{"title":"开发安全的新交所飞地:即将面临的新挑战","authors":"Raoul Strackx, F. Piessens","doi":"10.1145/3007788.3007791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The combination of (1) hard to eradicate low-level vulnerabilities, (2) a large trusted computing base written in a memory-unsafe language and (3) a desperate need to provide strong software security guarantees, led to the development of protected-module architectures. Such architectures provide strong isolation of protected modules: Security of code and data depends only on a module's own implementation. In this paper we discuss how such protected modules should be written. From an academic perspective it is clear that the future lies with memory-safe languages. Unfortunately, from a business and management perspective, that is a risky path and will remain so in the near future. The use of well-known but memory-unsafe languages such as C and C++ seem inevitable. We argue that the academic world should take another look at the automatic hardening of software written in such languages to mitigate low-level security vulnerabilities. This is a well-studied topic for full applications, but protected-module architectures introduce a new, and much more challenging environment. Porting existing security measures to a protected-module setting without a thorough security analysis may even harm security of the protected modules they try to protect.","PeriodicalId":365574,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing Secure SGX Enclaves: New Challenges on the Horizon\",\"authors\":\"Raoul Strackx, F. Piessens\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3007788.3007791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The combination of (1) hard to eradicate low-level vulnerabilities, (2) a large trusted computing base written in a memory-unsafe language and (3) a desperate need to provide strong software security guarantees, led to the development of protected-module architectures. Such architectures provide strong isolation of protected modules: Security of code and data depends only on a module's own implementation. In this paper we discuss how such protected modules should be written. From an academic perspective it is clear that the future lies with memory-safe languages. Unfortunately, from a business and management perspective, that is a risky path and will remain so in the near future. The use of well-known but memory-unsafe languages such as C and C++ seem inevitable. We argue that the academic world should take another look at the automatic hardening of software written in such languages to mitigate low-level security vulnerabilities. This is a well-studied topic for full applications, but protected-module architectures introduce a new, and much more challenging environment. Porting existing security measures to a protected-module setting without a thorough security analysis may even harm security of the protected modules they try to protect.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3007788.3007791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3007788.3007791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing Secure SGX Enclaves: New Challenges on the Horizon
The combination of (1) hard to eradicate low-level vulnerabilities, (2) a large trusted computing base written in a memory-unsafe language and (3) a desperate need to provide strong software security guarantees, led to the development of protected-module architectures. Such architectures provide strong isolation of protected modules: Security of code and data depends only on a module's own implementation. In this paper we discuss how such protected modules should be written. From an academic perspective it is clear that the future lies with memory-safe languages. Unfortunately, from a business and management perspective, that is a risky path and will remain so in the near future. The use of well-known but memory-unsafe languages such as C and C++ seem inevitable. We argue that the academic world should take another look at the automatic hardening of software written in such languages to mitigate low-level security vulnerabilities. This is a well-studied topic for full applications, but protected-module architectures introduce a new, and much more challenging environment. Porting existing security measures to a protected-module setting without a thorough security analysis may even harm security of the protected modules they try to protect.