OpenRCE

About Articles Book Store Distributed RCE Downloads Event Calendar Forums Live Discussion Reference Library RSS Feeds Search Users What's New

Customize Theme

Flag: Tornado! Hurricane!

Created: Thursday, February 4 2010 20:38.25 CST

Printer Friendly ...

User-supplied Array Index Exploitation Simplified.. sort of.

Author: lin0xx

# Views: 2208

Have you ever ran into a case where you controlled an index into an array, but then were tasked with the annoying prospect of massaging the overwrite to suit your needs?

For example, from http://labs.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilities/display.php?id=5 :

#define RFC2231_MAX 64
...
char *pieces[RFC2231_MAX];
and indexed by the signed integer variable 'n':
if(n < RFC2231_MAX){
    pieces[n] = parms->value;

^^ Note: parms->value is a pointer to user data.

Say you do some reversing and find out that 'pieces' is 300 bytes away from the stored return address. From the array write, we can tell that overwriting the return address would totally be exploitable (assuming no N^X) since it's overwritten with a pointer to data supplied by you.

We need the following: a negative integer that when multiplied by 4 (assuming a 32 bit architecture here), will yield 300.

Well, I'm not the most k-awesome bithax0r in the world, so I find the prospect of finding a negative integer to exploit this bug to be quite annoying. I know what I want, I just don't want to waste time telling some stupid imperative language how to give it to me! What could possibly solve my quandary? Hmmm, STP.. a constraint solver.. that sounds like just the thing!

Throw this into a file:

dummy: BITVECTOR(32);
overflow : BITVECTOR(64);
multiplyOverflow : BITVECTOR(64);
notDummy : BITVECTOR(32);
evilIndex : BITVECTOR(32);

% Make sure the number is negative via two's compliment ninjutsu
ASSERT(notDummy = ~dummy);
ASSERT(evilIndex = BVPLUS(32, notDummy, 0hex00000001));

% Make sure it's signed too
ASSERT(evilIndex & 0hex80000000 = 0hex80000000);

% Need a bigger bit width to express the overflow
ASSERT(overflow[31:0] = evilIndex);
ASSERT(multiplyOverflow = BVMULT(64, overflow, 0hex0000000000000004));

% We want evilIndex*4 == 300
ASSERT(multiplyOverflow[31:0] = 0hex0000012C);
QUERY(FALSE);

Now feed it to the solver...

$ stp -p array.access.stp
ASSERT( v_solver_0  = 0x00000000  );
ASSERT( overflow  = 0x00000000C000004B  );
ASSERT( multiplyOverflow  = 0x000000030000012C  );
ASSERT( evilIndex  = 0xC000004B  );
ASSERT( notDummy  = 0xC000004A  );
ASSERT( dummy  = 0x3FFFFFB5  );
Invalid.

Well, there you have it: 0xC000004B. Compare this to the alternative (from: http://milw0rm.org/exploits/99 ) :

unsigned int num(int dist) {
        int tmp = -1-dist;
        unsigned int border = tmp;
        int neg = (border/4)*(-1);
        unsigned int res;

        res = 0xffffffff+neg;

        return res;
}

I checked the output of my formula against the return value for num() here - they matched.

Well, I know which method looks more intuitive to me.

Hope someone finds this useful!

There are 28,220 total registered users.

Recently Created Topics
Reverse Engineering ...	Jan/23
Career: DoD Agency I...	Jan/22
"Disappearing&q...	Jan/17
Career: Software Sec...	Jan/11
Where is the call st...	Jan/07
IDA Pro 6.1 Breakpoi...	Jan/01
How to create data s...	Dec/30
can i search all mod...	Dec/23
IDA symbol table exp...	Dec/20
An anti-attach trick	Dec/17

Recent Forum Posts
Reverse Engineering ...	NirIzr
"Disappearing&q...	NirIzr
Reverse Engineering ...	charlie
"Disappearing&q...	charlie
An anti-attach trick	Bass
An anti-attach trick	waleeda...
An anti-attach trick	Bass
An anti-attach trick	waleeda...
An anti-attach trick	Bass
Looking for value in...	NirIzr

Recent Blog Entries
	waleedassar	Feb/06
OllyDbg v1.10 And Hardware ...
	waleedassar	Jan/31
Yet Another Anti-Debug Trick
	RolfRolles	Jan/22
Finding Bugs in VMs with a ...
	waleedassar	Jan/13
An OllyDbg Bug Disables Sof...
	waleedassar	Jan/01
Another OllyDbg Anti-Debug ...
More ...

Recent Blog Comments
	NirIzr on:	Feb/05
Yet Another Anti-Debug Trick
	trolotou on:	Feb/05
Doudoune Moncler -Pennies F...
	waleedassar on:	Feb/01
Yet Another Anti-Debug Trick
	NirIzr on:	Jan/31
Yet Another Anti-Debug Trick
	jackchen on:	Jan/10
nike mercurial vapor iii
More ...

Imagery

SoySauce Blueprint
Jun 6, 2008

[+] expand

View Gallery (11) / Submit