cs763/website/docs/resources/slides/lecture-langsec.md

author	title	date
Topics in Security and Privacy Technologies (CS 839)	Language-Based Security	November 21, 2018

LangSec: Principles

Programs are written in programming languages

Security holes are bugs

1. Programmer writes some code
2. Programmer makes a mistake!
   • Forgets to check permissions
   • Mixes private and public data
   • Doesn't allocate enough space
   • Reads from malicious input
   • ...
3. Attacker exploits the security flaw

Programming languages:
first line of defense

• Catching errors earlier is better
• Earliest possible time: when program is written
• Easier to reject program than try to defend against it

Design languages
to reduce security flaws

• Make it easier for programmer to do right thing
• Make certain kinds of bugs impossible
• Limit damage caused by any bugs

When are errors caught?

• When the program is running
  • Stop program when it does something unsafe
  • "Dynamic analysis"
• When the program is compiled
  • Reject bad program before it even runs
  • "Static analysis"

Overall Strategy

1. Pick a language

• Real languages: Java, C, ...
  • Highly complex: tons of features
  • Hard to modify language
• Idealized "core" languages
  • Much simpler, small number of features
  • Model "essence" of real languages

2. Formalize what programs "do"

• Run it on a machine and find out?
  • Not very useful for proofs...
• Formalize behavior mathematically, on paper
  • Discard "unimportant" details
  • Describe how program "steps"

3. Describe how to check
a given program

• Ideally: works without running the program
• Other desirable features:
  • Scales up to large programs
  • Runs in a reasonable amount of time
  • Doesn't reject too many correct programs

4. Prove correctness

• We want to prove two things:
  • Soundness: catch all buggy programs
  • Completeness: accept all correct programs

Almost always: can't have both!

Usually: pick soundness

• All buggy programs are rejected
  • If the check says "safe", then it is safe
• But: some safe programs might be rejected
  • Hopefully, not too many

Imperative Languages

Most familiar

• Basis of many popular languages
  • Java, C++, Python, ...
• Program executes sequence of instructions
• Can read/write to variables

Keep essential features

• Assignments to variables
• Sequencing ("semicolon")
• Conditionals ("if-then-else")
• Loops

Drop fancier features

• Memory management
• Jumps and gotos
• Function pointers
• Templates
• ...

Example

Functional Languages

Maybe a bit less familiar

• No imperative features
  • Can't modify variables
  • Usually no looping command (instead: recursion)
• Instead: functions
  • Define functions
  • Call ("apply") functions on arguments

Simpler to formalize

• Program includes "all the information"
  • Behavior doesn't depend on state of variables
• Program "runs" by changing the code itself
  • Simplifies all the way down to final answer

Example

Operational Semantics

Execute by "stepping"

• Start with program
  • Imperative: plus variable setting
• In each step, perform update:
  • Functional: modify the program
  • Imperative: update variables
• Terminates when it stops stepping (is a "value")

Example

Different styles

• Big-step
  • Describe value a program eventually steps to
• Small-step
  • Describe one step of a program

Type Systems

Assign "types" to programs

• A type \tau describes a class of programs
  • Usually: well-behaved in some way
• Can automatically check if program has type \tau
  • Type of program depends on types of components
  • Analysis scales to large programs

Example

Strengths

• Lightweight
  • Checking types is simple, automatic
  • Don't need to run program
• Natural and intuitive
  • Can't add a String to a Boolean
  • Programmers often think in terms of types
• Identify correct programs

Weaknesses

• Programmer may need to add annotations
  • Extra hints for compiler
  • Common for more complex types
• Compiler sometimes rejects correct programs
  • Figuring out why can be very frustrating
  • May need to write program in less natural form

Types can be complex

• Simpler types
  • String, Char, Bool, Int, function types, ...
• More complex types
  • Secret values/public values
  • Trusted values/untrusted values
  • Local data/remote data
  • Random values
  • ...

Prove: soundness

• If program has a type, it should be well-behaved
  • Relate type system to operational behavior
  • "Soundness theorem"
• Many possible notions of "well-behaved"
  • Don't add Strings to Bools
  • Don't mix public and private data
  • Don't write past end of buffer
  • ...

"Well-typed programs can't go wrong"