Document Viewer

Problem

Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) is a group of enhanced compile-time checks that report common coding mistakes as errors. These checks prevent the use of hard-to-secure string manipulation functions. They enforce static memory access checks, and allow only the use of range-verified string parsing functions. While these checks do not prevent every memory corruption issue by themselves, they do help reduce the likelihood.

Problem

Operating systems execute application code in multiple privilege access levels. Separation of privileges is designed to protect the stability and integrity of the operating system by shielding it from issues that the user run applications may cause. However, some users may need to interact with higher privilege parts of the operating system to accomplish specific tasks. For this purpose, operating systems provide facilities that users may leverage to temporarily elevate their running privileges. Users with higher privileges can run any application with the same privilege level as their own. Attackers often try to trick privileged users into running malicious code, enabling them to infect the operating system. While the presence of code that elevates user privileges does not necessarily imply malicious intent, all of its uses in a software package should be documented and approved. Only select applications should consider using functions that can elevate user privileges. One example of acceptable use for such functions is allowing the users to install software packages and updates.

Problem

Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) is a group of enhanced compile-time checks that report common coding mistakes as errors, preventing them from reaching production. These checks minimize the number of security issues by enforcing strict memory access checks. They also prevent the use of hard-to-secure string and memory manipulation functions. To prove the binary has been compiled with these checks enabled, the compiler emits a special debug object. Removing the debug table eliminates this proof. Therefore, this check only applies to binaries that still have their debug tables.

Problem

Software components contain executable code that performs actions implemented during its development. These actions are called behaviors. In the analysis report, behaviors are presented as human-readable descriptions that best match the underlying code intent. While most behaviors are benign, some are commonly abused by malicious software with the intent to cause harm. When a software package shares behavior traits with malicious software, it may become flagged by security solutions. Any detection from security solutions can cause friction for the end-users during software deployment. While the behavior is likely intended by the developer, there is a small chance this detection is true positive, and an early indication of a software supply chain attack.

Problem

Each security solution has a unique footprint that consists of installed files and changes to system configuration. Malicious code often tries to detect security solutions by accessing registry keys and folder locations associated with the software installation. Detecting which security solution is installed plays a key role in selecting the optimal malware infection strategy. When a computer system is protected by a security solution, malware may decide to behave differently. Malware may choose to delay its execution, change infection stages, or even avoid running altogether. While the presence of code that detects security solutions does not necessarily imply malicious intent, all of its uses in a software package should be documented and approved. Only select applications should consider using functions that check for presence of installed security software. One example of acceptable use for such functions is informing the user about possible compatibility issues with the detected security software.

Problem

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are structured addresses that point to locations and assets on the internet. URLs allow software developers to build complex applications that exchange data with servers that can be hosted in multiple geographical regions. URLs can commonly be found embedded in documentation, configuration files, source code and compiled binaries. Top-level domains (TLD) are a part of the Domain Name System (DNS), and are used to lookup an Internet Protocol (IP) address of a requested website. There are a few different types of top-level domains. Generic, sponsored and country-code TLDs are generally accessible to the public. Registrars that govern the assignment of domain names within the TLD may choose to sell specific domain names to an interested party. However, some registrars are known to have less strict rules for assigning domain names. Attackers often abuse gaps in governance and actively seek to register their malicious domains in such TLDs. This issue is raised for all domains registered within TLDs that harbor an excessive number of malicious sites. While the presence of suspicious TLDs does not imply malicious intent, all of its uses in a software package should be documented and approved.

Problem

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are structured addresses that point to locations and assets on the internet. URLs allow software developers to build complex applications that exchange data with servers that can be hosted in multiple geographical regions. URLs can commonly be found embedded in documentation, configuration files, source code and compiled binaries. URL paths provide additional information to a web service when making a request. They are an optional, but an important part of the URL, as they may define specific content or actions based on the data being passed. Some parameters they pass might be considered sensitive information. Since path components are not encrypted this might cause sensitive information to leak. This issue is raised for URL paths than might contain information that attackers can easily intercept. Examples of sensitive information fields include passwords and other similar parameters.

Problem

Control Flow Guard (CFG/CFI) protects the code flow integrity by ensuring that indirect calls are made only to vetted functions. This mitigation protects dynamically resolved function targets by instrumenting the code responsible for transferring execution control. Because the code flow integrity is verified during runtime, malicious code is less likely to be able to hijack trusted execution paths.

Problem

Control Flow Guard (CFG/CFI) protects the code flow integrity by ensuring that dynamic calls are made only to vetted functions. Trusted execution paths rely on the ability of the operating system to build a list of valid function targets. Certain functions can intentionally be disallowed to prevent malicious code from deactivating vulnerability mitigation features. A list of such invalid function targets can include publicly exported symbols. Applications that enhance control flow integrity through export suppression rely on libraries to mark their publicly visible symbols as suppressed. This is done for all symbols that are considered to be sensitive functions, and to which access should be restricted. It is considered dangerous to mix applications that perform export suppression with libraries that do not.

Problem

Control Flow Guard (CFG/CFI) protects the code flow integrity by ensuring that indirect calls are made only to vetted functions. This mitigation protects dynamically resolved function targets by instrumenting the code responsible for transferring execution control. Higher-level programming languages implement structured exception handling by managing their own code flow execution paths. As such, they are subject to code flow hijacking during runtime. Language-specific exception handling mitigation enforces execution integrity by instrumenting calls to manage execution context switching. Any deviation from the known and trusted code flow paths will cause the application to terminate. This makes malicious code less likely to execute.