Protecting programmatic access to user data with Binary Authorization for Borg

Posted by Daniel Rebolledo Samper and Mark Lodato, Software Engineers, Security & Privacy

At Google, the safety of user data is our paramount concern and we strive to protect it comprehensively. That includes protection from insider risk, which is the possible risk that employees could use their organizational knowledge or access to perform malicious acts. Insider risk also covers the scenario where an attacker has compromised the credentials of someone at Google to facilitate their attack. There are times when it’s necessary for our services and personnel to access user data as part of fulfilling our contractual obligations to you: as part of their role, such as user support; and programmatically, as part of a service. Today, we’re releasing a whitepaper, “Binary Authorization for Borg: how Google verifies code provenance and implements code identity,” that explains one of the mechanisms we use to protect user data from insider risks on Google’s cluster management system Borg.


Binary Authorization for Borg is a deploy-time enforcement check
Binary Authorization for Borg, or BAB, is an internal deploy-time enforcement check that reduces insider risk by ensuring that production software and configuration deployed at Google is properly reviewed and authorized, especially when that code has the ability to access user data. BAB ensures that code and configuration deployments meet certain standards prior to being deployed. BAB includes both a deploy-time enforcement service to prevent unauthorized jobs from starting, and an audit trail of the code and configuration used in BAB-enabled jobs.

BAB ensures that Google’s official software supply chain process is followed. First, a code change is reviewed and approved before being checked into Google’s central source code repository. Next, the code is verifiably built and packaged using Google’s central build system. This is done by creating the build in a secure sandbox and recording the package’s origin in metadata for verification purposes. Finally, the job is deployed to Borg, with a job-specific identity. BAB rejects any package that lacks proper metadata, that did not follow the proper supply chain process, or that otherwise does not match the identity’s predefined policy.


Binary Authorization for Borg allows for several kinds of security checks
BAB can be used for many kinds of deploy-time security checks. Some examples include:

  • Is the binary built from checked in code?
  • Is the binary built verifiably?
  • Is the binary built from tested code?
  • Is the binary built from code intended to be used in the deployment?

After deployment, a job is continuously verified for its lifetime, to check that jobs that were started (and any that may still be running) conform to updates to their policies.

Binary Authorization for Borg provides other security benefits
Though the primary purpose of BAB is to limit the ability of a potentially malicious insider to run an unauthorized job that could access user data, BAB has other security benefits. BAB provides robust code identity for jobs in Google’s infrastructure, tying a job’s identity to specific code, and ensuring that only the specified code can be used to exercise the job identity’s privileges. This allows for a transition from a job identity—trusting an identity and any of its privileged human users transitively—to a code identity—trusting a specific piece of reviewed code to have specific semantics and which cannot be modified without an approval process.

BAB also dictates a common language for data protection, so that multiple teams can understand and meet the same requirements. Certain processes, such as those for financial reporting, need to meet certain change management requirements for compliance purposes. Using BAB, these checks can be automated, saving time and increasing the scope of coverage.

Binary Authorization for Borg is part of the BeyondProd model
BAB is one of several technologies used at Google to mitigate insider risk, and one piece of how we secure containers and microservices in production. By using containerized systems and verifying their BAB requirements prior to deployment, our systems are easier to debug, more reliable, and have a clearer change management process. More details on how Google has adopted a cloud-native security model are available in another whitepaper we are releasing today, “BeyondProd: A new approach to cloud-native security.”
In summary, implementing BAB, a deploy-time enforcement check, as part of Google’s containerized infrastructure and continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) process has enabled us to verify that the code and configuration we deploy meet certain standards for security. Adopting BAB has allowed Google to reduce insider risk, prevent possible attacks, and also support the uniformity of our production systems. For more information about BAB, read our whitepaper, “Binary Authorization for Borg: how Google verifies code provenance and implements code identity.”

Additional contributors to this whitepaper include Kevin Chen, Software Engineer; Tim Dierks, Engineering Director; Maya Kaczorowski, Product Manager; Gary O’Connor, Technical Writing; Umesh Shankar, Principal Engineer; Adam Stubblefield, Distinguished Engineer; and Wilfried Teiken, Software Engineer; with special recognition to the entire Binary Authorization for Borg team for their ideation, engineering, and leadership

/by

It’s time to disconnect RDP from the internet

Brute-force attacks and BlueKeep exploits usurp convenience of direct RDP connections; ESET releases a tool to test your Windows machines for vulnerable versions

The post It’s time to disconnect RDP from the internet appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

The worst passwords of 2019: Did yours make the list?

These passwords may win the popularity contest but lose flat out in security

The post The worst passwords of 2019: Did yours make the list? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

Week in security with Tony Anscombe

ESET’s Cybersecurity Trends 2020 report is out – New Chrome feature boosts account security – Hundreds of thousands of birth certificate applications leaked online

The post Week in security with Tony Anscombe appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

2FA: Double down on your security

The second authentication factor might be a minor inconvenience, but it provides a major security boost

The post 2FA: Double down on your security appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

Chrome now warns you if your password has been stolen

The browser’s latest version also aims to up the ante in phishing protection

The post Chrome now warns you if your password has been stolen appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

Better password protections in Chrome – How it works

Posted by Patrick Nepper, Kiran C. Nair, Vasilii Sukhanov and Varun Khaneja, Chrome Team

Today, we announced better password protections in Chrome, gradually rolling out with release M79. Here are the details of how they work.

Warnings about compromised passwords
Google first introduced password breach warnings as a Password Checkup extension early this year. It compares passwords and usernames against over 4 billion credentials that Google knows to have been compromised. You can read more about it here. In October, Google built the Password Checkup feature into the Google Account, making it available from passwords.google.com.

Chrome’s integration is a natural next step to ensure we protect even more users as they browse the web. Here is how it works:

  • Whenever Google discovers a username and password exposed by another company’s data breach, we store a hashed and encrypted copy of the data on our servers with a secret key known only to Google.
  • When you sign in to a website, Chrome will send a hashed copy of your username and password to Google encrypted with a secret key only known to Chrome. No one, including Google, is able to derive your username or password from this encrypted copy.
  • In order to determine if your username and password appears in any breach, we use a technique called private set intersection with blinding that involves multiple layers of encryption. This allows us to compare your encrypted username and password with all of the encrypted breached usernames and passwords, without revealing your username and password, or revealing any information about any other users’ usernames and passwords. In order to make this computation more efficient, Chrome sends a 3-byte SHA256 hash prefix of your username to reduce the scale of the data joined from 4 billion records down to 250 records, while still ensuring your username remains anonymous.
  • Only you discover if your username and password have been compromised. If they have been compromised, Chrome will tell you, and we strongly encourage you to change your password.

You can control this feature in the “Sync and Google Services” section of Chrome Settings. Enterprise admins can control this feature using the Password​Leak​Detection​Enabled policy setting.

Real-time phishing protection: Checking with Safe Browsing’s blocklist in real time.
Chrome’s new real-time phishing protection is also expanding existing technology — in this case it’s Google’s well-established Safe Browsing.

Every day, Safe Browsing discovers thousands of new unsafe sites and adds them to the blocklists shared with the web industry. Chrome checks the URL of each site you visit or file you download against this local list, which is updated approximately every 30 minutes. If you navigate to a URL that appears on the list, Chrome checks a partial URL fingerprint (the first 32 bits of a SHA-256 hash of the URL) with Google for verification that the URL is indeed dangerous. Google cannot determine the actual URL from this information.

However, we’re noticing that some phishing sites slip through our 30-minute refresh window, either by switching domains very quickly or by hiding from Google’s crawlers.

That’s where real-time phishing protections come in. These new protections can inspect the URLs of pages visited with Safe Browsing’s servers in real time. When you visit a website, Chrome checks it against a list stored on your computer of thousands of popular websites that are known to be safe. If the website is not on the safe-list, Chrome checks the URL with Google (after dropping any username or password embedded in the URL) to find out if you’re visiting a dangerous site. Our analysis has shown that this results in a 30% increase in protections by warning users on malicious sites that are brand new.

We will be initially rolling out this feature for people who have already opted-in to “Make searches and browsing better” setting in Chrome. Enterprises administrators can manage this setting via the Url​Keyed​Anonymized​Data​Collection​Enabled policy settings.

Expanding predictive phishing protection
Your password is the key to your online identity and data. If this key falls into the hands of attackers, they can easily impersonate you and get access to your data. We launched predictive phishing protections to warn users who are syncing history in Chrome when they enter their Google Account password into suspected phishing sites that try to steal their credentials.

With this latest release, we’re expanding this protection to everyone signed in to Chrome, even if you have not enabled Sync. In addition, this feature will now work for all the passwords you have stored in Chrome’s password manager.

If you type one of your protected passwords (this could be a password you stored in Chrome’s password manager, or the Google Account password you used to sign in to Chrome) into an unusual site, Chrome classifies this as a potentially dangerous event.

In such a scenario, Chrome checks the site against a list on your computer of thousands of popular websites that are known to be safe. If the website is not on the safe-list, Chrome checks the URL with Google (after dropping any username or password embedded in the URL). If this check determines that the site is indeed suspicious or malicious, Chrome will immediately show you a warning and encourage you to change your compromised password. If it was your Google Account password that was phished, Chrome also offers to notify Google so we can add additional protections to ensure your account isn’t compromised.

By watching for password reuse, Chrome can give heightened security in critical moments while minimizing the data it shares with Google. We think predictive phishing protection will protect hundreds of millions more people.

/by

Data leak exposes 750,000 birth certificate applications

A variety of sensitive information has been there for the taking due to an unsecured cloud storage container

The post Data leak exposes 750,000 birth certificate applications appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

Cybersecurity Trends 2020: Technology is getting smarter – are we?

With 2019 ending, ESET experts offer their insights into how new innovations will impact our privacy, security and lives in the not so distant future

The post Cybersecurity Trends 2020: Technology is getting smarter – are we? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

/by

Detecting unsafe path access patterns with PathAuditor

Posted by Marta Rożek, Google Summer Intern 2019, and Stephen Röttger, Software Engineer 

#!/bin/sh
cat /home/user/foo

What can go wrong if this command runs as root? Does it change anything if foo is a symbolic link to /etc/shadow? How is the output going to be used?

Depending on the answers to the questions above, accessing files this way could be a vulnerability. The vulnerability exists in syscalls that operate on file paths, such as open, rename, chmod, or exec. For a vulnerability to be present, part of the path has to be user controlled and the program that executes the syscall has to be run at a higher privilege level. In a potential exploit, the attacker can substitute the path for a symlink and create, remove, or execute a file. In many cases, it’s possible for an attacker to create the symlink before the syscall is executed.

At Google, we have been working on a solution to find these potentially problematic issues at scale: PathAuditor. In this blog post we’ll outline the problem and explain how you can avoid it in your code with PathAuditor.

Let’s take a look at a real world example. The tmpreaper utility contained the following code to check if a directory is a mount point:
if ((dst = malloc(strlen(ent->d_name) + 3)) == NULL)
       message (LOG_FATAL, “malloc failed.\n”);
strcpy(dst, ent->d_name);
strcat(dst, “/X”);
rename(ent->d_name, dst);
if (errno == EXDEV) {
[…]

This code will call rename(“/tmp/user/controlled”, “/tmp/user/controlled/X”). Under the hood, the kernel will resolve the path twice, once for the first argument and once for the second, then perform some checks if the rename is valid and finally try to move the file from one directory to the other.

However, the problem is that the user can race the kernel code and replace the “/tmp/user/controlled” with a symlink just between the two path resolutions.

A successful attack would look roughly like this:

  • Make “/tmp/user/controlled” a file with controlled content.
  • The kernel resolves that path for the first argument to rename() and sees the file.
  • Replace “/tmp/user/controlled” with a symlink to /etc/cron.
  • The kernel resolves the path again for the second argument and ends up in /etc/cron.
  • If both the tmp and cron directories are on the filesystem, the kernel will move the attacker controlled file to /etc/cron, leading to code execution as root.

Can we find such bugs via automated analysis? Well, yes and no. As shown in the tmpreaper example, exploiting these bugs can require some creativity and it depends on the context if they’re vulnerabilities in the first place. Automated analysis can uncover instances of this access pattern and will gather as much information as it can to help with further investigation. However, it will also naturally produce false positives.

We can’t tell if a call to open(/user/controlled, O_RDONLY) is a vulnerability without looking at the context. It depends on whether the contents are returned to the user or are used in some security sensitive way. A call to chmod(/user/controlled, mode) depending on the mode can be either a DoS or a privilege escalation. Accessing files in sticky directories (like /tmp) can become vulnerabilities if the attacker found an additional bug to delete arbitrary files.

How Pathauditor works

To find issues like this at scale we wrote PathAuditor, a tool that monitors file accesses and logs potential vulnerabilities. PathAuditor is a shared library that can be loaded into processes using LD_PRELOAD. It then hooks all filesystem related libc functions and checks if the access is safe. For that, we traverse the path and check if any component could be replaced by an unprivileged user, for example if a directory is user-writable. If we detect such a pattern, we log it to syslog for manual analysis.

Here’s how you can use it to find vulnerabilities in your code:

  • LD_PRELOAD the library to your binary and then analyse its findings in syslog. You can also add the library to /etc/ld.so.preload, which will preload it in all binaries running on the system.
  • It will then gather the PID and the command line of the calling process, arguments of the vulnerable function, and a stack trace — this provides a starting point for further investigation. At this point, you can use the stack trace to find the code path that triggered the violation and manually analyse what would happen if you would point the path to an arbitrary file or directory.
  • For example, if the code is opening a file and returning the content to the user then you could use it to read arbitrary files. If you control the path of chmod or chown, you might be able to change the permissions of chosen files and so on.

PathAuditor has proved successful at Google and we’re excited to share it with the community. The project is still in the early stages and we are actively working on it. We look forward to hearing about any vulnerabilities you discover with the tool, and hope to see pull requests with further improvements.

Try out the PathAuditor tool here.


Marta Rożek was a Google Summer intern in 2019 and contributed to this blog and the PathAuditor tool


/by