1 Tril­li­on Dol­lar Re­fund – How To Spoof PDF Si­gna­tu­res

Vla­dis­lav Mla­de­nov, Chris­ti­an Main­ka, Kars­ten Meyer zu Sel­hau­sen, Mar­tin Gro­the, Jörg Schwenk

26th ACM Con­fe­rence on Com­pu­ter and Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Se­cu­ri­ty


Ab­stract

The Por­ta­ble Do­cu­ment For­mat (PDF) is the de-fac­to stan­dard for do­cu­ment ex­chan­ge world­wi­de. To gua­ran­tee the au­then­ti­ci­ty and in­te­gri­ty of do­cu­ments, di­gi­tal si­gna­tu­res are used. Se­ver­al pu­blic and pri­va­te ser­vices ran­ging from go­vern­ments, pu­blic en­t­er­pri­ses, banks, and pay­ment ser­vices rely on the se­cu­ri­ty of PDF si­gna­tu­res.

In this paper, we pre­sent the first com­pre­hen­si­ve se­cu­ri­ty eva­lua­ti­on on di­gi­tal si­gna­tu­res in PDFs. We in­tro­du­ce three novel at­tack clas­ses which by­pass the cryp­to­gra­phic pro­tec­tion of di­gi­tal­ly si­gned PDF files al­lowing an at­ta­cker to spoof the con­tent of a si­gned PDF. We ana­ly­zed 22 dif­fe­rent PDF view­ers and found 21 of them to be vul­nerable, in­clu­ding pro­mi­nent and wi­de­ly used ap­p­li­ca­ti­ons such as Adobe Re­a­der DC and Foxit. We ad­di­tio­nal­ly eva­lua­ted eight on­line va­li­da­ti­on ser­vices and found six to be vul­nerable. A pos­si­ble ex­pla­na­ti­on for these re­sults could be the ab­sence of a stan­dard al­go­rithm to ve­ri­fy PDF si­gna­tu­res – each cli­ent ve­ri­fies si­gna­tu­res dif­fer­ent­ly, and at­tacks can be tailo­red to these dif­fe­ren­ces. We, the­re­fo­re, pro­po­se the stan­dar­diza­t­i­on of a se­cu­re ve­ri­fi­ca­ti­on al­go­rithm, which we de­scri­be in this paper. All fin­dings have been re­s­pon­si­bly dis­clo­sed, and the af­fec­ted ven­dors were sup­por­ted du­ring fi­xing the is­su­es. As a re­sult, three ge­ne­ric CVEs for each at­tack class were is­su­ed (CVE-2018-16042, CVE-2018-18688, CVE-2018-18689). Our re­se­arch on PDF si­gna­tu­res and more in­for­ma­ti­on is also on­line avail­able at https://​www.​pdf-in­se­cu­ri­ty.​org/​.

[html] [pdf]

Tags: pdf-se­cu­ri­ty, pdf-si­gna­tu­res