Fuzzing is an effective software testing technique to find bugs. Given the size and complexity of real-world applications, modern fuzzers tend to be either scalable, but not effective in exploring bugs that lie deeper in the execution, or capable of penetrating deeper in the application, but not scalable. In this paper, we present an application-aware evolutionary fuzzing strategy that does not require any prior knowledge of the application or input format. In order to maximize coverage and explore deeper paths, we leverage control-and data-flow features based on static and dynamic analysis to infer fundamental properties of the application. This enables much faster generation of interesting inputs compared to an application-agnostic approach. We implement our fuzzing strategy in VUzzer and evaluate it on three different datasets: DARPA Grand Challenge binaries (CGC), a set of real-world applications (binary input parsers), and the recently released LAVA dataset. On all of these datasets, VUzzer yields significantly better results than state-of-the-art fuzzers, by quickly finding several existing and new bugs. Permission to freely reproduce all or part of this paper for noncommercial purposes is granted provided that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Reproduction for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of the Internet Society, the first-named author (for reproduction of an entire paper only), and the author's employer if the paper was prepared within the scope of employment.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

After a plethora of high-profile RowHammer attacks, CPU and DRAM vendors scrambled to deliver what was meant to be the definitive hardware solution against the RowHammer problem: Target Row Refresh (TRR). A common belief among practitioners is that, for the latest generation of DDR4 systems that are protected by TRR, RowHammer is no longer an issue in practice. However, in reality, very little is known about TRR. How does TRR exactly prevent RowHammer? Which parts of a system are responsible for operating the TRR mechanism? Does TRR completely solve the RowHammer problem or does it have weaknesses?In this paper, we demystify the inner workings of TRR and debunk its security guarantees. We show that what is advertised as a single mitigation mechanism is actually a series of different solutions coalesced under the umbrella term Target Row Refresh. We inspect and disclose, via a deep analysis, different existing TRR solutions and demonstrate that modern implementations operate entirely inside DRAM chips. Despite the difficulties of analyzing in-DRAM mitigations, we describe novel techniques for gaining insights into the operation of these mitigation mechanisms. These insights allow us to build TRRespass, a scalable black-box RowHammer fuzzer that we evaluate on 42 recent DDR4 modules.TRRespass shows that even the latest generation DDR4 chips with in-DRAM TRR, immune to all known RowHammer attacks, are often still vulnerable to new TRR-aware variants of RowHammer that we develop. In particular, TRRespass finds that, on present-day DDR4 modules, RowHammer is still possible when many aggressor rows are used (as many as 19 in some cases), with a method we generally refer to as Many-sided RowHammer. Overall, our analysis shows that 13 out of the 42 modules from all three major DRAM vendors (i.e., Samsung, Micron, and Hynix) are vulnerable to our TRR-aware RowHammer access patterns, and thus one can still mount existing state-of-the-art system-level RowHammer attacks. In addition to DDR4, we also experiment with LPDDR4(X) 1 chips and show that they are susceptible to RowHammer bit flips too. Our results provide concrete evidence that the pursuit of better RowHammer mitigations must continue. 2 We turn off the in-DRAM RowHammer mitigation mechanism by disabling REFRESH commands, as we explain in Section V.

No abstract

Abstract-As existing defenses like ALSR, DEP, and stack cookies are not sufficient to stop determined attackers from exploiting our software, interest in Control Flow Integrity (CFI) is growing. In its ideal form, CFI prevents any flow of control that was not intended by the original program, effectively putting a stop to exploitation based on return oriented programming (and many other attacks besides). Two main problems have prevented CFI from being deployed in practice. First, many CFI implementations require source code or debug information that is typically not available for commercial software. Second, in its ideal form, the technique is very expensive. It is for this reason that current research efforts focus on making CFI fast and practical. Specifically, much of the work on practical CFI is applicable to binaries, and improves performance by enforcing a looser notion of control flow integrity. In this paper, we examine the security implications of such looser notions of CFI: are they still able to prevent code reuse attacks, and if not, how hard is it to bypass its protection? Specifically, we show that with two new types of gadgets, return oriented programming is still possible. We assess the availability of our gadget sets, and demonstrate the practicality of these results with a practical exploit against Internet Explorer that bypasses modern CFI implementations.