-
Jäger: Automated Telephone Call Traceback
Authors:
David Adei,
Varun Madathil,
Sathvik Prasad,
Bradley Reaves,
Alessandra Scafuro
Abstract:
Unsolicited telephone calls that facilitate fraud or unlawful telemarketing continue to overwhelm network users and the regulators who prosecute them. The first step in prosecuting phone abuse is traceback -- identifying the call originator. This fundamental investigative task currently requires hours of manual effort per call. In this paper, we introduce Jäger, a distributed secure call traceback…
▽ More
Unsolicited telephone calls that facilitate fraud or unlawful telemarketing continue to overwhelm network users and the regulators who prosecute them. The first step in prosecuting phone abuse is traceback -- identifying the call originator. This fundamental investigative task currently requires hours of manual effort per call. In this paper, we introduce Jäger, a distributed secure call traceback system. Jäger can trace a call in a few seconds, even with partial deployment, while cryptographically preserving the privacy of call parties, carrier trade secrets like peers and call volume, and limiting the threat of bulk analysis. We establish definitions and requirements of secure traceback, then develop a suite of protocols that meet these requirements using witness encryption, oblivious pseudorandom functions, and group signatures. We prove these protocols secure in the universal composibility framework. We then demonstrate that Jäger has low compute and bandwidth costs per call, and these costs scale linearly with call volume. Jäger provides an efficient, secure, privacy-preserving system to revolutionize telephone abuse investigation with minimal costs to operators.
△ Less
Submitted 17 September, 2024; v1 submitted 4 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
-
AssetHarvester: A Static Analysis Tool for Detecting Assets Protected by Secrets in Software Artifacts
Authors:
Setu Kumar Basak,
K. Virgil English,
Ken Ogura,
Vitesh Kambara,
Bradley Reaves,
Laurie Williams
Abstract:
GitGuardian monitored secrets exposure in public GitHub repositories and reported developers leaked over 12 million secrets (database and other credentials) in 2023, indicating a 113% surge from 2021. Despite the availability of secret detection tools, developers ignore the tools' reported warnings because of false positives (25%-99%). However, each secret protects assets of different values acces…
▽ More
GitGuardian monitored secrets exposure in public GitHub repositories and reported developers leaked over 12 million secrets (database and other credentials) in 2023, indicating a 113% surge from 2021. Despite the availability of secret detection tools, developers ignore the tools' reported warnings because of false positives (25%-99%). However, each secret protects assets of different values accessible through asset identifiers (a DNS name and a public or private IP address). The asset information for a secret can aid developers in filtering false positives and prioritizing secret removal from the source code. However, existing secret detection tools do not provide the asset information, thus presenting difficulty to developers in filtering secrets only by looking at the secret value or finding the assets manually for each reported secret. The goal of our study is to aid software practitioners in prioritizing secrets removal by providing the assets information protected by the secrets through our novel static analysis tool. We present AssetHarvester, a static analysis tool to detect secret-asset pairs in a repository. Since the location of the asset can be distant from where the secret is defined, we investigated secret-asset co-location patterns and found four patterns. To identify the secret-asset pairs of the four patterns, we utilized three approaches (pattern matching, data flow analysis, and fast-approximation heuristics). We curated a benchmark of 1,791 secret-asset pairs of four database types extracted from 188 public GitHub repositories to evaluate the performance of AssetHarvester. AssetHarvester demonstrates precision of (97%), recall (90%), and F1-score (94%) in detecting secret-asset pairs. Our findings indicate that data flow analysis employed in AssetHarvester detects secret-asset pairs with 0% false positives and aids in improving the recall of secret detection tools.
△ Less
Submitted 27 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
VFCFinder: Seamlessly Pairing Security Advisories and Patches
Authors:
Trevor Dunlap,
Elizabeth Lin,
William Enck,
Bradley Reaves
Abstract:
Security advisories are the primary channel of communication for discovered vulnerabilities in open-source software, but they often lack crucial information. Specifically, 63% of vulnerability database reports are missing their patch links, also referred to as vulnerability fixing commits (VFCs). This paper introduces VFCFinder, a tool that generates the top-five ranked set of VFCs for a given sec…
▽ More
Security advisories are the primary channel of communication for discovered vulnerabilities in open-source software, but they often lack crucial information. Specifically, 63% of vulnerability database reports are missing their patch links, also referred to as vulnerability fixing commits (VFCs). This paper introduces VFCFinder, a tool that generates the top-five ranked set of VFCs for a given security advisory using Natural Language Programming Language (NL-PL) models. VFCFinder yields a 96.6% recall for finding the correct VFC within the Top-5 commits, and an 80.0% recall for the Top-1 ranked commit. VFCFinder generalizes to nine different programming languages and outperforms state-of-the-art approaches by 36 percentage points in terms of Top-1 recall. As a practical contribution, we used VFCFinder to backfill over 300 missing VFCs in the GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA) database. All of the VFCs were accepted and merged into the GHSA database. In addition to demonstrating a practical pairing of security advisories to VFCs, our general open-source implementation will allow vulnerability database maintainers to drastically improve data quality, supporting efforts to secure the software supply chain.
△ Less
Submitted 2 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
A Comparative Study of Software Secrets Reporting by Secret Detection Tools
Authors:
Setu Kumar Basak,
Jamison Cox,
Bradley Reaves,
Laurie Williams
Abstract:
Background: According to GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories, secrets sprawl continued accelerating in 2022 by 67% compared to 2021, exposing over 10 million secrets (API keys and other credentials). Though many open-source and proprietary secret detection tools are available, these tools output many false positives, making it difficult for developers to take action and teams to…
▽ More
Background: According to GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories, secrets sprawl continued accelerating in 2022 by 67% compared to 2021, exposing over 10 million secrets (API keys and other credentials). Though many open-source and proprietary secret detection tools are available, these tools output many false positives, making it difficult for developers to take action and teams to choose one tool out of many. To our knowledge, the secret detection tools are not yet compared and evaluated. Aims: The goal of our study is to aid developers in choosing a secret detection tool to reduce the exposure of secrets through an empirical investigation of existing secret detection tools. Method: We present an evaluation of five open-source and four proprietary tools against a benchmark dataset. Results: The top three tools based on precision are: GitHub Secret Scanner (75%), Gitleaks (46%), and Commercial X (25%), and based on recall are: Gitleaks (88%), SpectralOps (67%) and TruffleHog (52%). Our manual analysis of reported secrets reveals that false positives are due to employing generic regular expressions and ineffective entropy calculation. In contrast, false negatives are due to faulty regular expressions, skipping specific file types, and insufficient rulesets. Conclusions: We recommend developers choose tools based on secret types present in their projects to prevent missing secrets. In addition, we recommend tool vendors update detection rules periodically and correctly employ secret verification mechanisms by collaborating with API vendors to improve accuracy.
△ Less
Submitted 2 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
SecretBench: A Dataset of Software Secrets
Authors:
Setu Kumar Basak,
Lorenzo Neil,
Bradley Reaves,
Laurie Williams
Abstract:
According to GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories, the exposure of secrets (API keys and other credentials) increased two-fold in 2021 compared to 2020, totaling more than six million secrets. However, no benchmark dataset is publicly available for researchers and tool developers to evaluate secret detection tools that produce many false positive warnings. The goal of our paper i…
▽ More
According to GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories, the exposure of secrets (API keys and other credentials) increased two-fold in 2021 compared to 2020, totaling more than six million secrets. However, no benchmark dataset is publicly available for researchers and tool developers to evaluate secret detection tools that produce many false positive warnings. The goal of our paper is to aid researchers and tool developers in evaluating and improving secret detection tools by curating a benchmark dataset of secrets through a systematic collection of secrets from open-source repositories. We present a labeled dataset of source codes containing 97,479 secrets (of which 15,084 are true secrets) of various secret types extracted from 818 public GitHub repositories. The dataset covers 49 programming languages and 311 file types.
△ Less
Submitted 12 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
What Challenges Do Developers Face About Checked-in Secrets in Software Artifacts?
Authors:
Setu Kumar Basak,
Lorenzo Neil,
Bradley Reaves,
Laurie Williams
Abstract:
Throughout 2021, GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories revealed a two-fold increase in the number of secrets (database credentials, API keys, and other credentials) exposed compared to 2020, accumulating more than six million secrets. To our knowledge, the challenges developers face to avoid checked-in secrets are not yet characterized. The goal of our paper is to aid researchers…
▽ More
Throughout 2021, GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories revealed a two-fold increase in the number of secrets (database credentials, API keys, and other credentials) exposed compared to 2020, accumulating more than six million secrets. To our knowledge, the challenges developers face to avoid checked-in secrets are not yet characterized. The goal of our paper is to aid researchers and tool developers in understanding and prioritizing opportunities for future research and tool automation for mitigating checked-in secrets through an empirical investigation of challenges and solutions related to checked-in secrets. We extract 779 questions related to checked-in secrets on Stack Exchange and apply qualitative analysis to determine the challenges and the solutions posed by others for each of the challenges. We identify 27 challenges and 13 solutions. The four most common challenges, in ranked order, are: (i) store/version of secrets during deployment; (ii) store/version of secrets in source code; (iii) ignore/hide of secrets in source code; and (iv) sanitize VCS history. The three most common solutions, in ranked order, are: (i) move secrets out of source code/version control and use template config file; (ii) secret management in deployment; and (iii) use local environment variables. Our findings indicate that the same solution has been mentioned to mitigate multiple challenges. However, our findings also identify an increasing trend in questions lacking accepted solutions substantiating the need for future research and tool automation on managing secrets.
△ Less
Submitted 29 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
What are the Practices for Secret Management in Software Artifacts?
Authors:
Setu Kumar Basak,
Lorenzo Neil,
Bradley Reaves,
Laurie Williams
Abstract:
Throughout 2021, GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories revealed a two-fold increase in the number of secrets (database credentials, API keys, and other credentials) exposed compared to 2020, accumulating more than six million secrets. A systematic derivation of practices for managing secrets can help practitioners in secure development. The goal of our paper is to aid practitioner…
▽ More
Throughout 2021, GitGuardian's monitoring of public GitHub repositories revealed a two-fold increase in the number of secrets (database credentials, API keys, and other credentials) exposed compared to 2020, accumulating more than six million secrets. A systematic derivation of practices for managing secrets can help practitioners in secure development. The goal of our paper is to aid practitioners in avoiding the exposure of secrets by identifying secret management practices in software artifacts through a systematic derivation of practices disseminated in Internet artifacts. We conduct a grey literature review of Internet artifacts, such as blog articles and question and answer posts. We identify 24 practices grouped in six categories comprised of developer and organizational practices. Our findings indicate that using local environment variables and external secret management services are the most recommended practices to move secrets out of source code and to securely store secrets. We also observe that using version control system scanning tools and employing short-lived secrets are the most recommended practices to avoid accidentally committing secrets and limit secret exposure, respectively.
△ Less
Submitted 23 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
A First Look at Scams on YouTube
Authors:
Elijah Bouma-Sims,
Brad Reaves
Abstract:
YouTube has become the second most popular website according to Alexa, and it represents an enticing platform for scammers to attract victims. Because of the computational difficulty of classifying multimedia, identifying scams on YouTube is more difficult than text-based media. As a consequence, the research community to-date has provided little insight into the prevalence, lifetime, and operatio…
▽ More
YouTube has become the second most popular website according to Alexa, and it represents an enticing platform for scammers to attract victims. Because of the computational difficulty of classifying multimedia, identifying scams on YouTube is more difficult than text-based media. As a consequence, the research community to-date has provided little insight into the prevalence, lifetime, and operational patterns of scammers on YouTube. In this short paper, we present a preliminary exploration of scam videos on YouTube. We begin by identifying 74 search queries likely to lead to scam videos based on the authors' experience seeing scams during routine browsing. We then manually review and characterize the results to identify 668 scams in 3,700 videos. In a detailed analysis of our classifications and metadata, we find that these scam videos have a median lifetime of nearly nine months, and many rely on external websites for monetization. We also explore the potential of detecting scams from metadata alone, finding that metadata does not have enough predictive power to distinguish scams from legitimate videos. Our work demonstrates that scams are a real problem for YouTube users, motivating future work on this topic.
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
A Large Scale Investigation of Obfuscation Use in Google Play
Authors:
Dominik Wermke,
Nicolas Huaman,
Yasemin Acar,
Brad Reaves,
Patrick Traynor,
Sascha Fahl
Abstract:
Android applications are frequently plagiarized or repackaged, and software obfuscation is a recommended protection against these practices. However, there is very little data on the overall rates of app obfuscation, the techniques used, or factors that lead to developers to choose to obfuscate their apps. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive analysis of the use of and challenges to s…
▽ More
Android applications are frequently plagiarized or repackaged, and software obfuscation is a recommended protection against these practices. However, there is very little data on the overall rates of app obfuscation, the techniques used, or factors that lead to developers to choose to obfuscate their apps. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive analysis of the use of and challenges to software obfuscation in Android applications. We analyzed 1.7 million free Android apps from Google Play to detect various obfuscation techniques, finding that only 24.92% of apps are obfuscated by the developer. To better understand this rate of obfuscation, we surveyed 308 Google Play developers about their experiences and attitudes about obfuscation. We found that while developers feel that apps in general are at risk of plagiarism, they do not fear theft of their own apps. Developers also self-report difficulties applying obfuscation for their own apps. To better understand this, we conducted a follow-up study where the vast majority of 70 participants failed to obfuscate a realistic sample app even while many mistakenly believed they had been successful. Our findings show that more work is needed to make obfuscation tools more usable, to educate developers on the risk of their apps being reverse engineered, their intellectual property stolen, their apps being repackaged and redistributed as malware and to improve the health of the overall Android ecosystem.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2018; v1 submitted 8 January, 2018;
originally announced January 2018.
-
Retrofitting Applications with Provenance-Based Security Monitoring
Authors:
Adam Bates,
Kevin Butler,
Alin Dobra,
Brad Reaves,
Patrick Cable,
Thomas Moyer,
Nabil Schear
Abstract:
Data provenance is a valuable tool for detecting and preventing cyber attack, providing insight into the nature of suspicious events. For example, an administrator can use provenance to identify the perpetrator of a data leak, track an attacker's actions following an intrusion, or even control the flow of outbound data within an organization. Unfortunately, providing relevant data provenance for c…
▽ More
Data provenance is a valuable tool for detecting and preventing cyber attack, providing insight into the nature of suspicious events. For example, an administrator can use provenance to identify the perpetrator of a data leak, track an attacker's actions following an intrusion, or even control the flow of outbound data within an organization. Unfortunately, providing relevant data provenance for complex, heterogenous software deployments is challenging, requiring both the tedious instrumentation of many application components as well as a unified architecture for aggregating information between components.
In this work, we present a composition of techniques for bringing affordable and holistic provenance capabilities to complex application workflows, with particular consideration for the exemplar domain of web services. We present DAP, a transparent architecture for capturing detailed data provenance for web service components. Our approach leverages a key insight that minimal knowledge of open protocols can be leveraged to extract precise and efficient provenance information by interposing on application components' communications, granting DAP compatibility with existing web services without requiring instrumentation or developer cooperation. We show how our system can be used in real time to monitor system intrusions or detect data exfiltration attacks while imposing less than 5.1 ms end-to-end overhead on web requests. Through the introduction of a garbage collection optimization, DAP is able to monitor system activity without suffering from excessive storage overhead. DAP thus serves not only as a provenance-aware web framework, but as a case study in the non-invasive deployment of provenance capabilities for complex applications workflows.
△ Less
Submitted 1 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
