Jeroen van der Ham-de Vos

Koen van Hove, Jeroen van der Ham-de Vos, Roland van Rijswijk-Deij

Domain names are key assets for organisation. They anchor an organisation's online presence and reputation, and serve as linking pin for web services and, e.g., email. Consequently, a malicious takeover of a domain can lead to significant damages. Organisations register domain names through so-called registrars, a type of business that plays a key role in the domain name industry. This implies that registrars play an important part in safeguarding against malicious takeovers of domains. In this paper we empirically study how registrars implement security controls to prevent against such takeovers. We focus on the top 10 most popular registrars for the .nl ccTLD. We present the results of this study in light of a model for the impact of domain takeovers, that analyses the possible consequence of a takeover. We contrast this against the impact of two other well-known threats: ransomware and DDoS attacks. We find that all registrars in our study implement relatively effective security measures, but that they fall short in more advanced security controls, such as the proper implementation of two-factor authentication. We also find that a domain takeover can have significant impact, potentially equalling that of a ransomware attack.

Eireann Leverett, Jeroen van der Ham-de Vos

We present a constructive proof that a single C program, the \emph{Vulnerability Factory}, admits a countably infinite set of distinct, independently CVE-assignable software vulnerabilities. We formalise the argument using elementary set theory, verify it against MITRE's CVE Numbering Authority counting rules, sketch a model-checking analysis that corroborates unbounded vulnerability generation, and provide a Turing-machine characterisation that situates the result within classical computability theory. We then contextualise this result within the long-running debate on whether undiscovered vulnerabilities in software are \emph{dense} or \emph{sparse}, and introduce the concept of \emph{vulnerability abundance}: a quantitative analogy to chemical elemental abundance that describes the proportional distribution of vulnerability classes across the global software corpus. Because different programming languages render different vulnerability classes possible or impossible, and because language popularity shifts over time, vulnerability abundance is neither static nor uniform. Crucially, we distinguish between infinite \emph{vulnerabilities} and the far smaller set of \emph{exploits}: empirical evidence suggests that fewer than 6\% of published CVEs are ever exploited in the wild, and that exploitation frequency depends not only on vulnerability abundance but on the market share of the affected software. We argue that measuring vulnerability abundance, and its interaction with software deployment, has practical value for both vulnerability prevention and cyber-risk analysis. We conclude that if one programme can harbour infinitely many vulnerabilities, the set of all software vulnerabilities is necessarily infinite, and we suggest the Vulnerability Factory may serve as a reusable proof artifact, a foundational `test object',for future formal results in vulnerability theory.