1. Field
The present invention relates generally to security in computing environments, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for detection of tampering attacks against systems that use computing environments for identification purposes.
2. Background
Using a non-user configurable environment of a computing system has become a popular way of authenticating devices that run security programs as well as for managing the valid use of copy controlled and licensed software.
The use of parameter information to build a unique identity for that computing system is typically deployed in the software publishing and digital rights management industry. One common term used to describe the process is called hardware fingerprinting.
One of the important improvements to hardware fingerprinting is the concept of tolerance, which allows the computing system to tolerate a small number of changes to its environment without triggering a failure. A failure of the process occurs when the protected software detects that it is in use on a new or unknown device and therefore requires re-authentication.
The practice known as tolerance involves making queries to multiple device parameters and making a weighted and or prioritized decision about how many of those parameters are allowed to change before the controlling software decides to treat the computing environment as a new and unknown system requiring manual re-authentication.
The hardware fingerprinting system may be circumvented, however, if a rogue entity is able to interfere with the detection process of the protected software. For example, the rogue entity may emulate the hardware fingerprint of the original computing environment to fool the protected software to think that it is executing in the original computing environment.
The present invention provides a method for detecting an attempted attack on a security system. In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the method includes the step of retrieving a parameter from a hardware system, wherein the parameter changes during an operation of the hardware system. Then, comparing the retrieved parameter with a previously stored parameter; and, detecting a lack of change between the retrieved parameter and the previously stored parameter.
An apparatus for detecting a tampering attempt in a security system is also disclosed. The apparatus includes a processor and a memory coupled to the processor. In one preferred embodiment, the memory is configured to cause the processor to execute a method including the step of retrieving a parameter from a hardware system, wherein the parameter changes during an operation of the hardware system. Then, comparing the retrieved parameter with a previously stored parameter; and, detecting a lack of change between the retrieved parameter and the previously stored parameter.
An article of manufacture including a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for causing a processor to perform a method for detecting an attempted attack on a security system is also disclosed. The method including the steps of retrieving a parameter from a hardware system, wherein the parameter changes during an operation of the hardware system. Then, comparing the retrieved parameter with a previously stored parameter; and, detecting a lack of change between the retrieved parameter and the previously stored parameter.
Other objects, features and advantages will become apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description. It is to be understood, however, that the detailed description and specific examples, while indicating exemplary embodiments, are given by way of illustration and not limitation. Many changes and modifications within the scope of the following description may be made without departing from the spirit thereof, and the description should be understood to include all such variations.
The invention may be more readily understood by referring to the accompanying drawings in which:
Like numerals refer to like parts throughout the several views of the drawings.
The present invention goes beyond standard tolerance systems to use the tolerance process and device parameters queries as a means of detecting when the software is under attack thereby allowing the software to take countermeasures to defend itself.
The invention is valuable in that it can be used to protect software that is used for security or copy control applications.
Further, the invention has significant value when compared with traditional anti-piracy and anti-tampering techniques such as check summing and encryption in that these can be configured to more effectively protect the target software when an attack has been detected.
The present invention will provide a method of detecting when attempts have been made to circumvent or interfere with security or copy control systems that use the non-user configurable information from a computing device for the purposes of identification and authentication.
One of the many ways to sample a computing environment for the purposes of uniquely identifying one system from another is to collect information from many or all available devices and many or all available device parameters to use them as a digital identifier.
In
The second set of device parameters 20 also contains devices 21 and device parameters 22. However, these device parameters are different from the device parameters 12 of the first set 10 in that these device parameters 22 do change from time to time during the course of the useful life of the computing system. Examples of device parameters that can change over time on a computer are the device parameter related to the amount of random access memory contained in the computer and the device parameter related to the serial number(s) of the hard drive(s) in the computer.
The third set of device parameters 30 also contains devices 31 and device parameters 32. Unlike the first device parameters set 10 and the second parameter set 20, the third device parameter set 30 includes only device parameters that change over time during the operation of the computer. Device parameters that change on a computer include, but are not limited to, device parameters related to the keeping track of time on the computing system and device parameters related to data that rapidly changes while the device is in use by a processing unit or random access memory. For example, the amount of memory used as well as the content of the random access memory may be used as device parameters.
During the process of sampling a computer operating environment to build a unique identifier for that system the software usually collects a wide and diverse range of device parameters 10 and 20. There are numerous approaches for using these device parameters for the production of a unique identifier. The present invention adds an additional functionality to the sampling process by sampling device parameters that are known to always change 30.
Initially, the parameters of the first set of device parameters 10 are queried using a series of software commands in step 402. The results of this query in step 402 are compared with a stored version of the same parameter query in step 404. The results of the comparison are then computed in step 406. If major changes are found between the stored version of the query and the generated version of the query in step 406 then the authentication process fails and operation continues with step 408. If there are minor or no changes detected in the comparison of the stored parameter query and generated version in step 406, then the process proceeds to step 420.
Queries are made for device parameters that are allowed to change in step 420. These are compared with a stored version of the same query in step 424. If too many changes are detected in step 426, then the authentication fails and operation continues with step 428. If an allowable number of changes are detected in step 426 then the process proceeds to step 440.
Next queries are made for device parameters that must always change in step 440. These are compared with a stored version of the same query in step 444. If no changes are detected in 446, then authentication fails and operation continues with step 448. However, if changes are detected in step 446, then the authentication is considered to have been successfully completed and operation continues with 450.
As discussed herein, the present invention adds an additional functionality to the sampling process by sampling device parameters that are known to always change 30. This functionality serves the purpose of laying a trap for attackers or others who wishes to tamper with the software 60 since a standard way of attacking and stress testing software is to intercept the normal communications 62 of the software 60 with the computing environment and the operating system and to feed falsified or compromised information 64 to the software 60. The intent is to deceive the software 60 into allowing it to run in an unprotected or compromised state.
Since the attacker is in the process of learning what information is needed by the software 60 to run in a compromised state, the attacker is initially unaware of what information is required by the software 60 to operate successfully.
The presumption that there is a correct answer to any query made by the software 60 means that the attacker will attempt to send data in different combinations, including duplicate values, to the software the attacker is trying to defeat.
Herein is the value of the invention in that sending duplicate data to a device parameter query that is intentionally meant to be different on every query means that attempted tampering can be detected, as discussed above in
An alternative embodiment could include where the querying of the device parameters does not occur in three separate processes, but where each individual device parameter is queried individually in a randomized or varied order so that queries to device parameters that must always change 32 are interspersed with queries to device parameters that sometimes change 22 and others where the device parameters rarely change 12. This approach increases the difficulty for an attacker to determine which queries are designed as tamper detection steps versus the queries that are part of the normal identification and authentication process.
Another alternative embodiment could include but is not to be limited to a system as described in
It should be noted that the methods described herein may be implemented on a variety of communication hardware, processors and systems known by one of ordinary skill in the art. The various illustrative logics, logical blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but, in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration.
The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two. A software module may reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art. An exemplary storage medium is coupled to the processor, such that the processor can read information from, and write information to, the storage medium. In the alternative, the storage medium may be integral to the processor. The processor and the storage medium may reside in an ASIC. The ASIC may reside in a user terminal. In the alternative, the processor and the storage medium may reside as discrete components in a user terminal.
The embodiments described above are exemplary embodiments. Those skilled in the art may now make numerous uses of, and departures from, the above-described embodiments without departing from the inventive concepts disclosed herein. Various modifications to these embodiments may be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the generic principles defined herein may be applied to other embodiments, without departing from the spirit or scope of the novel aspects described herein. Thus, the scope of the invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown herein but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein. The word “exemplary” is used exclusively herein to mean “serving as an example, instance, or illustration.” Any embodiment described herein as “exemplary” is not necessarily to be construed as the most preferred or advantageous over other embodiments. Accordingly, the present invention is to be defined solely by the scope of the following claims.
The present Application for Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/713,926, entitled “Method for detection of tampering attacks attempts against systems that use computing environments for identification purposes” filed Sep. 2, 2005, and assigned to the assignee hereof and hereby expressly incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4351982 | Miller et al. | Sep 1982 | A |
4658093 | Hellman | Apr 1987 | A |
4704610 | Smith et al. | Nov 1987 | A |
4796220 | Wolfe | Jan 1989 | A |
5210795 | Lipner et al. | May 1993 | A |
5260999 | Wyman | Nov 1993 | A |
5291598 | Grundy | Mar 1994 | A |
5414269 | Takahashi | May 1995 | A |
5418854 | Kaufman et al. | May 1995 | A |
5440635 | Bellovin et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5490216 | Richardson, III | Feb 1996 | A |
5509070 | Schull | Apr 1996 | A |
5666415 | Kaufman | Sep 1997 | A |
5745879 | Wyman | Apr 1998 | A |
5754763 | Bereiter | May 1998 | A |
5790664 | Coley et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5925127 | Ahmad | Jul 1999 | A |
6009401 | Horstmann | Dec 1999 | A |
6044471 | Colvin | Mar 2000 | A |
6134659 | Sprong et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6158005 | Bharathan et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6230199 | Revashetti et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233567 | Cohen | May 2001 | B1 |
6243468 | Pearce et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6243469 | Kataoka et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6294793 | Brunfeld et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6330670 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6449645 | Nash | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6536005 | Augarten | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6785825 | Colvin | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6804257 | Benayoun et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6859793 | Lambiase | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6920567 | Doherty et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6976009 | Tadayon et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7032110 | Su et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7069440 | Aull | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069595 | Cogmigni et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7085741 | Lao et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7188241 | Cronce et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7203966 | Abburi et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7206765 | Gilliam et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7272728 | Pierson et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7319987 | Hoffman et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7327280 | Bachelder et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7337147 | Chen et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7343297 | Bergler et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7457951 | Proudler et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7463945 | Kiesel et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7644442 | Miller et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7653899 | Lindahl et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7739402 | Roese | Jun 2010 | B2 |
20010034712 | Colvin | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010044782 | Hughes et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020019814 | Ganesan | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020082997 | Kobata et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020161718 | Coley et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030033541 | Edmark et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030065918 | Wiley | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030172035 | Cronce et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030218629 | Terashima et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040024860 | Sato et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040030912 | Merkle et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040059929 | Rodgers et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059938 | Hughes et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040066417 | Anabuki et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040143746 | Ligeti et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040172558 | Callahan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187018 | Owen et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040215661 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050108173 | Stefik et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138155 | Lewis | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050172280 | Ziegler et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060026442 | Ittogi | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060072444 | Engel et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095454 | Shankar et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060161914 | Morrison et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060265337 | Wesinger, Jr. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060265758 | Khandelwai et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060282511 | Takano et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070168288 | Bozeman | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070198422 | Prahlad et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203846 | Kavuri et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070219917 | Liu et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070255947 | Choudhury et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
678985 | Jun 1997 | AU |
1 637 958 | Mar 2006 | EP |
1 637 961 | Mar 2006 | EP |
1 670 188 | Jun 2006 | EP |
WO 9220022 | Nov 1992 | WO |
WO 9301550 | Jan 1993 | WO |
WO 9535533 | Dec 1995 | WO |
WO 9842098 | Sep 1998 | WO |
WO 0067095 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO 0155876 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 2005104686 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO 2007060516 | May 2007 | WO |
WO 2007022134 | Jul 2007 | WO |
WO 2008013504 | Jan 2008 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070143844 A1 | Jun 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60713926 | Sep 2005 | US |