injection was a favored technique for attackers to exploit buffer overflow vulnerabilities decades ago. Subsequently, the widespread adoption of lightweight solutions like write-xor-execute (W⊕X) effectively mitigated most of these attacks by disallowing writable-and-executable memory. However, we observe multiple concerning cases where software developers accidentally disabled W⊕X and reintroduced executable stacks to popular applications. Although each violation has been properly fixed, a lingering question remains: what underlying factors contribute to these recurrent mistakes among developers, even in contemporary software development practices?

In this paper, we conduct two investigations to gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges associated with properly enforcing W⊕X in Linux systems. First, we delve into program-hardening tools to assess whether experienced security developers consistently catch the necessary steps to avoid executable stacks. Second, we analyze the enforcement of W⊕X on Linux by inspecting the source code of the compilation toolchain, the kernel, and the loader. Our investigation reveals that properly enforcing W⊕X on Linux requires close collaboration among multiple components. These tools form a complex chain of trust and dependency to safeguard the program stack. However, developers, including security researchers, may overlook the subtle yet essential .note.GNU-stack section when writing assembly code for various purposes, and inadvertently introduce executable stacks. For example, 11 program-hardening tools implemented as inlined reference monitors (IRM) introduce executable stacks to all “hardened” applications. Based on these findings, we discuss potential exploitation scenarios by attackers and provide suggestions to mitigate this issue.

View More Papers

Silence False Alarms: Identifying Anti-Reentrancy Patterns on Ethereum to...

Qiyang Song (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences; School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences), Heqing Huang (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences), Xiaoqi Jia (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences; School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences), Yuanbo Xie (Institute of Information…

Read More

What’s Done Is Not What’s Claimed: Detecting and Interpreting...

Chang Yue (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China), Kai Chen (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China), Zhixiu Guo (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China), Jun Dai, Xiaoyan Sun (Department of Computer Science, Worcester Polytechnic Institute), Yi Yang (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy…

Read More

MALintent: Coverage Guided Intent Fuzzing Framework for Android

Ammar Askar (Georgia Institute of Technology), Fabian Fleischer (Georgia Institute of Technology), Christopher Kruegel (University of California, Santa Barbara), Giovanni Vigna (University of California, Santa Barbara), Taesoo Kim (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Read More

Time-varying Bottleneck Links in LEO Satellite Networks: Identification, Exploits,...

Yangtao Deng (Tsinghua University), Qian Wu (Tsinghua University), Zeqi Lai (Tsinghua University), Chenwei Gu (Tsinghua University), Hewu Li (Tsinghua University), Yuanjie Li (Tsinghua University), Jun Liu (Tsinghua University)

Read More