C-Flat

Abera, Tigist; Asokan, N.; Davi, Lucas; Ekberg, Jan-Erik; Nyman, Thomas; Paverd, Andrew; Sadeghi, Ahmad-Reza; Tsudik, Gene

doi:10.1145/2976749.2978358

Cited by 198 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it does not detect the malware presence between system calls, and it does not check the runtime flow of the instructions of a specific module. C-FLAT [10] proposes a complete attestation of the run-time state of the Prover. During the execution, each software instruction is reported into a so-called "trusted anchor" and from there, a hash engine mechanism accumulates the sequence of the instructions into a single hash value that represents the entire control flow of the Prover's state.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The attestation of data memory of individual devices requires the execution of a single-device attestation protocol that detects subverted control flows. One possible example of such attestation protocol is C-FLAT [10]. In the case the device is not compromised, a control-flow attestation protocol, running on a single device, will report the benign state of the device.…”

Section: Problem Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In practice, RADIS requires code instrumentation to allow the instructions to be intercepted by a trampoline and then processed by a trusted hash engine, following the design of [10]. In addition, RADIS requires an enhancement of the instrumentation mechanism in order to intercept the service call and initialize the measurement engine with the attestation result of the calling service.…”

Section: Qualitative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These protocols do not guarantee the software integrity against an adversary that performs code reuse attack by exploiting memory corruption vulnerabilities to deviate an intended control-flow of a software by only changing the control-flow pointers at the runtime of an existing code, or non-control data attacks by manipulating some variables that make the control flow to follow a valid but non authorized direction. To mitigate the runtime attacks, some other attestation approaches have emerged in checking the correctness of the application during the execution time [9], [10], [11]. However, existing remote attestation schemes do not consider an interoperable IoT system, in which a compromised distributed service can impact the integrity of other devices of the distributed IoT services that interact with the malicious remote service.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

RADIS: Remote Attestation of Distributed IoT Services

Conti

Dushku

Mancini

2019

2019 Sixth International Conference on Software Defined Systems (SDS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remote attestation is a security technique by which a potentially untrusted device called Prover can evidence its current state to an external trusted party called Verifier. The main goal of a remote attestation protocol is to guarantee the reliability of the evidence, such that the Verifier can verify remotely the trustworthiness of the Prover. In the Internet of Things (IoT) systems, which are increasingly becoming exposed to a broad range of exploitations, the existing remote attestation protocols aim to check the integrity of each individual IoT device by detecting the modified softwares and physical tampering attacks. However, in an interconnected IoT system, in which IoT devices interact autonomously among themselves, a compromised IoT service can influence the genuine operation of other invoked service, without changing the software.In this paper, we show how a compromised service in a distributed IoT service can induce malicious behavior on genuine services, and we highlight the need for distributed services attestation. We propose a protocol for Remote Attestation of Distributed IoT Services (RADIS), which provides a complete evidence about the trustworthiness of distributed IoT services. RADIS relies on a control-flow attestation technique to detect IoT services that perform an unexpected operation due to their interactions with a malicious remote service. Additionally, RADIS traces the interactions between IoT distributed services, allowing the Verifier to check whether the activities follow a legitimate interaction model. We discuss the effectiveness of our protocol in validating the integrity status of a distributed IoT service.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Qualitative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

RADIS: Remote Attestation of Distributed IoT Services

Conti

Dushku

Mancini

2019

2019 Sixth International Conference on Software Defined Systems (SDS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[Ferguson and Gu 2011] implements control flow protection in the context of WSNs; however, the described scheme has not been combined with any attestation mechanism. Control-Flow ATtestation (C-FLAT) [Abera et al 2016] is a similar, but different, approach. Instead of embedding code to protect the authentic application flow, it embeds code to monitor its execution path.…”

Section: Time Of Check To Time Of Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Attestation in Wireless Sensor Networks

Steiner

Lupu

2016

ACM Comput. Surv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attestation is a mechanism used by a trusted entity to validate the software integrity of an untrusted platform. Over the last years, several attestation techniques have been proposed. While they all use variants of a challenge-response protocol, they make different assumptions about what an attacker can and cannot do. Thus, they propose intrinsically divergent validation approaches. We survey in this paper the different approaches to attestation focussing in particular on those aimed at Wireless Sensor Networks. We discuss the motivations, challenges, assumptions, and attacks of each approach. We then organise them in a taxonomy and discuss the state of the art, carefully analysing the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. We also point towards the open research problems and give directions on how to address them.

show abstract