斗篷和匕首:从两个权限到完全控制UI反馈循环

Y. Fratantonio, Chenxiong Qian, S. Chung, Wenke Lee
{"title":"斗篷和匕首:从两个权限到完全控制UI反馈循环","authors":"Y. Fratantonio, Chenxiong Qian, S. Chung, Wenke Lee","doi":"10.1109/SP.2017.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The effectiveness of the Android permission system fundamentally hinges on the user's correct understanding of the capabilities of the permissions being granted. In this paper, we show that both the end-users and the security community have significantly underestimated the dangerous capabilities granted by the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW and the BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE permissions: while it is known that these are security-sensitive permissions and they have been abused individually (e.g., in UI redressing attacks, accessibility attacks), previous attacks based on these permissions rely on vanishing side-channels to time the appearance of overlay UI, cannot respond properly to user input, or make the attacks literally visible. This work, instead, uncovers several design shortcomings of the Android platform and shows how an app with these two permissions can completely control the UI feedback loop and create devastating attacks. In particular, we demonstrate how such an app can launch a variety of stealthy, powerful attacks, ranging from stealing user's login credentials and security PIN, to the silent installation of a God-mode app with all permissions enabled, leaving the victim completely unsuspecting. To make things even worse, we note that when installing an app targeting a recent Android SDK, the list of its required permissions is not shown to the user and that these attacks can be carried out without needing to lure the user to knowingly enable any permission. In fact, the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission is automatically granted for apps installed from the Play Store and our experiment shows that it is practical to lure users to unknowingly grant the BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE permission by abusing capabilities from the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission. We evaluated the practicality of these attacks by performing a user study: none of the 20 human subjects that took part of the experiment even suspected they had been attacked. We also found that it is straightforward to get a proof-of-concept app requiring both permissions accepted on the official store. We responsibly disclosed our findings to Google. Unfortunately, since these problems are related to design issues, these vulnerabilities are still unaddressed. We conclude the paper by proposing a novel defense mechanism, implemented as an extension to the current Android API, which would protect Android users and developers from the threats we uncovered.","PeriodicalId":6502,"journal":{"name":"2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","volume":"29 1","pages":"1041-1057"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"102","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cloak and Dagger: From Two Permissions to Complete Control of the UI Feedback Loop\",\"authors\":\"Y. Fratantonio, Chenxiong Qian, S. Chung, Wenke Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SP.2017.39\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The effectiveness of the Android permission system fundamentally hinges on the user's correct understanding of the capabilities of the permissions being granted. In this paper, we show that both the end-users and the security community have significantly underestimated the dangerous capabilities granted by the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW and the BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE permissions: while it is known that these are security-sensitive permissions and they have been abused individually (e.g., in UI redressing attacks, accessibility attacks), previous attacks based on these permissions rely on vanishing side-channels to time the appearance of overlay UI, cannot respond properly to user input, or make the attacks literally visible. This work, instead, uncovers several design shortcomings of the Android platform and shows how an app with these two permissions can completely control the UI feedback loop and create devastating attacks. In particular, we demonstrate how such an app can launch a variety of stealthy, powerful attacks, ranging from stealing user's login credentials and security PIN, to the silent installation of a God-mode app with all permissions enabled, leaving the victim completely unsuspecting. To make things even worse, we note that when installing an app targeting a recent Android SDK, the list of its required permissions is not shown to the user and that these attacks can be carried out without needing to lure the user to knowingly enable any permission. In fact, the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission is automatically granted for apps installed from the Play Store and our experiment shows that it is practical to lure users to unknowingly grant the BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE permission by abusing capabilities from the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission. We evaluated the practicality of these attacks by performing a user study: none of the 20 human subjects that took part of the experiment even suspected they had been attacked. We also found that it is straightforward to get a proof-of-concept app requiring both permissions accepted on the official store. We responsibly disclosed our findings to Google. Unfortunately, since these problems are related to design issues, these vulnerabilities are still unaddressed. We conclude the paper by proposing a novel defense mechanism, implemented as an extension to the current Android API, which would protect Android users and developers from the threats we uncovered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"1041-1057\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"102\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2017.39\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2017.39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 102

摘要

Android权限系统的有效性从根本上取决于用户对所授予权限的能力的正确理解。在本文中,我们表明最终用户和安全社区都严重低估了SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW和BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE权限授予的危险功能:虽然已知这些是安全敏感权限,并且它们已经被单独滥用(例如,在UI修复攻击,可访问性攻击中),但以前基于这些权限的攻击依赖于消失的侧通道来确定覆盖UI的出现时间,无法正确响应用户输入,或者使攻击完全可见。相反,这项工作揭示了Android平台的几个设计缺陷,并展示了具有这两个权限的应用程序如何完全控制UI反馈循环并创建破坏性攻击。特别是,我们展示了这样一个应用程序如何启动各种隐蔽的,强大的攻击,从窃取用户的登录凭据和安全PIN,到静默安装一个启用所有权限的上帝模式应用程序,让受害者完全不知情。更糟糕的是,我们注意到,当安装针对最新Android SDK的应用程序时,其所需权限列表不会显示给用户,并且这些攻击可以在不需要引诱用户故意启用任何权限的情况下进行。事实上,对于从Play Store安装的应用程序,SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW权限是自动授予的,我们的实验表明,通过滥用SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW权限的功能,诱使用户在不知情的情况下授予BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE权限是可行的。我们通过进行用户研究来评估这些攻击的实用性:参加实验的20名人类受试者中,没有一个人怀疑自己受到了攻击。我们还发现,获得一款概念验证应用很简单,需要官方商店接受这两种许可。我们负责任地向谷歌披露了我们的发现。不幸的是,由于这些问题与设计问题相关,这些漏洞仍然没有得到解决。最后,我们提出了一种新的防御机制,作为当前Android API的扩展来实现,它将保护Android用户和开发人员免受我们发现的威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cloak and Dagger: From Two Permissions to Complete Control of the UI Feedback Loop
The effectiveness of the Android permission system fundamentally hinges on the user's correct understanding of the capabilities of the permissions being granted. In this paper, we show that both the end-users and the security community have significantly underestimated the dangerous capabilities granted by the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW and the BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE permissions: while it is known that these are security-sensitive permissions and they have been abused individually (e.g., in UI redressing attacks, accessibility attacks), previous attacks based on these permissions rely on vanishing side-channels to time the appearance of overlay UI, cannot respond properly to user input, or make the attacks literally visible. This work, instead, uncovers several design shortcomings of the Android platform and shows how an app with these two permissions can completely control the UI feedback loop and create devastating attacks. In particular, we demonstrate how such an app can launch a variety of stealthy, powerful attacks, ranging from stealing user's login credentials and security PIN, to the silent installation of a God-mode app with all permissions enabled, leaving the victim completely unsuspecting. To make things even worse, we note that when installing an app targeting a recent Android SDK, the list of its required permissions is not shown to the user and that these attacks can be carried out without needing to lure the user to knowingly enable any permission. In fact, the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission is automatically granted for apps installed from the Play Store and our experiment shows that it is practical to lure users to unknowingly grant the BIND_ACCESSIBILITY_SERVICE permission by abusing capabilities from the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission. We evaluated the practicality of these attacks by performing a user study: none of the 20 human subjects that took part of the experiment even suspected they had been attacked. We also found that it is straightforward to get a proof-of-concept app requiring both permissions accepted on the official store. We responsibly disclosed our findings to Google. Unfortunately, since these problems are related to design issues, these vulnerabilities are still unaddressed. We conclude the paper by proposing a novel defense mechanism, implemented as an extension to the current Android API, which would protect Android users and developers from the threats we uncovered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信