Axiomatic hardware-software contracts for security
Nicholas Mosier, Hanna Lachnitt, Hamed Nemati, Caroline Trippel
Abstract
We propose leakage containment models (LCMs)---novel axiomatic security contracts which support formally reasoning about the security guarantees of programs when they run on particular microarchitectures. Our core contribution is an axiomatic vocabulary for formalizing LCMs, derived from the established axiomatic vocabulary for formalizing processor memory consistency models. Using this vocabulary, we formalize microarchitectural leakage---focusing on leakage through hardware memory systems---so that it can be automatically detected in programs and provide a taxonomy for classifying said leakage by severity. To illustrate the efficacy of LCMs, we first demonstrate that our leakage definition faithfully captures a sampling of (transient and non-transient) microarchitectural attacks from the literature. Second, we develop a static analysis tool based on LCMs which automatically identifies Spectre vulnerabilities in programs and scales to analyze real-world crypto-libraries.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext e8d0647e-6bc3-48f8-8524-aff4d1190d9aCited by top-tier papers15
- Pensieve: Microarchitectural Modeling for Security EvaluationYuheng Yang, Thomas Bourgeat, Stella Lau, Mengjia YanISCA 2023 · 23 citations
- Specification and Verification of Side-channel Security for Open-source Processors via Leakage ContractsZilong Wang, Gideon Mohr, Klaus von Gleissenthall, Jan Reineke et al.CCS 2023 · 20 citations
- Serberus: Protecting Cryptographic Code from Spectres at Compile-TimeNicholas Mosier, Hamed Nemati, John C. Mitchell, Caroline TrippelS&P 2024 · 16 citations
- "These results must be false": A usability evaluation of constant-time analysis toolsMarcel Fourné, Daniel De Almeida Braga, Jan Jancar, Mohamed Sabt et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 15 citations
- RTL Verification for Secure Speculation Using Contract Shadow LogicQinhan Tan, Yuheng Yang, Thomas Bourgeat, Sharad Malik et al.ASPLOS 2025 · 12 citations
Builds on18
- Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative ExecutionPaul Kocher, Jann Horn, Anders Fogh, Daniel Genkin et al.S&P 2019 · 2,435 citations
- ZombieLoad: Cross-Privilege-Boundary Data SamplingMichael Schwarz, Moritz Lipp, Daniel Moghimi, Jo Van Bulck et al.CCS 2019 · 464 citations
- RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data LoadStephan van Schaik, Alyssa Milburn, Sebastian Österlund, Pietro Frigo et al.S&P 2019 · 408 citations
- Spectector: Principled Detection of Speculative Information FlowsMarco Guarnieri, Boris Köpf, José F. Morales, Jan Reineke et al.S&P 2020 · 177 citations
- Hardware-Software Contracts for Secure SpeculationMarco Guarnieri, Boris Köpf, Jan Reineke, Pepe VilaS&P 2021 · 111 citations
Related papers
- Cats vs. Spectre: An Axiomatic Approach to Modeling Speculative Execution AttacksHernán Ponce de León, Johannes KinderS&P 2022 · 35 citations
- Speculation at Fault: Modeling and Testing Microarchitectural Leakage of CPU ExceptionsJana Hofmann, Emanuele Vannacci, Cédric Fournet, Boris Köpf et al.USENIX Security 2023
- InSpectre: Breaking and Fixing Microarchitectural Vulnerabilities by Formal AnalysisRoberto Guanciale, Musard Balliu, Mads DamCCS 2020 · 51 citations
- Revizor: testing black-box CPUs against speculation contractsOleksii Oleksenko, Christof Fetzer, Boris Köpf, Mark SilbersteinASPLOS 2022 · 36 citations
- ProSpeCT: Provably Secure Speculation for the Constant-Time PolicyLesly-Ann Daniel, Marton Bognar, Job Noorman, Sébastien Bardin et al.USENIX Security 2023
