MITOS: Optimal Decisioning for the Indirect Flow Propagation Dilemma in Dynamic Information Flow Tracking Systems

Dynamic Information Flow Tracking (DIFT), also called Dynamic Taint Analysis (DTA), is a technique for tracking the information as it flows through a program’s execution. Specifically, some inputs or data get tainted and then these taint marks (tags) propagate usually at the instruction-level. While DIFT has been a fundamental concept in computer and network security for the past decade, it still faces open challenges that impede its widespread application in practice; one of them being the indirect flow propagation dilemma: should the tags involved in an indirect flow, e.g., in a control or address dependency, be propagated? Propagating all these tags, as is done for direct flows, leads to overtainting (all taintable objects become tainted), while not propagating them leads to undertainting (information flow becomes incomplete). In this paper, we analytically model that decisioning problem for indirect flows, by considering various tradeoffs including undertainting versus overtainting, importance of heterogeneous code semantics and context. Towards tackling this problem, we design MITOS, a distributed-optimization algorithm, that: decides about the propagation of indirect flows by properly weighting all these tradeoffs, is of low-complexity, is scalable, is able to flexibly adapt to different application scenarios and security needs of large distributed systems. Additionally, MITOS is applicable to most DIFT systems that consider an arbitrary number of tag types, and introduces the key properties of fairness and tag-balancing to the DIFT field. To demonstrate MITOS’s applicability in practice, we implement and evaluate MITOS on top of an open-source DIFT, and we shed light on the open problem. We also perform a case-study scenario with a real in-memory only attack and show that MITOS improves simultaneously (i) system’s spatiotemporal overhead (up to 40%), and (ii) system’s fingerprint on suspected bytes (up to 167%) compared to traditional DIFT, even though these metrics usually conflict.