Inside Adobe Reader Protected Mode – Part 3 – Broker Process, Policies, and Inter-Process Communication

In part three of our technical tour of Adobe Reader X Protected Mode, we’ll examine the broker policies and the inter-process communication (IPC) the sandbox process uses to communicate with it.

The broker process runs with regular user rights and allows the sandboxed processes indirect and secure access to objects based on policies. As the privileged controller, the broker process enables the sandboxed process to get its work done. Some actions are specifically white-listed as part of the broker policies and are allowed to be performed by the sandbox indirectly via the broker. White-listed actions include:

  • Writing to the user’s TEMP folder
  • Writing (saving) Adobe Reader-specific user-modified preferences to the registry
  • Launching a tracker to handle shared reviews
  • Launch a .docx attachment in Microsoft Word

Inter-Process Communication (IPC)

The broker process’ IPC is the sandbox’s gateway to the rest of the operating system. The IPC exposed by the broker is also an attack surface of Protected Mode. Malicious code that runs inside the sandbox process may try to abuse functionality exposed by the broker process or exploit a vulnerability in the broker itself.

Figure 1 - Sandbox and Broker Process IPC

Figure 1 - Sandbox and Broker Process IPC

The Adobe Reader sandbox broker, multi-process architecture requires that processes need to securely communicate with each other. The Adobe Reader IPC uses the standard Windows mechanism of shared memory and events. For example, Figure 1 shows a sandbox process that attempts to write a file to disk. Because sandboxing (“Protected Mode”) is enabled, file creation is routed through the broker process as follows:

  1. The sandbox process tries to create a file.
  2. File creation fails.
  3. The sandbox process sends a request to the broker to perform the create file action on its behalf.
  4. The broker evaluates the sandbox request against its policy-set to decide whether to allow or deny the request. If the request is denied, the broker returns an error.
  5. The broker makes the CreateFile call.
  6. The operating system returns the file handle to the broker.
  7. The broker duplicates the file handle into the sandbox process.
  8. The sandbox process successfully writes the file to disk.

With so many steps involved to perform a privileged action, there is a concern that performance will be affected. It turns out that Reader X with Protected Mode enabled actually performs as well as or better than Reader 9 according to our tests.

Policies

The actual restrictions applied to a sandbox process are configured by a policy. The policy is a programmatic interface that allows the broker application programming interfaces (APIs) to define the restrictions and allowances.

The sandbox restrictions are, by design, coarse in that they affect all securable resources the sandbox can touch. But sometimes, a more finely-grained resolution is needed. The policy interface allows the broker to specify white-list rules. White-list rules allow the broker to grant the sandbox access to perform certain operations (e.g. CreateFile) to certain named objects (e.g. the user’s TEMP directory) the sandbox process restrictions would otherwise prevent.

The exact form of the rules for each subsystem varies, but in general, rules are triggered based on a string pattern. For example, a possible file rule could be:

AddRule(SUBSYS_FILES, FILES_ALLOW_READONLY, L”c:\temp\app_log\*.log”)

This rule specifies that access will be granted if a sandbox wants to open a file for read-only access as long as the file matches the pattern expression; for example, c:tempapp_logmyapp.log is a file that satisfies the pattern.

Most broker behavior is controlled via policies. A typical policy would say something like “Allow all writes to the user’s TEMP directory” or “Allow all writes to the registry location HKCUSoftwareAdobeAcrobat Reader10.0.”

In some respects, the broker is a policy manager. It strictly enforces any policies that have been set while sandbox processes simply make requests for resources. If the broker determines that the policy allows such access, the request goes through; otherwise, access is denied.

The policies themselves are tight enough to allow only the desired operations, but lax enough to allow the application to perform its day-to-day work without allowing an exploit to take advantage of it.

In addition to the actions above, the broker is invoked for privileged operations such as running the Adobe Reader Updater and creating out-of-proc Component Object Model (COM) objects.

There are three policy types, and each is created differently:

  • Hard-coded policies: Certain actions essential to the application are encapsulated in hard-coded policies. For example, writing to HKCUSoftwareAdobeAcrobat Reader10.0* or %APPDATA%AdobeAcrobat10.0*.
  • Dynamic policies: Policies are needed to deal with operations resulting from user interaction with a PDF file. Such policies are dynamically created on the fly and are guarded by confirmation dialog. For example, when a user tries to save a PDF file, the broker displays a “Save As” dialog, and the user-specified file name is then added to the list of files to which we allow write access.
  • Admin-configurable policies: An administrator, via a configuration file, can configure white-list rules to allow custom workflows or plugins to bypass some of the sandbox restrictions. For instance, write access could be given to plugin-specific Application Data or registry areas. The details of how to configure this will be outlined in the “Protected Mode and Adobe Reader” section of the Enterprise Administration for the Acrobat Family of Products document once Reader X is released.

Policies are used whenever an access request is made to open the following kernel objects: File, Registry, Named Pipe, Section, Mutant, and Event. It is also used for launching external helper processes such as the Adobe Reader Updater or the comments synchronizer.

Broker API as a Trust Boundary

In the previous blog posts about Adobe Reader Protected Mode, we described all of the restrictions placed on the sandboxed process. These restrictions add an additional layer of defense by containing malicious code inside PDF files within the Adobe Reader sandbox and preventing regular privilege execution on the user’s system. 

Malicious code that is executing in the sandboxed process would have to use a second vulnerability in the broker code to try to gain elevated privileges. While the implementation of a sandbox represents a major additional level of defense by making it significantly more difficult for attackers to succeed, it is important to recognize that sandboxing is not a security silver bullet, in particular as exploit kits that use two or more vulnerabilities and attack methods are becoming more sophisticated.

For the Adobe Reader sandbox, the two logical choices where an attacker might look for an escape hatch are:

  1. Local kernel vulnerabilities
  2. Vulnerabilities in the Adobe Reader broker process

It is beyond the scope of this blog to discuss local kernel vulnerabilities. This section will focus on the attack surface of the Adobe Reader broker process and what we have done to prevent it from being used to escape from the sandbox.

There are a large number of APIs in the Adobe Reader Protected Mode broker to support the rich feature set of Adobe Reader. The vast majority of the APIs are for intercepted Win32 APIs (such as APIs for printing) or access to securable kernel objects (such as sections, events, and mutants). The rest of the APIs fall into two categories:

APIs that provide services which Adobe Reader needs. An example would be launching an executable from a white list of applications.

APIs that pop confirmation dialogs out of the broker process before allowing potentially dangerous things to happen. An example is the dialog that confirms if the user really wants to disable Protected Mode:

Figure 2 - Confirmation dialog to disable Protected Mode

Figure 2 - Confirmation dialog to disable Protected Mode

Obviously, these broker APIs represent a large attack surface. The Adobe Reader broker treats data that comes in via the API as untrusted. To prevent vulnerabilities in the broker process, the Adobe Reader team employed all of the following secure software engineering best practices:

  • Input validation on each parameter
  • Limiting the allowed parameters to a small, white-listed set
  • Code review and code inspection
  • API fuzzing
  • Static code analysis
  • Penetration testing

Much of the above work was done with the help of third party security researchers.

(Note: The final blog post in this series will discuss building security into the broker in more detail.)

Exploitation of Adobe Reader X Versus Adobe Reader 9

In previous blog posts, we described the restrictions placed on the sandbox process. In this blog post, we have described what we have done to prevent an exploit from using the broker process to gain privileges. We’ll end this post with a comparison of what it takes for an attacker using a malicious PDF file to exploit a user running Adobe Reader version 9 on Windows XP versus a user running Adobe Reader X on Windows 7.

First, let’s review what mitigations Adobe Reader 9 provides:

An attacker could easily exploit an Adobe Reader 9 vulnerability using a malicious PDF file and any of a number of techniques to bypass DEP. The following figure illustrates the most common steps in an attack that installs malware via Adobe Reader 9 on Windows XP, where users ran by default as Administrators:

Figure 3 - Typical attack to install malware on Adobe Reader 9 / Windows XP

Figure 3 - Typical attack to install malware on Adobe Reader 9 / Windows XP

Now, let’s take a look at what it would take to exploit Adobe Reader X Protected Mode on Windows 7:

The broker process and the sandbox process both have the following platform mitigations enabled:

These mitigations combined provide a significant hurdle for an attacker using a malicious PDF file to get code running in the sandbox based on a vulnerability in the sandbox. Assuming these hurdles are overcome, the attacker would then need to use the malicious PDF file to exploit a second vulnerability in the Adobe Reader broker process in order to attempt to elevate privileges. The broker process, however, also has all of the above platform mitigations enabled (DEP, ASLR, SEHOP). The attacker would also have to use the malicious PDF file to overcome those hurdles in the broker process to get code running in order to elevate privileges. Even if the attacker gets this far, on Windows Vista and later, he will still not be able take full control of the machine. The broker process does not run with an administrator SID enabled on these platforms, so the attacker would have to exploit another local privilege escalation vulnerability at this point to successfully complete the attack.

Figure 4 - Attack to install malware on Adobe Reader X / Windows 7

Figure 4 - Attack to install malware on Adobe Reader X / Windows 7

With Adobe Reader Protected Mode, the attacker now needs to overcome five different hurdles instead of two in order to succeed in this traditional attack vector for installing persistent malware.

There are many forms of attack, but this illustrates how much more difficult the traditional “front door” attack used against Adobe Reader will be to exploit now with all of the different Protected Mode protections in place.

Conclusion

To summarize, we’ve seen how the very restrictive sandbox process hosts the PDF file (and any exploits contained therein) and uses a set of APIs exposed by the broker to perform some white-listed privileged operations (like file system access). The broker access-checks the API calls using the white-list policies that allow access to a specific set of system objects.

Any bug in the large surface area of the broker API set can potentially be abused by an exploit to escape out of the sandbox. And that’s why we’ve taken every precaution, ranging from extensive input validation to code reviews to fuzzing to pen-testing, in order to keep the broker code secure.

With all of these restrictions in place, we believe it will be significantly harder for exploits to gain user rights code execution since any successful exploitation would most likely now require hijacking not just the PDF-hosting sandbox but also the broker process.

Our next post will talk about the numerous steps we’ve taken to harden the broker, so stay tuned…

-Liz McQuarrie, Ashutosh Mehra, Suchit Mishra, Kyle Randolph, and Ben Rogers