Category Archives: android security

PHA Family Highlights: Bread (and Friends)




“So..good..”
“very beautiful”
Later, 1 star reviews from real users start appearing with comments like:
“Deception”
“The app is not honest …”

SUMMARY

Sheer volume appears to be the preferred approach for Bread developers. At different times, we have seen three or more active variants using different approaches or targeting different carriers. Within each variant, the malicious code present in each sample may look nearly identical with only one evasion technique changed. Sample 1 may use AES-encrypted strings with reflection, while Sample 2 (submitted on the same day) will use the same code but with plaintext strings.
At peak times of activity, we have seen up to 23 different apps from this family submitted to Play in one day. At other times, Bread appears to abandon hope of making a variant successful and we see a gap of a week or longer before the next variant. This family showcases the amount of resources that malware authors now have to expend. Google Play Protect is constantly updating detection engines and warning users of malicious apps installed on their device.

SELECTED SAMPLES

Package Name SHA-256 Digest
com.rabbit.artcamera 18c277c7953983f45f2fe6ab4c7d872b2794c256604e43500045cb2b2084103f
org.horoscope.astrology.predict 6f1a1dbeb5b28c80ddc51b77a83c7a27b045309c4f1bff48aaff7d79dfd4eb26
com.theforest.rotatemarswallpaper 4e78a26832a0d471922eb61231bc498463337fed8874db5f70b17dd06dcb9f09
com.jspany.temp 0ce78efa764ce1e7fb92c4de351ec1113f3e2ca4b2932feef46d7d62d6ae87f5
com.hua.ru.quan 780936deb27be5dceea20a5489014236796a74cc967a12e36cb56d9b8df9bc86
com.rongnea.udonood 8b2271938c524dd1064e74717b82e48b778e49e26b5ac2dae8856555b5489131
com.mbv.a.wp 01611e16f573da2c9dbc7acdd445d84bae71fecf2927753e341d8a5652b89a68
com.pho.nec.sg b4822eeb71c83e4aab5ddfecfb58459e5c5e10d382a2364da1c42621f58e119b

Protecting against code reuse in the Linux kernel with Shadow Call Stack


The Linux kernel is responsible for enforcing much of Android’s security model, which is why we have put a lot of effort into hardening the Android Linux kernel against exploitation. In Android 9, we introduced support for Clang’s forward-edge Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) enforcement to protect the kernel from code reuse attacks that modify stored function pointers. This year, we have added backward-edge protection for return addresses using Clang’s Shadow Call Stack (SCS).
Google’s Pixel 3 and 3a phones have kernel SCS enabled in the Android 10 update, and Pixel 4 ships with this protection out of the box. We have made patches available to all supported versions of the Android kernel and also maintain a patch set against upstream Linux. This post explains how kernel SCS works, the benefits and trade-offs, how to enable the feature, and how to debug potential issues.

Return-oriented programming

As kernel memory protections increasingly make code injection more difficult, attackers commonly use control flow hijacking to exploit kernel bugs. Return-oriented programming (ROP) is a technique where the attacker gains control of the kernel stack to overwrite function return addresses and redirect execution to carefully selected parts of existing kernel code, known as ROP gadgets. While address space randomization and stack canaries can make this attack more challenging, return addresses stored on the stack remain vulnerable to many overwrite flaws. The general availability of tools for automatically generating this type of kernel exploit makes protecting against it increasingly important.

Shadow Call Stack

One method of protecting return addresses is to store them in a separately allocated shadow stack that’s not vulnerable to traditional buffer overflows. This can also help protect against arbitrary overwrite attacks.
Clang added the Shadow Call Stack instrumentation pass for arm64 in version 7. When enabled, each non-leaf function that pushes the return address to the stack will be instrumented with code that also saves the address to a shadow stack. A pointer to the current task’s shadow stack is always kept in the x18 register, which is reserved for this purpose. Here’s what instrumentation looks like in a typical kernel function:

SCS doesn’t require error handling as it uses the return address from the shadow stack unconditionally. Compatibility with stack unwinding for debugging purposes is maintained by keeping a copy of the return address in the normal stack, but this value is never used for control flow decisions.
Despite requiring a dedicated register, SCS has minimal performance overhead. The instrumentation itself consists of one load and one store instruction per function, which results in a performance impact that’s within noise in our benchmarking. Allocating a shadow stack for each thread does increase the kernel’s memory usage but as only return addresses are stored, the stack size defaults to 1kB. Therefore, the overhead is a fraction of the memory used for the already small regular kernel stacks.
SCS patches are available for Android kernels 4.14 and 4.19, and for upstream Linux. It can be enabled using the following configuration options:

CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK=y
# CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK_VMAP is not set
# CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE is not set

By default, shadow stacks are not virtually allocated to minimize memory overhead, but CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK_VMAP can be enabled for better stack exhaustion protection. With CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE, the kernel will also print out shadow stack usage in addition to normal stack usage which can be helpful when debugging issues.

Alternatives

Signing return addresses using ARMv8.3 Pointer Authentication (PAC) is an alternative to shadow stacks. PAC has similar security properties and comparable performance to SCS but without the memory allocation overhead. Unfortunately, PAC requires hardware support, which means it cannot be used on existing devices, but may be a viable option for future devices. For x86, Intel’s Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) extension will offer a native shadow stack support, but also requires compatible hardware.

Conclusion

We have improved Linux kernel code reuse attack protections on Pixel devices running Android 10. Pixel 3, 3a, and 4 kernels have both CFI and SCS enabled and we have made patches available to all Android OEMs.

Trust but verify attestation with revocation

Posted by Rob Barnes & Shawn Willden, Android Security & Privacy Team
[Cross-posted from the Android Developers Blog]

Billions of people rely on their Android-powered devices to securely store their sensitive information. A vital component of the Android security stack is the key attestation system. Android devices since Android 7.0 are able to generate an attestation certificate that attests to the security properties of the device’s hardware and software. OEMs producing devices with Android 8.0 or higher must install a batch attestation key provided by Google on each device at the time of manufacturing.
These keys might need to be revoked for a number of reasons including accidental disclosure, mishandling, or suspected extraction by an attacker. When this occurs, the affected keys must be immediately revoked to protect users. The security of any Public-Key Infrastructure system depends on the robustness of the key revocation process.
All of the attestation keys issued so far include an extension that embeds a certificate revocation list (CRL) URL in the certificate. We found that the CRL (and online certificate status protocol) system was not flexible enough for our needs. So we set out to replace the revocation system for Android attestation keys with something that is flexible and simple to maintain and use.
Our solution is a single TLS-secured URL (https://android.googleapis.com/attestation/status) that returns a list containing all revoked Android attestation keys. This list is encoded in JSON and follows a strict format defined by JSON schema. Only keys that have non-valid status appear in the list, so it is not an exhaustive list of all issued keys.
This system allows us to express more nuance about the status of a key and the reason for the status. A key can have a status of REVOKED or SUSPENDED, where revoked is permanent and suspended is temporary. The reason for the status is described as either KEY_COMPROMISE, CA_COMPROMISE, SUPERSEDED, or SOFTWARE_FLAW. A complete, up-to-date list of statuses and reasons can be found in the developer documentation.
The CRL URLs embedded in existing batch certificates will continue to operate. Going forward, attestation batch certificates will no longer contain a CRL extension. The status of these legacy certificates will also be included in the attestation status list, so developers can safely switch to using the attestation status list for both current and legacy certificates. An example of how to correctly verify Android attestation keys is included in the Key Attestation sample.

Expanding bug bounties on Google Play

Posted by Adam Bacchus, Sebastian Porst, and Patrick Mutchler — Android Security & Privacy

[Cross-posted from the Android Developers Blog]

We’re constantly looking for ways to further improve the security and privacy of our products, and the ecosystems they support. At Google, we understand the strength of open platforms and ecosystems, and that the best ideas don’t always come from within. It is for this reason that we offer a broad range of vulnerability reward programs, encouraging the community to help us improve security for everyone. Today, we’re expanding on those efforts with some big changes to Google Play Security Reward Program (GPSRP), as well as the launch of the new Developer Data Protection Reward Program (DDPRP).

Google Play Security Reward Program Scope Increases

We are increasing the scope of GPSRP to include all apps in Google Play with 100 million or more installs. These apps are now eligible for rewards, even if the app developers don’t have their own vulnerability disclosure or bug bounty program. In these scenarios, Google helps responsibly disclose identified vulnerabilities to the affected app developer. This opens the door for security researchers to help hundreds of organizations identify and fix vulnerabilities in their apps. If the developers already have their own programs, researchers can collect rewards directly from them on top of the rewards from Google. We encourage app developers to start their own vulnerability disclosure or bug bounty program to work directly with the security researcher community.

Vulnerability data from GPSRP helps Google create automated checks that scan all apps available in Google Play for similar vulnerabilities. Affected app developers are notified through the Play Console as part of the App Security Improvement (ASI) program, which provides information on the vulnerability and how to fix it. Over its lifetime, ASI has helped more than 300,000 developers fix more than 1,000,000 apps on Google Play. In 2018 alone, the program helped over 30,000 developers fix over 75,000 apps. The downstream effect means that those 75,000 vulnerable apps are not distributed to users until the issue is fixed.

To date, GPSRP has paid out over $265,000 in bounties. Recent scope and reward increases have resulted in $75,500 in rewards across July & August alone. With these changes, we anticipate even further engagement from the security research community to bolster the success of the program.

Introducing the Developer Data Protection Reward Program

Today, we are also launching the Developer Data Protection Reward Program. DDPRP is a bounty program, in collaboration with HackerOne, meant to identify and mitigate data abuse issues in Android apps, OAuth projects, and Chrome extensions. It recognizes the contributions of individuals who help report apps that are violating Google Play, Google API, or Google Chrome Web Store Extensions program policies.

The program aims to reward anyone who can provide verifiably and unambiguous evidence of data abuse, in a similar model as Google’s other vulnerability reward programs. In particular, the program aims to identify situations where user data is being used or sold unexpectedly, or repurposed in an illegitimate way without user consent. If data abuse is identified related to an app or Chrome extension, that app or extension will accordingly be removed from Google Play or Google Chrome Web Store. In the case of an app developer abusing access to Gmail restricted scopes, their API access will be removed. While no reward table or maximum reward is listed at this time, depending on impact, a single report could net as large as a $50,000 bounty.

As 2019 continues, we look forward to seeing what researchers find next. Thank you to the entire community for contributing to keeping our platforms and ecosystems safe. Happy bug hunting!