Current software attacks often build on exploits that subvert machine-code execution. The enforcement of a basic safety property, Control-Flow Integrity (CFI), can prevent such attacks from arbitrarily controlling program behavior. CFI enforcement is simple, and its guarantees can be established formally, even with respect to powerful adversaries. Moreover, CFI enforcement is practical: it is compatible with existing software and can be done efficiently using software rewriting in commodity systems. Finally, CFI provides a useful foundation for enforcing further security policies, as we demonstrate with efficient software implementations of a protected shadow call stack and of access control for memory regions.

Current software attacks often build on exploits that subvert machine-code execution. The enforcement of a basic safety property, control-flow integrity (CFI), can prevent such attacks from arbitrarily controlling program behavior. CFI enforcement is simple and its guarantees can be established formally, even with respect to powerful adversaries. Moreover, CFI enforcement is practical: It is compatible with existing software and can be done efficiently using software rewriting in commodity systems. Finally, CFI provides a useful foundation for enforcing further security policies, as we demonstrate with efficient software implementations of a protected shadow call stack and of access control for memory regions.

We analyze the space of security policies that can be enforced by monitoring and modifying programs at run time. Our program monitors, called edit automata, are abstract machines that examine the sequence of application program actions and transform the sequence when it deviates from a specified policy. Edit automata have a rich set of transformational powers: they may terminate an application, thereby truncating the program action stream; they may suppress undesired or dangerous actions without necessarily terminating the program; and they may also insert additional actions into the event stream.After providing a formal definition of edit automata, we develop a rigorous framework for reasoning about them and their cousins: truncation automata (which can only terminate applications), suppression automata (which can terminate applications and suppress individual actions), and insertion automata (which can terminate and insert). We give a set-theoretic characterization of the policies each sort of automaton can enforce, and we provide examples of policies that can be enforced by one sort of automaton but not another.

A common mechanism for ensuring that software behaves securely is to monitor programs at run time and check that they dynamically adhere to constraints specified by a security policy. Whenever a program monitor detects that untrusted software is attempting to execute a dangerous action, it takes remedial steps to ensure that only safe code actually gets executed.This article improves our understanding of the space of policies enforceable by monitoring the run-time behaviors of programs. We begin by building a formal framework for analyzing policy enforcement: we precisely define policies, monitors, and enforcement. This framework allows us to prove that monitors enforce an interesting set of policies that we call the infinite renewal properties. We show how, when given any reasonable infinite renewal property, to construct a program monitor that provably enforces that policy. We also show that the set of infinite renewal properties includes some nonsafety policies, i.e., that monitors can enforce some nonsafety (including some purely liveness) policies. Finally, we demonstrate concrete examples of nonsafety policies enforceable by practical run-time monitors.

This paper define the semantics of MinAML, an idealized aspect-oriented programming language, by giving a typedirected translation from its user-friendly external language to its compact, well-defined core language. We argue that our framework is an effective way to give semantics to aspectoriented programming languages in general because the translation eliminates shallow syntactic differences between related constructs and permits definition of a clean, easy-tounderstand, and easy-to-reason-about core language.The core language extends the simply-typed lambda calculus with two central new abstractions: explicitly labeled program points and first-class advice. The labels serve both to trigger advice and to mark continuations that the advice may return to. These constructs are defined orthogonally to the other features of the language and we show that our abstractions can be used in both functional and object-oriented contexts. The labels are well-scoped and the language as a whole is well-typed. Consequently, programmers can use lexical scoping in the standard way to prevent aspects from interfering with local program invariants.