Chameth.com - posts like dns-over-tls-on-edgerouter-lite, obfuscating-kotlin-proguard but not debugging-beyond-the-debugger, why-you-should-be-using-https

Obfuscating Kotlin code with ProGuard

2019-10-21T00:00:00Z

Kotlin + Proguard = fun

Obfuscating code is the process of modifying source code or build output in order to make it harder for humans to understand. It’s often employed as a tactic to deter reverse engineering of commercial applications or libraries when you have no choice but to ship binaries or byte code. For Android apps, ProGuard is part of the default toolchain and obfuscation is usually only a config switch away.

I was recently working on an Android library written in Kotlin that my client wanted obfuscated to try and protect some of their trade secrets that were included. Not a problem, I thought: it’s just a few lines of ProGuard config and we’re away. Four hours and lots of hair pulling later I finally got it working…

If at first you don’t succeed…

At first it seemed like ProGuard was refusing to obfuscate any class with a keep rule. With a simple test class:

class Test {

    private val secret = 123
    var name = "Chris"

    fun greet() {
        println("Hi $name! Enter a number: ")
        readLine()?.let { guess(it.toInt()) }
    }

    private fun guess(attempt: Int) = println(
        if (attempt == secret) {
            "Correct!"
        } else {
            "Nope!"
        }
    )

}

And a ProGuard rule of:

-keep public class Test {
    public void greet();
}

I expected that the Test class and the greet method would remain, but both fields and the guess method would be obfuscated. When I built the project and opened the class from Android Studio’s APK inspector I was disappointed:

public final class Test public constructor() {
    public final var name: kotlin.String /* compiled code */

    private final val secret: kotlin.Int /* compiled code */

    public final fun greet(): kotlin.Unit { /* compiled code */ }

    private final fun guess(attempt: kotlin.Int): kotlin.Unit { /* compiled code */ }
}

Having your secret sauce in a field labelled “secret” isn’t exactly the level of obfuscation I was hoping for. ProGuard has lots of knobs that you can twist to affect what it keeps and what it renames, but all the incantations of -keep, -keepmembernames, -allowobfuscation, and so on, that I could come up with either resulted in the class completely vanishing (because it wasn’t kept) or showing up with all its symbols intact.

There are lots of useful Stack Overflow posts describing how to obfuscate a single method, or keep a single method and obfuscate the rest, but nothing I tried seemed to make a difference. I’m not the biggest fan of ProGuard, but I’ve used it enough before to know that it’s not usually that hard to make it submit to your demands. Obviously something else was going on.

… Maybe you’re solving the wrong problem

My next thought was that perhaps Android Studio was doing something clever like reading the ProGuard mapping file and automatically deobfuscating the output for me. Looking at the mapping file it seems that ProGuard has indeed decided to rename some things:

Test -> Test:
    int secret -> a
    java.lang.String name -> b
    void greet() -> greet
    void <init>() -> <init>

The obvious solution is to look at the class file in something less smart than Android Studio. A couple of unzips later and I could do a quick test to see if the original names were still present:

$ strings Test.class | grep secret
secret

The problem is evidently not with Android Studio, as secret shouldn’t end up in the class file at all: it should have been entirely replaced with a like the mapping file says. The output from javap -p doesn’t show any hint of the original names, however:

$ javap -p Test
public final class Test {
  private final int a;
  private java.lang.String b;
  public final void greet();
  public Test();
}

But, given the names show up in strings, they must be kicking around somewhere. None of the various outputs from javap helped until I hit -verbose. Right at the end of the class is:

RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
  0: #58(#84=[I#2,I#2,I#4],#69=[I#2,I#1,I#3],#81=I#2,#70=[s#40],#71=[s#55,s#39,s#43,s#85,s#39,s#72,s#42,s#91,s#47,s#90,s#39,s#73,s#39,s#74,s#67,s#83])
    kotlin.Metadata(
      mv=[1,1,15]
      bv=[1,0,3]
      k=1
      d1=["\u0000\"\n\u0002\u0018\u0002\n\u0002\u0010\u0000\n\u0002\b\u0002\n\u0002\u0010\u000e\n\u0002\b\u0005\n\u0002\u0010\b\n\u0000\n\u0002\u0010\u0002\n\u0002\b\u0003\u0018\u00002\u00020\u0001B\u0005¢\u0006\u0002\u0010\u0002J\u0006\u0010\u000b\u001a\u00020\fJ\u0010\u0010\r\u001a\u00020\f2\u0006\u0010\u000e\u001a\u00020\nH\u0002R\u001a\u0010\u0003\u001a\u00020\u0004X\u0086\u000e¢\u0006\u000e\n\u0000\u001a\u0004\b\u0005\u0010\u0006\"\u0004\b\u0007\u0010\bR\u000e\u0010\t\u001a\u00020\nX\u0082D¢\u0006\u0002\n\u0000¨\u0006\u000f"]
      d2=["LTest;","","()V","name","","getName","()Ljava/lang/String;","setName","(Ljava/lang/String;)V","secret","","greet","","guess","attempt","lib_release"]
    )

There’s a Kotlin annotation containing all of the symbols we were trying to obfuscate away! Kotlin apparently uses this annotation for reflection and for keeping track of various language features that don’t have a direct mapping in Java bytecode (such as members with internal access). Sure enough, switching back to Android Studio and making it “decompile” the Kotlin code into Java shows the annotation:

@Metadata(
   mv = {1, 1, 15},
   bv = {1, 0, 3},
   k = 1,
   d1 = {"\u0000\"\n\u0002\u0018\u0002\n\u0002\u0010\u0000\n\u0002\b\u0002\n\u0002\u0010\u000e\n\u0002\b\u0005\n\u0002\u0010\b\n\u0000\n\u0002\u0010\u0002\n\u0002\b\u0003\u0018\u00002\u00020\u0001B\u0005¢\u0006\u0002\u0010\u0002J\u0006\u0010\u000b\u001a\u00020\fJ\u0010\u0010\r\u001a\u00020\f2\u0006\u0010\u000e\u001a\u00020\nH\u0002R\u001a\u0010\u0003\u001a\u00020\u0004X\u0086\u000e¢\u0006\u000e\n\u0000\u001a\u0004\b\u0005\u0010\u0006\"\u0004\b\u0007\u0010\bR\u000e\u0010\t\u001a\u00020\nX\u0082D¢\u0006\u0002\n\u0000¨\u0006\u000f"},
   d2 = {"LTest;", "", "()V", "name", "", "getName", "()Ljava/lang/String;", "setName", "(Ljava/lang/String;)V", "secret", "", "greet", "", "guess", "attempt", "lib_release"}
)
public final class Test {

Solving the right problem

Now I had an idea of what was happening I was able to find a couple of other reports of people having the same issue. There’s an open feature request for ProGuard to support Kotlin’s metadata annotation but it’s not yet supported.

As this was a library with a fairly straight forward interface I reasoned I could probably get ProGuard to strip out the metadata annotation. If I stopped Kotlin reflection working in the process then that would actually be a small bonus. Unfortunately other people with the same idea had reported back that they were unsuccessful: even when not using the default ProGuard config, somehow the annotations are kept.

Adding a -printconfiguration instruction to my configuration lets me see the full configuration being passed to ProGuard, and the reason for keeping quickly becomes obvious:

-keepattributes *Annotation*,*Annotation*

This appears to be added by the Android build plugin before it invokes ProGuard, and there’s no obvious way to disable it. ProGuard doesn’t offer a way to reverse this instruction, either, but fortunately the build plugin seems to concatenate all of the -keepattribute values together and puts our user-supplied ones first. Adding a negative filter:

-keepattributes !*Annotation*

Results in the following in the printed configuration:

-keepattributes !*Annotation*,*Annotation*,*Annotation*

The negative filter prevents any subsequent filters from matching. Recompiling and looking at the class file again looks a lot more sensible:

import kotlin.io.ConsoleKt;

public final class Test {
   private final int a = 123;
   private String b = "Chris";

   public final void greet() {
      String var1 = "Hi " + this.b + "! Enter a number: ";
      System.out.println(var1);
      String var10000 = ConsoleKt.readLine();
      if (var10000 != null) {
         var1 = var10000;
         int var3 = Integer.parseInt(var1);
         var1 = var3 == 123 ? "Correct!" : "Nope!";
         System.out.println(var1);
      }
   }
}

And that’s the story of how I spent half a day making a one line change.

DNS-over-TLS on the EdgeRouter Lite

2017-12-17T00:00:00Z

An EdgeRouter Lite

DNS-over-TLS is a fairly recent specification described in RFC7858, which enables DNS clients to communicate with servers over a TLS (encrypted) connection instead of requests and responses being sent in plain text. I won’t ramble on about why it’s a good thing that your ISP, government, or neighbour can’t see your DNS requests…

I use an EdgeRouter Lite from Ubiquiti Networks at home, and recently configured it to use DNS-over-TLS for all DNS queries. Here’s how I did it.

Installing unbound

Out of the box, the ERL uses dnsmasq to service DNS requests from local clients. To get DNS-over-TLS support I switched to using Unbound, an open source DNS resolver with support for many modern features such as DNSSEC and DNS-over-TLS.

Installing unbound on the ERL is a simple case of SSHing in, and then:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install unbound

And then configuring the ERL to use the new local resolver for DNS requests, turn off dnsmasq, and tell DHCP clients to send DNS requests to it (obviously substituting network names and subnets as appropriate):

set system name-server 127.0.0.1
set service dhcp-server shared-network-name lan1 subnet 192.168.1.0/24 dns-server 192.168.1.1
set service dhcp-server use-dnsmasq disable
set service dns

At this point DNS should still work, but Unbound will still be sending requests out in plaintext.

Configuration

The unbound configuration lives in /etc/unbound/unbound.conf, here’s a basic example that I use to enable DNS-over-TLS:

# Unbound configuration file for Debian.
#
# See the unbound.conf(5) man page.
#
# See /usr/share/doc/unbound/examples/unbound.conf for a commented
# reference config file.

server:
    auto-trust-anchor-file: "/var/lib/unbound/root.key"
    verbosity: 1
    interface: 0.0.0.0
    interface: ::0
    port: 53
    do-ip4: yes
    do-ip6: yes
    do-udp: yes
    do-tcp: yes
    access-control: 192.168.0.0/16 allow
    access-control: 127.0.0.0/8 allow
    access-control: 10.0.0.0/8 allow
    root-hints: "/var/lib/unbound/root.hints"

    hide-identity: yes
    hide-version: yes
    harden-glue: yes
    harden-dnssec-stripped: yes

    cache-min-ttl: 900
    cache-max-ttl: 14400
    prefetch: yes
    rrset-roundrobin: yes
    ssl-upstream: yes
    use-caps-for-id: yes

    private-address: 192.168.0.0/16
    private-address: 172.16.0.0/12
    private-address: 10.0.0.0/8

    logfile: "/var/lib/unbound/unbound.log"
    verbosity: 0
    val-log-level: 3

forward-zone:
    name: "."
    forward-addr: 9.9.9.9@853

Notice the server directive ssl-upstream, and that the forward zone specifies the quad9 resolver on its TLS port (853).

DNSSEC

To enable Unbound to validate DNSSEC signatures, we need to provide it with some information about the root nameservers that we trust. First, download the list of root nameservers to the root-hints file specified in the unbound config:

wget ftp://FTP.INTERNIC.NET/domain/named.cache -O /var/lib/unbound/root.hints

Then we need to add the root keys to the auto-trust-anchor-file. The trust anchor at the time of writing is below, but you can get the latest values from the IANA.

.       172800  IN      DNSKEY  257 3 8 AwEAAaz/tAm8yTn4Mfeh5eyI96WSVexTBAvkMgJzkKTOiW1vkIbzxeF3+/4RgWOq7HrxRixHlFlExOLAJr5emLvN7SWXgnLh4+B5xQlNVz8Og8kvArMtNROxVQu
.       172800  IN      DNSKEY  257 3 8 AwEAAagAIKlVZrpC6Ia7gEzahOR+9W29euxhJhVVLOyQbSEW0O8gcCjFFVQUTf6v58fLjwBd0YI0EzrAcQqBGCzh/RStIoO8g0NfnfL2MTJRkxoXbfDaUeVPQuY

Redirecting unencrypted requests

I have a slew of devices on my network that, over time, I have configured to use 8.8.8.8 as a DNS server. They’re not going to care about the DHCP reply, and I don’t really feel like going around checking every weird and wonderful internet-connected device in the house, so I decided to just intercept requests to 8.8.8.8 and send them to Unbound. A simple NAT rule does the trick:

set service nat rule 1 description "HonestDNS Redirect"
set service nat rule 1 destination address 8.8.8.8
set service nat rule 1 destination port 53
set service nat rule 1 inbound-interface eth0
set service nat rule 1 inside-address address 192.168.1.1
set service nat rule 1 inside-address port 53
set service nat rule 1 log disable
set service nat rule 1 protocol tcp_udp
set service nat rule 1 type destination

You could of course redirect any traffic to port 53, but that would prevent you from explicitly querying any other DNS server. By just intercepting traffic to 8.8.8.8 I’m taking care of the vast majority of my statically configured devices, and can still issue manual queries to other resolvers when needed.

Validating

To check that everything is working, you can use tcpdump on the router to inspect packets on the WAN interface directed at port 53:

sudo tcpdump -Xi eth0 port 53

You should, hopefully, not see anything.