Re: Advances In Windows Shellcode

From: sk (sk@scan-associates.net)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 23:17:08 PST

  • Next message: Rob Lindenbusch: "RE: Checkpoint FW-1 on Nokia - potential user enumeration bug?"

    The 91++ bytes shellcode not only uses hard code addresses, it also using
    hard coded socket descriptor of 0x11, which should _not_ work. (Anyone get
    it working?)
    
    Perhaps what is missing is a routine to find socket descriptor of the
    current connection?
    
    sk
    
    >From: Ing. Bernardo Lopez (bloodk_at_prodigy.net.mx)
    >Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 18:32:20 CST
    >I know this is not the faster way but...
    >
    >Could be more easy to get the shellcode if you put in your program and
    >rebuild it (whitin a debugger, like softice)then you dump that modified
    >addres...
    
    >Whit this you can split the includes and other extra stuff, just getting
    >the minimal shellcode nesesary...
    
    >Have a nice day
    
    >PS:Well then , my hipotetical method or by doing a C prog whit includes
    >and all?
    
    >El mar, 31-12-2002 a las 23:02, Brett Moore escribió:
    > Advances in windows shellcode are few and far between. Papers exist
    > detailing the process using anonymous pipes and examples exist showing how
    > to use a socket directly as the handle for stdin, stdout and stderr.
    >
    > RVA techniques can be used to write code that will run regardless of
    service
    > pack, and there is not often times when shellcode space is extremely
    limited
    > so we should be happy with universal remote callback shellcode of ~300
    > bytes.
    >
    > David Litchfield's post regarding using a socket as a handle included a
    > statement:
    > "If you hard code addresses ..... you can get the exploit code down to 160
    > bytes"
    >
    > Which got me to thinking of how to write smaller remote callback
    shellcode.
    > What evolved was an idea, and then shellcode which sends a remote shell
    > back, uses only 2 api calls, and is only 91 bytes in size.
    >
    > It does have limited uses, has hardcoded address for SP3, messy, could be
    > refined but should provoke some interesting thought tangents.
    >
    > The code is not commented, is not at all user friendly, and to cut the
    size
    > of the post is ill formated, but those who seek the answer should be able
    to
    > get it work.
    >
    > And now I go on holiday, my byte sequence patent should be ready for
    filing
    > by the time I get back ;)
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA)
    Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
    automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see:
    https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 23:30:29 PST