How Open Should Open Source Be?
Adam Barth and Saung Li and Benjamin I. P. Rubinstein and Dawn Song
EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley
Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2011-98
August 31, 2011
http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-98.pdf
Many open-source projects land security fixes in public repositories before shipping these patches to users. This paper presents attacks on such projects-taking Firefox as a case-study—that exploit patch metadata to efficiently search for security patches prior to shipping. Using access-restricted bug reports linked from patch descriptions, security patches can be immediately identified for 260 out of 300 days of Firefox 3 development. In response to Mozilla obfuscating descriptions, we show that machine learning can exploit metadata such as patch author to search for security patches, extending the total window of vulnerability by 5 months in an 8 month period when examining up to two patches daily. Finally we present strong evidence that further metadata obfuscation is unlikely to prevent information leaks, and we argue that open-source projects instead ought to keep security patches secret until they are ready to be released.
BibTeX citation:
@techreport{Barth:EECS-2011-98, Author= {Barth, Adam and Li, Saung and Rubinstein, Benjamin I. P. and Song, Dawn}, Title= {How Open Should Open Source Be?}, Year= {2011}, Month= {Aug}, Url= {http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-98.html}, Number= {UCB/EECS-2011-98}, Abstract= {Many open-source projects land security fixes in public repositories before shipping these patches to users. This paper presents attacks on such projects-taking Firefox as a case-study—that exploit patch metadata to efficiently search for security patches prior to shipping. Using access-restricted bug reports linked from patch descriptions, security patches can be immediately identified for 260 out of 300 days of Firefox 3 development. In response to Mozilla obfuscating descriptions, we show that machine learning can exploit metadata such as patch author to search for security patches, extending the total window of vulnerability by 5 months in an 8 month period when examining up to two patches daily. Finally we present strong evidence that further metadata obfuscation is unlikely to prevent information leaks, and we argue that open-source projects instead ought to keep security patches secret until they are ready to be released.}, }
EndNote citation:
%0 Report %A Barth, Adam %A Li, Saung %A Rubinstein, Benjamin I. P. %A Song, Dawn %T How Open Should Open Source Be? %I EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley %D 2011 %8 August 31 %@ UCB/EECS-2011-98 %U http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2011/EECS-2011-98.html %F Barth:EECS-2011-98