skip to main content

Title: Komodo: Using verification to disentangle secure-enclave hardware from software
Intel SGX promises powerful security: an arbitrary number of user-mode enclaves protected against physical attacks and privileged software adversaries. However, to achieve this, Intel extended the x86 architecture with an isolation mechanism approaching the complexity of an OS microkernel, implemented by an inscrutable mix of silicon and microcode. While hardware-based security can offer performance and features that are difficult or impossible to achieve in pure software, hardware-only solutions are difficult to update, either to patch security flaws or introduce new features. Komodo illustrates an alternative approach to attested, on-demand, user-mode, concurrent isolated execution. We decouple the core hardware mechanisms such as memory encryption, address-space isolation and attestation from the management thereof, which Komodo delegates to a privileged software monitor that in turn implements enclaves. The monitor's correctness is ensured by a machine-checkable proof of both functional correctness and high-level security properties of enclave integrity and confidentiality. We show that the approach is practical and performant with a concrete implementation of a prototype in verified assembly code on ARM TrustZone. Our ultimate goal is to achieve security equivalent to or better than SGX while enabling deployment of new enclave features independently of CPU upgrades. The Komodo specification, prototype implementation, and proofs are available more » at « less
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
SOSP '17 Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
287 to 305
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Today, isolated trusted computation and code execution is of paramount importance to protect sensitive information and workflows from other malicious privileged or unprivileged software. Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) is a set of security architecture extensions first introduced in the Skylake microarchitecture that enables a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE). It provides an ‘inverse sandbox’, for sensitive programs, and guarantees the integrity and confidentiality of secure computations, even from the most privileged malicious software (e.g. OS, hypervisor). SGX-capable CPUs only became available in production systems in Q3 2015, and they are not yet fully supported and adopted in systems. Besides the capability in the CPU, the BIOS also needs to provide support for the enclaves, and not many vendors have released the required updates for the system support. This has led to many wrong assumptions being made about the capabilities, features, and ultimately dangers of secure enclaves. By having access to resources and publications such as white papers, patents and the actual SGX-capable hardware and software development environment, we are in a privileged position to be able to investigate and demystify SGX. In this paper, we first review the previous trusted execution technologies, such as ARM Trust Zone and Intel TXT,more »to better understand and appreciate the new innovations of SGX. Then, we look at the details of SGX technology, cryptographic primitives and the underlying concepts that power it, namely the sealing, attestation, and the Memory Encryption Engine (MEE). We also consider use cases such as trusted and secure code execution on an untrusted cloud platform, and digital rights management (DRM). This is followed by an overview of the software development environment and the available libraries.« less
  2. With close to native performance, Linux containers are becoming the de facto platform for cloud computing. While various solutions have been proposed to secure applications and containers in the cloud environment by leveraging Intel SGX, most cloud operators do not yet offer SGX as a service. This is likely due to a number of security, scalability, and usability concerns coming from both cloud providers and users. Cloud operators worry about the security guarantees of unofficial SDKs, limited support for remote attestation within containers, limited physical memory for the Enclave Page Cache (EPC) making it difficult to support hundreds of enclaves, and potential DoS attacks against EPC by malicious users. Meanwhile, end users need to worry about careful program partitioning to reduce the TCB and adapting legacy applications to use SGX. We note that most of these concerns are the result of an incomplete infrastructure, from the OS to the application layer. We address these concerns with lxcsgx, which allows SGX applications to run inside containers while also: enabling SGX remote attestation for containerized applications, enforcing EPC memory usage control on a per-container basis, providing a general software TPM using SGX to augment legacy applications, and supporting partitioning with a GCCmore »plugin. We then retrofit Nginx/OpenSSL and Memcached using the software TPM and SGX partitioning to defend against known and potential attacks. Thanks to the small EPC footprint of each enclave, we are able to run up to 100 containerized Memcached instances without EPC swapping. Our evaluation shows the overhead introduced by lxcsgx is less than 6.9% for simple SGX applications, 9.5% for Nginx/OpenSSL, and 20.9% for containerized Memcached.« less
  3. Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) remote attestation enables enclaves to authenticate hardware inside which they run, and attest the integrity of their enclave memory to the remote party. To enforce direct control of attestation, Intel mandates attestation to be verified by Intel’s attestation service. This Intel-centric attestation model, however, neither protects privacy nor performs efficiently when distributed and frequent attestation is required. This paper presents OPERA, an Open Platform for Enclave Remote Attestation. Without involving Intel’s attestation service while conducting attestation, OPERA is unchained from Intel, although it relies on Intel to establish a chain of trust whose anchor point is the secret rooted in SGX hardware. OPERA is open, as the implementation of its attestation service is completely open, allowing any enclave developer to run her own OPERA service, and its execution is publicly verifiable and hence trustworthy; OPERA is privacy-preserving, as the attestation service does not learn which enclave is being attested or when the attestation takes place; OPERA is performant, as it does not rely on a single-point-of-verification and also reduces the latency of verification.
  4. A protocol for two-party secure function evaluation (2P-SFE) aims to allow the parties to learn the output of function f of their private inputs, while leaking nothing more. In a sense, such a protocol realizes a trusted oracle that computes f and returns the result to both parties. There have been tremendous strides in efficiency over the past ten years, yet 2P-SFE protocols remain impractical for most real-time, online computations, particularly on modestly provisioned devices. Intel's Software Guard Extensions (SGX) provides hardware-protected execution environments, called enclaves, that may be viewed as trusted computation oracles. While SGX provides native CPU speed for secure computation, previous side-channel and micro-architecture attacks have demonstrated how security guarantees of enclaves can be compromised. In this paper, we explore a balanced approach to 2P-SFE on SGX-enabled processors by constructing a protocol for evaluating f relative to a partitioning of f. This approach alleviates the burden of trust on the enclave by allowing the protocol designer to choose which components should be evaluated within the enclave, and which via standard cryptographic techniques. We describe SGX-enabled SFE protocols (modeling the enclave as an oracle), and formalize the strongest-possible notion of 2P-SFE for our setting. We prove our protocolmore »meets this notion when properly realized. We implement the protocol and apply it to two practical problems: privacy-preserving queries to a database, and a version of Dijkstra's algorithm for privacy-preserving navigation. Our evaluation shows that our SGX-enabled SFE scheme enjoys a 38x increase in performance over garbled-circuit-based SFE. Finally, we justify modeling of the enclave as an oracle by implementing protections against known side-channels.« less
  5. The recent Spectre attack first showed how to inject incorrect branch targets into a victim domain by poisoning microarchitectural branch prediction history. In this paper, we generalize injection-based methodologies to the memory hierarchy by directly injecting incorrect, attacker-controlled values into a victim's transient execution. We propose Load Value Injection (LVI) as an innovative technique to reversely exploit Meltdown-type microarchitectural data leakage. LVI abuses that faulting or assisted loads, executed by a legitimate victim program, may transiently use dummy values or poisoned data from various microarchitectural buffers, before eventually being re-issued by the processor. We show how LVI gadgets allow to expose victim secrets and hijack transient control flow. We practically demonstrate LVI in several proof-of-concept attacks against Intel SGX enclaves, and we discuss implications for traditional user process and kernel isolation. State-of-the-art Meltdown and Spectre defenses, including widespread silicon-level and microcode mitigations, are orthogonal to our novel LVI techniques. LVI drastically widens the spectrum of incorrect transient paths. Fully mitigating our attacks requires serializing the processor pipeline with lfence instructions after possibly every memory load. Additionally and even worse, due to implicit loads, certain instructions have to be blacklisted, including the ubiquitous x86 ret instruction. Intel plans compiler and assembler-basedmore »full mitigations that will allow at least SGX enclave programs to remain secure on LVI-vulnerable systems. Depending on the application and optimization strategy, we observe extensive overheads of factor 2 to 19 for prototype implementations of the full mitigation.« less