Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create DNA-Based Exploit of a Computer System (technologyreview.com)

Archeron writes: It seems that scientists at University of Washington in Seattle have managed to encode malware into genomic data, allowing them to gain full access to a computer being used to analyze the data. While this may be a highly contrived attack scenario, it does ask the question whether we pay sufficient attention to data-driven exploits, especially where the data is instrument-derived. What other systems could be vulnerable to a tampered raw data source? Perhaps audio and RF analysis systems? MIT Technology Review reports: "To carry out the hack, researchers led by Tadayoshi Kohno and Luis Ceze encoded malicious software in a short stretch of DNA they purchased online. They then used it to gain 'full control' over a computer that tried to process the genetic data after it was read by a DNA sequencing machine. The researchers warn that hackers could one day use faked blood or spit samples to gain access to university computers, steal information from police forensics labs, or infect genome files shared by scientists. To make the malware, the team translated a simple computer command into a short stretch of 176 DNA letters, denoted as A, G, C, and T. After ordering copies of the DNA from a vendor for $89, they fed the strands to a sequencing machine, which read off the gene letters, storing them as binary digits, 0s and 1s. Yaniv Erlich, a geneticist and programmer who is chief scientific officer of MyHertige.com, a genealogy website, says the attack took advantage of a spill-over effect, when data that exceeds a storage buffer can be interpreted as a computer command. In this case, the command contacted a server controlled by Kohno's team, from which they took control of a computer in their lab they were using to analyze the DNA file." You can read their paper here.

43 comments

  1. Run out of science to research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So scientists at UofW have run out of science to research and have instead become hackers and written a paper about it? Message seems to be: UofW would be a bad place to pursue one's career.

    1. Re:Run out of science to research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on what you call "hackers". Of course, the term has become utterly devoid of meaning so anything will do, but in this case they'd turned off ASLR, inserted their own buffer overflow, and figured out diddled inputs to "exploit" their customly built "vulnerability".

      I'd not call that "hacking", nor "research", really. The former used to require actual skill and ingenuity, not rehashing well-known stuff a 9001th time, and the latter used to require actually diligent and systematic investigation, not making up stuff from whole cloth.

  2. FIRE AND FURY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or whinge and whimper?

  3. Buffer overflow by srg33 · · Score: 1

    Sloppy programming

    1. Re:Buffer overflow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OMG C and C++ the horror, THE HORROR!

      "We analyzed open-source bioinformatics tools that are commonly used by researchers to analyze DNA data. Many of these are written in languages like C and C++ that are known to contain security vulnerabilities unless programs are carefully written. In this case the programs did not follow computer security best practices. For example, most had little input sanitization and used insecure functions. Others had static buffers that could overflow. The lack of input sanitization, the use of insecure functions, and the use of overflowable buffers can make a program vulnerable to attackers; modern computer security best practices are to avoid or cautiously use these programmatic constructs whenever possible."

    2. Re:Buffer overflow by gringer · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, it's a deliberately introduced bug

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    3. Re:Buffer overflow by infolation · · Score: 3, Funny
      Did you really name your son

      Robert'); DROP TABLE ForensicSamples;

      Oh, yes. Little Bobby Tables, we call him.

    4. Re:Buffer overflow by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, it's a deliberately introduced bug

      Yeah, as long as you intentionally fuck up the "get data" function you can make any kind of sensor or input device malicious. The samples are often a static size though so it's like:

      byte[sample_size] buffer;
      memcpy( dev, buffer, sizeof(buffer));

      Sure you could fuck that up if you wanted to... but it's rather contrived. Now, string handling the C way... kill it with fire.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Same shit, different decade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "the attack took advantage of a spill-over effect, when data that exceeds a storage buffer can be interpreted as a computer command."

    It took you an entire sentence to describe a buffer overflow.

    Talk about hype for bullshit's sake. Fix the fucking obvious.

  5. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would the analysis program execute the information contained in the DNA? I understand that they back-doored the program for making the paper, but how would an attack like this work in real-life?

    1. Re:Why? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Those are called mutations; even god (lower case 'g'..) is guilty of sloppy practices -- using eval.

    2. Re:Why? by Cacadril · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's how buffer overflows are exploited, provided the buffer resides in the stack frame of a subroutine. The analysis program is buggy, and overflows the buffer with data to be analysed, Next, the buggy subroutine finishes and returns to the caller. But the return address has been overwritten too. If the data written over the return address has been carefully chosen to point to data in the overwritten area, the program will begin executing information contained in the DNA.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  6. Virus successfully inserted into NORAD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, the US satellite defense system was recently shut down by a virus introduced when it scanned a foreign base protected by olympic-sized holographic imaging technology that exploited a buffer overflow in the video encoder.

    The attack appears to repurpose technology recently employed in the US to create a popular line of clothing that embeds patterns intended to crash and sometimes brick many smartphones and several popular surveillance systems.

    1. Re:Virus successfully inserted into NORAD... by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Wow! I want to buy those cloths!

  7. A new low for /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an asinine story. It doesn't matter what data you use to overflow a buffer. It could be a list of Donald Trump's favorite Nazis for that matter, but that doesn't change reality. We've known about them since at least 1972 which was the first time I can remember seeing them described. Now, these dishonest Republicans are claiming this is something new in order to get good press. That is just so typical of their kind. These people need to be beaten and put in prison for spewing this lie. Sad though that slashdot was taken in by their web of lies. I guess we have a moderator now that is a Trump supporter. Their kind is so stupid they just make thinking people want to die. Want to die.

    1. Re: A new low for /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The editors here were fooled by this fake news. Fox Nees has destroyed information dispersement.

  8. At the interrogation room by edx93 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Police: "So, why did you hack the computer?"

    Guy: "I'm sorry sir, I can't help it. It's in my DNA"

  9. Important story, since U have DNA overflow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After sucking on my DAMN balls

  10. The Slashdot article itself was hacked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yaniv Erlich, a geneticist and programmer who is chief scientific officer of MyHertige.com, a genealogy website

    They even managed to hack into this Slashdot article and introduce a typo!

  11. This is ancient tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This attack was apparently used to create the author who just caused my bullshit buffer to overflow.

  12. Let it RUST by al0ha · · Score: 1

    Yet another reason why device manufacturers, not to mention everyone else, should move to RUST sooner rather than later.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Let it RUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can leave your DNA around everywhere with RUST!

    2. Re: Let it RUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left my DNA in your mom!!!

    3. Re:Let it RUST by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Or use some decent memory allocation library.

  13. Wow ... Pwning with DNA by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is a very cool hack.

    'course, there's an emacs command to do that.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  14. Lighten up folks! by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Take a chill pill and recognize an opportunity for a joke fest when you see it! Few postings provide material this good!

    Let the jokes fly and moderators BREAK THE GLASS OVER YOUR FUNNY BUTTONS!

  15. Saw it on TV already. by Videospike · · Score: 1, Informative

    It was on an episode of Bones, when they were facing off against uber-hacker Kevin Poulant. He etched a micro-pattern into some bones, and when they were topographically scanned the malware embedded in the etching granted him access to the lab's computers. Exactly the type of exploit envisioned here. And since there's nothing original on TV, this is probably not the first time it's been done.

  16. POTUS hair hack revealed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Authorities are searching today for the stylist for the POTUS who disappeared shortly after an analysis of data flowing from cameras shown pictures of the current POTUS found a computer virus designed to create a backdoor into any system protected by facial recognition.

    Interestingly, the hack also appeared to protect itself from discovery, occasionally causing those staring at the POTUS' hair to break into hysterical laughter and dismiss him as a pompous buffoon or a clown.

  17. ahhh the famous DNA injection! by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

    Patch the code to: $stmt = $db->prepare('SELECT * FROM employees WHERE DNA = :dna'); $stmt->execute(array('dna' => $input));

  18. THIS PAPER DESERVES A PAYWALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the type of "research" that deserves to be hidden behind a paywall.

  19. Idiots! DNA-based != DNA-encoded by aglider · · Score: 1

    Oh my! Could it be more click bait?

    Come on! How can a DNA-BASED exploit crack my PC? By spitting on the keyboard or coughing at the screen!

    Come on!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Idiots! DNA-based != DNA-encoded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By being read in and analysed by sloppy software that contains a buffer overflow remote code execution vulnerability.
      Your comment is just as stupid as: ‘How can a floppy-based exploit crack my PC? By twisting the magnetic field and gathering dust?’

  20. Viruses. Not just inter-species anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, combine this technique with a biological virus:

    Have a biological virus that becomes a computer virus when its DNA is analyzed.

    And when the computer virus infects a computer controlling a DNA synthesis machine, it could insert code into biological viruses created.

    Allowing a virus that can infect both computers and biological lifeforms.

    Philipp

  21. Just a PR Stunt by Hian+Bosu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is really nothing more than a PR stunt. What the researchers did was take a sequencing data compression program fqzcomp written for the Sequence Squeeze competition and deliberately broke it so there was a buffer overrun. What's more is that they broke it in such a way that all DNA sequences would have made the program go wrong in some way, probably by crashing it.

    All they demonstrated is that if you break a program then it is broken.

    All DNA sequencing machines produce well formed data files as output so you cannot cause a buffer overrun just by adding your own special DNA variant sample. It would just be treated like any normal sample data. There are vulnerabilities in sequencing data processing program code but to exploit them you would have to alter the file themselves not the DNA samples going into the machine.

  22. No...you can read the paper here: by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1
    1. Re:No...you can read the paper here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to be heavily implying most static buffers are insecure and that a bunch of C functions are labelled as insecure. Really?

      So this is insecure now?

              char num[99];
              sprintf(num, "%d", value);

      Really? Sloppy perhaps. Not the best method either maybe, but not insecure despite using an "insecure function" and a static buffer. Their claims are hype. Yes some methods are more prone to errors than others, and yes there is a valid concern over the quality of input validation in a lot of software, but if you spout too much doom and gloom people ignore you as an "the end is nigh" madman without listening and taking note of the real problems.

      Furthermore the whole idea of deliberately introducing a bug so they can then exploit it weakens their whole argument that bioinformatics software is insecure. Yes some of it is and they even found bugs in code, but then through away all by proving 1 == 1 (an insecure program is insecure...yawn!) rather than driving the message home.

      Instead they should be advocating use of things like static code analysers, tricks like FORTIFY_SOURCE and fuzz testing (eg as done by google project zero). It's a far more reliable way of spotting errors than simply listing a bunch of C idioms as insecure. Too simplistic.

  23. Nothing new by jasonma84 · · Score: 1

    A buffer overflow exploit is nothing new. The data being DNA in this case is a mute point since input can be derived from any media.

  24. Why hasn't a DNA based video game surfaced yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking maybe Tetris would be a good start. Falling strands of DNA and the object is to fit them together........might be interesting to see happen.

  25. Let me guess, because of Using C/C++ software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "data that exceeds a storage buffer can be interpreted as a computer command"

    1. Re:Let me guess, because of Using C/C++ software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It has nothing to do which programming language. There can be bugs in all programming languages. All are the same! It is all depends on programmers!"

  26. How to travel from NY to Boston through the Mars:) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice journey :) I always new that scientist funny guys who like spend taxpayers money on things like that ;))

  27. Dad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I left my DNA in your mom!!!

    Dad, is that you? Don't leave again. I'll be better. I promise.

    In my little league team I hit a home run. You can come to my games. I'm not mad - even though mom had to teach me how to throw a ball.

    Just please come back, Dad. Even if its just for a visit. Maybe you can help pay for my college.