DEFCON 25 Writeup

Nothing delivers the fear of missing out like DEFCON. So much to learn and so little time. Too busy hacking in the IOT village or catching up with old friends to sit in on the talks? Read below to find out what you missed in my talk writeups below. They are listed in chronological order, with some of the most interesting at the end of the document, so don’t give up too easily.

Overall, conference attendance was at a record 27,000 people, most of them non-technical fans of hacking culture. Major themes continued a previous trend of focus on IOT, Drones, and low-level tools and vulnerabilities. New additions this year were a focus on analog techniques to both vet and attack low-level hardware. Several talks leveraged the increased performance and lower cost of commercial software defined radios.

The largest media coverage was focused on vulnerabilities to voting machines and the ability to use cheap components to crack physical protections.

All speakers and talk abstracts are listed here and most presentations can be found on the DEFCON media server. In roughly a month, all of these talks will be available on YouTube.

DEFCON Capture the Flag

The Capture the Flag (CTF) competition was won by CMU’s PPP team coached by David Brumley. This team won the last three years of the competition and several before that as well, and a majority of the PPP team members were on the winning DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge team as part of David Brumley’s company For All Secure.

DARPA’s Dustin Fraze ran this year’s competition, which was specifically designed to thwart any attempts to start the competition with a head start from a cyber reasoning system such as those developed for the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge. In order to do this, the organizers developed a radically new architecture with several challenging properties:

  • 9-bit bytes instead of 8-bits. This makes parsing the binary difficult. The byte length of the architecture of the system parsing a challenge does not match that in cLEMENCy. The start of a byte on both systems would only match every 9th byte.
  • It’s Middle Endian. Every other architecture stores values in memory in one of two ways: from most significant byte to least significant (Big Endian), or least significant to most significant (Little Endian). Rather than storing a value like 0x123456 as 12 34 56 or 56 34 12, Middle Endian stores it as 34 56 12.
  • Instructions have variable length opcodes. Instructions were anywhere from 18 to 54 bits, with opcodes being anywhere from 4 bits to 18 bits.

Thursday:

Porosity: A Decompiler For Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts Bytecode – Matt Suiche

With the knowledge that implementation is always the most common cryptographic weakness, Matt described how to decompile and comprehend Ethereum smart contracts. Ethereum is an open software platform based on blockchain technology that enables developers to build and deploy decentralized applications, in this case smart contracts. The hacks of these contracts have been popular due to flawed implementations. The 2016 DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) theft or the recent Parity multisignature blockchain wallet compromise resulted because of poorly written Solidity code (contract-oriented, high-level language) that introduced vulnerabilities which hackers exploited to steal funds from other Ethereum users, not because of compromises of the underlying blockchain protocol or cryptographic weakness.

In his talk, Matt presented “Porosity,” the first decompiler that generates human-readable Solidity syntax smart contracts from any EVM bytecode. Because compiled smart contracts are all world visible on the Ethereum network, this tool enables all contracts to be reviewed at any time. Once reversed, the code can be scanned to check for susceptibility to new attacks or to ensure adherence to best practices.

You can read his paper here for more details.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil: Hacking Invisibly and Silently With Light and Sound – Matt Wixey

Matt Wixey showed how attackers creatively bypass modern security protections through leveraging light and/or sound, using off-the-shelf hardware. His talk covered C2 channels and exfiltration using light and near-ultrasonic sound, to disable and disrupt motion detectors; he demonstrated use of home-built laser microphones, a technique for catapulting drones into the air and overriding operator controls, jamming speech through the use of delayed auditory feedback, and demotivating malware analysts. Specifically, he demonstrated:

  • Using acoustic ultrasonic pulses to disrupt a drone and render the controller useless by characterizing and sending specific inputs to ultrasonic altimeters. He demonstrated this over a large area through a cluster of ultrasonic transducers.
  • He displayed a demonstration of a covert acoustical mesh network at 16-20KhZ using steganography to conceal the transmission (he played the acoustic attack signal inside seemingly normal audio).
  • He was able to open a computer application by shining infrared light into its ambient light sensor near the webcam which triggered activation of pre-installed malware
  • He played music from a smartphone into a speaker without Bluetooth and without wires connecting the two devices, by using infrared LEDs within close proximity
  • Matt also demonstrated the ability to shut off his TV, when the theme song of Gilmore Girls played in his apartment.

His talk is available here.

Friday:

The Brain’s Last Stand – Garry Kasparov

Kasparov discussed the ways humans and intelligent machines could work together. He described that AI will not destroy jobs, but will make new ones. He also talked about the respective contributions of machines and people. The general consensus of the crowd was that he succeeded in providing a keynote that was both funny and insightful.

Weaponizing the BBC Micro:Bit – Damien Cauquil

The BBC has produced a Micro:bit, a pocket-sized computer for education. Damien showed that the Micro:bit can be configured to sniff out keystrokes from a wireless keyboard, and even take control of a quadcopter drone. He demonstrated using publicly available software, and a Micro:bit, the ability to snoop on signals and get the input from a wireless keyboard using Bluetooth. He also attached a Micro:bit to a drone controller handset and used the resulting hardware to interfere with an airborne quadcopter’s control mechanisms and hijack its flight controls.

His slides are available.

Hacking Smart Contracts – Konstantinos Karagiannis

While the Ethereum cryptocurrency core system remains secure, there have been a number of hacks of the Ethereum system. The most famous attack was against an smart contracts wallet, called the Parity Ethereum client. The vulnerability allowed the hacker to exfiltrate funds from multi-signature wallets created with Parity clients 1.5 and later. Konstantinos described the hack as shockingly basic: “It turns out that the creator [of the wallet] left out a very important word,” Karagiannis said. “And that one little word was the word ‘internal.’ When you don’t make that declaration, the program will accept what are called messages from an external source. So because he left off that simple declaration, attackers were able to craft a very simple message that told the wallet, ‘Hey, you belong to me now.’ After that was done, they were then able to do an execute command that then told the wallet, ‘And, by the way, I’d like that money sent here.’ So it was a really simple two-stage attack that should not have happened.”

This was a case where white hat hackers were clear heroes. He described anonymous vigilantes calling themselves the White Hat Group intervened, who stole Ether out of wallets before the hackers could get to it. Later, this group transferred the Ether back to its owners, saving about $200 million.

See the slides here.

Open Source Safe Cracking Robots – Nathan Seidle

One of the most well-received talks was by Nathan Seidle, founder of SparkFun Electronics. He demonstrated an open source safe-cracking robot. Using an Arduino and 3D printing, the safe-cracking robot cost around $200 to build. It uses magnets to attach to the exterior of a safe and is super simple to run with only one button.

They accomplished this by determining one of the dials within 20 seconds by detecting the larger size of the correct indent. The other two dials couldn’t be measured directly, but they were helped by finding that most safes have a built in margin of error. This enabled them to dramatically reduce the number of potential combinations.

See the slides or watch a video from Wired magazine.

Next-Generation Tor Onion Services – Roger Dingledine

Roger argued that a tiny fraction of Tor traffic makes up what is often called the “dark web”. He introduced the concept of “Tor onion services” which let people run internet services such as websites inside the anonymous Tor network.

He discussed how mistakes in the original protocol are now being actively exploited by threat intelligence companies to build lists of onion services even when the service operators thought they would stay under the radar. To fix this, he presented a new and improved onion service design, which provides stronger security and better scalability. For example, they are migrating from 1024-bit RSA encryption keys to shorter but tougher-to-crack ED-25519 elliptic curve keys.

He predicts that soon anyone will be able to create their own corner of the internet that’s not just anonymous and untraceable, but entirely undiscoverable without an invite. In particular, the new design will both strengthen the cryptosystem and let administrators easily create fully secret darknet sites that can only be discovered by those who know a long string of random characters. This is especially important due to the arrival of a large number of darknet indexing and search services.

These services will work by changing the basic mechanism of service declaration. Instead of declaring their .onion address to hidden service directories, they’ll derive a unique cryptographic key from that address which is discreetly stored in Tor’s hidden service directories. Any Tor user looking for a certain hidden service can perform that same derivation to check the key and route themselves to the correct darknet site. But the hidden service directory can’t derive the .onion address from the key. This means there is no known way to discover an onion address.

Applications for this include the ability for a small group of collaborators to host files on a computer known only to them that no one else could ever find or access. Also present are mitigations against the techniques used by law enforcement to find and remove the silk road servers in 2014.

Slides are available.

How We Created the First SHA-1 Collision and What it means For Hash Security – Elie Bursztein

The SHA1 cryptographic hash function is critical for the many of the cryptographic and integrity verifications that enable our current state of internet security. For example, Git, the world’s most widely used system for managing software development among multiple people, relies on it for data integrity. The basic security property of hash values is that they uniquely represent a given input, when it is possible to break this property on demand, a cash collision occurs. This February, the first SHA-1 collision was announced. This collision combined with a clever use of the PDF format allowed attackers to forge PDF pairs that have identical SHA-1 hashes and yet display different content. In the talk, Elie made it clear how difficult this was to achieve. This attack is the result of over two years of intense research. It took 6500 CPU years and 110 GPU years of computations to find the collision.

They discussed the challenges faced from developing a meaningful payload, to scaling the computation to that massive scale, to solving unexpected cryptanalytic challenges. They were able to discuss positive aspects of the release and presented the next generation of hash functions and what the future of hash security holds.

For more information, refer to this article from the register. No slides were available.

Breaking the x86 Instruction Set – Christopher Domas

Chris demonstrated how page fault analysis and some creative search strategies can be used to exhaustively search the x86 instruction set and uncover new secrets. In particular, I was impressed by his use of page boundaries to determine lengths of unknown instructions. He disclosed new x86 hardware glitches, previously unknown machine instructions, ubiquitous software bugs, and flaws in enterprise hypervisors. He also released his “sandsifter” toolset, that allows users to audit – and break – your own processor.

While he discovered a large number of hidden instructions, I think the really interesting work resulting from this will be from exploits developed from unknown opcodes. For example, an attacker can use these to mask malicious behavior. They could throw off disassembly and jump targets to cause analysis tools to miss the real behavior.

What worries me most is that hardware bugs are foundational and manifest themselves in the dependent software stack. Additionally, these are difficult to find and fix. For example, he presented a ring 3 processor DoS that I think would be difficult to counter.

They used these techniques to find innumerable bugs in disassemblers, the most interesting is a bug shared by nearly all disassemblers. Most disassemblers will parse certain jmp (e9) and call (e8) instructions incorrectly if they are prefixed with an operand size override prefix (66) in a 64 bit executable. In particular, IDA, QEMU, gdb, objdump, valgrind, Visual Studio, and Capstone were all observed to parse this instruction differently than it actually executes.

This is written up well in a (unpublished) paper here and the slides are available as well.

Abusing Certificate Transparency Logs – Hanno Böck

Hanno started by making the point that certificate transparency logs are not generally trusted by the information security community and highlighted several cases of illegitimate certificates in the past. However, he noted that there is no feasible plan how to replace CAs and in September 2017 Google will make Certificate Transparency mandatory for all new certificates and in the future logging will be required in April 2018. However, in practice, most certificates are currently logged and the certificate transparency system provides public logs of TLS certificates.

Certificate Transparency has helped uncover various incidents in the past where certificate authorities have violated rules. It is probably one of the most important security improvements that has ever happened in the certificate authority ecosystem.

While certificate transparency is primarily used to uncover security issues in certificates, Hanno Böck showed that these data are also valuable for other use cases to include attacks such as exploiting common web applications like WordPress, Joomla or Typo3 through exploiting certificate transparency.

  • Attack 1: Attacker monitors CT logs, extracts host names. Compares web pages with common installers.
  • Attack 2: Installer found: Install the application. Upload a plugin with code execution backdoor. Revert installation, leave backdoor.

Using the second attack, he claimed he could have taken over around 4000 WordPress installations within a month.

For more details, see this blog post and these slides.

Saturday:

On Saturday, I was surprised when 22 zero-day exploits were released against a range of consumer products—mainly home automation and Internet of Things devices.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Literally Deep Neural Networks for Social Stego – Philip Tully and Michael T. Raggo

Philip Tully and Michael T. Raggo described how steganography can be systematically automated and scaled. In order to accomplish this, they first characterized the distorting side effects rendered upon images uploaded to popular social network servers such as compression, resizing, format conversion, and metadata stripping. Then, they built a convolutional neural network that learned to reverse engineer these transformations by optimizing hidden data throughput capacity. They then used pre-uploaded and downloaded image files to teach the network to locate candidate pixels that are least modifiable during transit, allowing stored hidden payloads to be reliably recalled from newly presented images. Deep learning typically requires massive training data to avoid overfitting. However massive images are available through social networks’ free image hosting services, which feature bulk uploads and downloads of thousands of images at a time per album.

From this, they demonstrated the ability to show that hidden data can be predictably transmitted through social network images with high fidelity and low latency. This is significant, because steganalysis and other defensive forensic countermeasures are notoriously difficult, and their exfiltration techniques highlight the growing threat posed by automated, AI-powered red teaming.

The slides are available as is a good write-up.

MS Just Gave the Blue Team Tactical Nukes (And How Red Teams Need To Adapt) – Chris Thompson

This talk could presage the end of the nearly $2B endpoint security market on Windows (i.e. Symantec,Carbon Black, CrowdStrike, BigFix, CyberReason, FireEye).

Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) is a cloud-based data security service that provides advanced breach detection based on the information gathered by Microsoft’s massive threat intelligence system. This coming spring, it’s due for a big upgrade and Microsoft has used their knowledge of and deep access into the Windows operating system to give their tools unique capabilities, such as the inability to uninstall them via microsoft enterprise admin tools. (For example, it requires a generated offboarding script with a SHA256 signed reg key based on the unique Org ID and cert to uninstall).

I also found it interesting that the ATP sensor uses Windows Telemetry (DiagTrack service), which in turn uses WinHTTP Services (winhttp.dll.mui) to report sensor data and communicate with the Windows Defender ATP cloud service. Other interesting results in this talk were a demonstrated capability to perform Golden Tickets Detection (Using KRBTGT NTLM Hash), detecting malicious replication requests via DCSync and detection of internal recon activities.

The principal program manager of Windows Defender ATP at Microsoft was quoted as saying: “Windows Creators Update improves our OS memory and kernel sensors to enable detection of attackers who are employing in-memory and kernel-level attacks—shining a light into previously dark spaces where attackers hid from conventional detection tools. . . We’ve already successfully leveraged this new technology against zero-days attacks on Windows.”

Windows Defender ATP should definitely be carefully watched and tested going forward. Out of the box, it will provide at least a new layer of security, but it also has the potential to replace expensive EDR solutions.

This article is a good summary and the slides are available.

Trojan-tolerant Hardware & Supply Chain Security in Practice – Vasilios Mavroudis and Dan Cvrcek

Vasilios Mavroudis and Dan Cvrcek challenged the perception that high-assurance systems cannot tolerate the presence of compromised hardware components and demonstrate how trusted, high-assurance hardware can be built from untrusted and potentially malicious components.

They noted that the majority of IC vendors outsource the fabrication of their designs to facilities overseas, and rely on post-fabrication tests to weed out deficient chips. However they claim that these tests are not effective against: 1) subtle unintentional errors (e.g., malfunctioning RNGs) and 2) malicious circuitry (e.g., stealthy Hardware Trojans). These errors are very hard to detect and require constant upgrades of expensive forensics equipment, which contradicts the motives of fabrication outsourcing.

To meet this challenge, they introduced a high-level architecture that can tolerate multiple, malicious hardware components, and outlined a new approach in hardware compromise risk management. They contrasted this against existing approaches such as trusted foundries (very expensive, prone to errors), split-manufacturing (still expensive, not secure), post-fabrication inspection (expensive, a huge pain, doesn’t scale), secret-sharing (keys generated by a trusted party). By contrast, their system is a fault-tolerant computer system that runs the same set of operations at the same time in parallel and incorporates random number generation, key generation & management, decryption and signing. They claim this provides resilience and is tamper-resistant (FIPS-4).

Their implementation incorporated 120 SmartCards, quorums of three cards, 1.2Mbps dedicated inter-IC buses, ARTIX FPGA controls the communications bus and 1Gbit/s bandwidth for incoming requests. Their key innovation was using SmartCards

They benchmarked the performance of this system, and described its internals. They also quantified other techniques such as “component diversification” and “non-overlapping supply chains”, and finally discussed how “mutual distrust” can be exploited to further increase trust in hardware integrity.

The slides are available.

Evading next-gen AV using A.I. – Hyrum Anderson

With most next-generation antivirus solutions relying on machine learning to identify new iterations of malware, Hyrum used artificial intelligence to construct a system that would mutate malware to the point where it wouldn’t be detected while still keeping its form and function. Essentially, he created a test in which you could pit artificial intelligence against any next-generation antivirus solution where the artificial intelligence would manipulate the malware by modifying bytes (while preserving the malware) and test it against the antivirus solution to determine if it was identified as malicious or benign. Hyrum showed in his trials that this process was successful in modifying malware to bypass detection.

The slides are available.

Sunday:

Breaking Bitcoin Hardware Wallets – Josh Datko and Chris Quartier

In this talk Josh Datko and Chris Quartier explained that bitcoin security rests entirely in the security of one’s private key. Bitcoin hardware wallets (a separate device that stores your private key) help protect against software-based attacks to recover or misuse the private key. This talk explored how one could compromise the security of these hardware wallets. In 2015, Jochen Hoenicke was able to extract the private key from a TREZOR using a simple power analysis technique. While that vulnerability was patched, they explored the potential to exploit the Microcontroller on the TREZOR and the KeepKey. They accomplished this by using an Open Source Hardware tool, the Chip Whisperer. With this device, they tried to overview fault injection techniques, timing, and power analysis methods against the STM32F205 microcontroller on the Trezor and KeepKey.

The successful technique takes advantage of the properties of the power distribution networks on printed circuit boards to generate ringing in these networks. This ringing is presumed to perturb the power distribution networks on the target chip itself, which is known to cause faulty operations. The use of fine control over the fault timing has also demonstrated that faults with very high reliability can be inserted, determining for example if a single- or multi-bit fault should be introduced, or to fault a single byte out of a larger array operation. In general a glitch width of about 750 nS would frequently (50{aaa01f1184b23bc5204459599a780c2efd1a71f819cd2b338cab4b7a2f8e97d4} of the time) result in one or more bit flip in the register without noticeably damaging the FPGA design.

However, TREZOR (and all clones) did not enable Clock Security System in the MCU, allowing injection of clock faults and he wasn’t able to use the ability for these bit flips to compromise the keys on the device.

For more details, refer to the slides or this paper:

O’Flynn, Colin. “Fault Injection using Crowbars on Embedded Systems.” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016 (2016): 810.

Backdooring the Lottery, and Other Security Tales in Gaming over the Past 25 Years – Gus Fritschie and Evan Teitelman

In October 2015, Eddie Raymond Tipton, the information security director of the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL), was convicted of rigging a $14.3 million drawing of MUSL’s lottery game Hot Lotto. The trial found that Tipton had rigged the draw in question, by using his privileged access to a MUSL facility to install a rootkit on the computer containing Hot Lotto’s random number generator, and then attempting to claim a winning ticket with the rigged numbers anonymously. There is evidence that Eddie Tipton was able to steal a lot of other funds using similar techniques.

This worked by taking various game parameters including the number of numbers per draw and the maximum and minimum numbers in the game and multiplied them together along with the number 39 and the summed ASCII values of the letters in the computer name. Then he took that and added it to the day of the year and added in the product of the number of times the Pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) had run since the last reboot and the year. This number was then used to seed the PRNG. One of the clever things Tripton was able to do is ensure the certification would pass, even when they ran the output of the PRNG through statistical tests to ensure unbiased results.

The 2014 russian slot machine hack was also very interesting. Hackers reverse-engineered slot machine software and discovered a weakness in the PRNG. Their exploit against this weakness was to make a video of roughly 24 spins and to upload the resultant data to calculate the pattern based on the slots. This Information was transmitted to a custom app with a listing of timing marks that cause the mobile to vibrate 0.25 seconds before the spin button should be pressed. While this was not always successful, the result was a higher payout than expected. This is an excellent overview of this hack.

Their slides are interesting.

Genetic Diseases to Guide Digital Hacks of the Human Genome: How the Cancer Moonshot Program will Enable Almost Anyone to Crash the Operating System that Runs You or to End Civilization – John Sotos

John Sotos, the Chief Medical Officer at Intel, has a wild, scary thought experiment: What if, by investing in hacking the human genome for good, we’ve opened it up to be hacked for evil? He believes it may one day be possible to create terrifying bioweapons using genetics.

John claimed that the enabling capability for these attacks comes from data and techniques made available from the Human Genome Project and the Cancer Moonshot.

While mostly a thought experiment, John discussed the intersection between precise gene editing and digital biology (an emulative and bit accurate model of biological processes). From these, he claims it will be possible to digitally reprogram the human genome in a living human. In his mind, this raises the potential to give bio-hackers the ability to induce “deafness, blindness, night blindness, strong fishy body odor, total baldness, intractable diarrhea, massive weight gain, shouting involuntary obscenities, physical fragility, or a susceptibility to death from excitement. . .There are things worse than death”

No slides were available, but the press covered this talk extensively.

Revoke-Obfuscation: PowerShell Obfuscation Detection (And Evasion) Using Science – Daniel Bohannon and Lee Holmes

Delivery and execution of malware is often by basic malicious executables and malicious documents, but a small portion of the current malware ecosystem leverages PowerShell as part of its attack chain. Most commonly PowerShell calls an executable or document macro that launches PowerShell to download another executable and run it.

Many personal security products attempt to prevent this behavior, with two primary techniques: applying antivirus signatures to command line arguments and AMSI-based (Anti-malware Scan Interface) detection. But obfuscation and evasion techniques can bypass these protections. There is an inherent challenge to allowing powerful administrative behavior through an interface like powershell and preventing these tools from conducting malicious behavior.

While starting with numerous examples of how hard it is to block illicit use of PowerShell, this talk focused on how to detect invoke-obfuscation which can bypass both approaches. These advanced techniques leverage extreme levels of randomization in Invoke-Obfuscation and Invoke-CradleCrafter paired with the token-layer obfuscation options that are not deobfuscated in PowerShell’s script block logging. To counter these advanced techniques, they built a tool, called revoke-obfuscation, which uses statistical analysis to detect the most subtle obfuscation techniques. The heart of the technical capability is to use statistical tools to analyze the entropy and letter frequency distribution of the variable names.

One of the clever techniques they employ is to use cosine similarity to analyze the frequency of each letter in a script. However, this naive technique lacked the advantages of unsupervised approaches and statistical variance. Additionally, it was susceptible to character frequency tampering. To counter this, they downloaded 408,000 PowerShell scripts and modules. They then were able to apply logistic regression with gradient descent to calculate and summarize 4098 unique script characteristics to directly identify the likelihood that a script is obfuscated. Their results were fairly impressive with an accuracy and F1 score of 96{aaa01f1184b23bc5204459599a780c2efd1a71f819cd2b338cab4b7a2f8e97d4} and 95{aaa01f1184b23bc5204459599a780c2efd1a71f819cd2b338cab4b7a2f8e97d4}, respectively. This was 10 times better at finding obfuscated content than character frequency analysis alone, and has half of the false positives.

More details are available in this excellent report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.