Thursday, March 28, 2024

New PDF Vulnerability Let Attackers Bypass the Signature Validation in PDF and Replace Content

A team of researchers from the Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany has reported the attacks bypassing the signature validation in PDF. Digitally signed PDFs are used in contracts and invoices to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of their content.

A user opening a signed PDF expects to see a warning in case of any modification. In 2019, Mladenov et al. revealed various parsing vulnerabilities in PDF viewer implementations. They showed attacks that could modify PDF documents without invalidating the signature. As a consequence, affected vendors of PDF viewers implemented countermeasures preventing all attacks.

Shadow Attacks

The shadow attacks avoid all existing countermeasures and break the integrity protection of digitally signed PDFs.

Experts say compared to previous attacks, the shadow attacks do not abuse implementation issues in a PDF viewer. In contrast, shadow attacks use the enormous flexibility provided by the PDF specification so that shadow documents remain standard compliant. Since shadow attacks abuse only legitimate features, they are hard to mitigate.

A shadow PDF document presents trustworthy content to the signers (top document). After signing this document, the attackers modify the document and enforce another view of the document on the victims’ side without invalidating the signature (bottom document).

Shadow Attacks: Hide, Replace, And Hide-And-Replace

  1. Shadow Attack: Hide

Aims to hide the content relevant to the victims behind a visible layer. For example, the attackers can hide the text “You are fired!” behind a full-page picture showing “Sign me to get the reward!”. Once the attackers receive the signed document, they manipulate the document so that the viewer application no longer renders the picture. Hide attacks have two advantages from the attackers perspective:

  • Many viewers show warnings if new visible content is added using Incremental Update. However, they do not warn in most cases if the content is removed.
  • The objects are still accessible within the PDF. In the example above, the text “You are fired!” can still be detected by a search function. This detection might be necessary if an online signing service is used, and it reviews the document by searching for specific keywords.
  • Shadow Attack: Replace

This type of shadow attack uses an Incremental Update that directly changes previously declared objects. Since the modification is not allowed for all types of objects, the attacker only changes objects that are considered harmless but can nevertheless change the document’s visible content.

For instance, the (re)definition of fonts does not change the content directly. However, it influences the view of the displayed content and makes number or character swapping possible.

  • Shadow Attack: Hide-and-Replace

The attackers create a shadow PDF document that is sent to the signers. The PDF document contains a hidden description of another document with different content. Since the signers cannot detect the hidden (malicious) content, they sign the document.

The picture above depicts that attackers successfully manipulate a signed document and force different views on the signers and the victims by using the Hide-and-Replace attack variant.

PDF-Attacker and Detector

PDF-Attacker, a toolset that automatically creates shadow attack exploits. PDF-Detector, a tool to prevent and detect shadow attacks.

The PDF-Attacker takes an arbitrary PDF as input, builds-in the shadow objects (Phase 1), signs the document (Phase 2), and finalizes the attack by enabling the shadow content (Phase 3). The PDF-Detector is a tool to detect malicious documents generated in Phase 1 and Phase 3.

As a result, PDF signatures are designed to protect the integrity and authenticity of PDFs. In contrast to the classical digital signature use cases that apply a signature only once on a target, PDF signatures address more complex use cases. A signed document is allowed to be updated without invalidating its signature, only in particular cases.

You can follow us on LinkedinTwitterFacebook for daily Cybersecurity, and hacking news updates.

Website

Latest articles

GoPlus’s Latest Report Highlights How Blockchain Communities Are Leveraging Critical API Security Data To Mitigate Web3 Threats

GoPlus Labs, the leading Web3 security infrastructure provider, has unveiled a groundbreaking report highlighting...

Wireshark 4.2.4 Released: What’s New!

Wireshark stands as the undisputed leader, offering unparalleled tools for troubleshooting, analysis, development, and...

Zoom Unveils AI-Powered All-In-One AI Work Workplace

Zoom has taken a monumental leap forward by introducing Zoom Workplace, an all-encompassing AI-powered...

iPhone Users Beware! Darcula Phishing Service Attacking Via iMessage

Phishing allows hackers to exploit human vulnerabilities and trick users into revealing sensitive information...

2 Chrome Zero-Days Exploited at Pwn2Own 2024: Patch Now

Google has announced a crucial update to its Chrome browser, addressing several vulnerabilities, including...

The Moon Malware Hacked 6,000 ASUS Routers in 72hours to Use for Proxy

Black Lotus Labs discovered a multi-year campaign by TheMoon malware targeting vulnerable routers and...
Guru baran
Guru baranhttps://gbhackers.com
Gurubaran is a co-founder of Cyber Security News and GBHackers On Security. He has 10+ years of experience as a Security Consultant, Editor, and Analyst in cybersecurity, technology, and communications.

Mitigating Vulnerability Types & 0-day Threats

Mitigating Vulnerability & 0-day Threats

Alert Fatigue that helps no one as security teams need to triage 100s of vulnerabilities.

  • The problem of vulnerability fatigue today
  • Difference between CVSS-specific vulnerability vs risk-based vulnerability
  • Evaluating vulnerabilities based on the business impact/risk
  • Automation to reduce alert fatigue and enhance security posture significantly

Related Articles