|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101
From: Michael H. Warfield (mhw
WITTSEND.COM)Date: Wed Apr 26 2000 - 06:05:45 CDT
- Next message: Ogston, Iain M: "Re: Securax Security Advisory: Windows98 contains a serious buffe r overflow with long filename extensions."
- Previous message: Alex Andrews: "limited functionality accounts (was: Re: History Files)"
- In reply to: Granquist, Lamont: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Next in thread: M.C.Mar: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Next in thread: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Reply: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 01:58:00PM -0700, Granquist, Lamont wrote:
> Okay, lets say that you've got:
> 1. non-exec stack
> 2. libc remapped to location with 0x00 in it
> 3. statically linked executable, so no PLT functions
> And assume the bug is a simple buffer overflow in a string function which
> terminates on a 0x00 (i.e. ignore for the moment ways around a 0x00
> "canary")
> How can you get around that? Is there a more general way around non-exec
> stacks than return-into-PLT exploits?
Find a location in the code which does not have a 0x00 in the
address and which CALLS the library function and return to the address
of that call instruction?
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhwWittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 331-2437 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
- Next message: Ogston, Iain M: "Re: Securax Security Advisory: Windows98 contains a serious buffe r overflow with long filename extensions."
- Previous message: Alex Andrews: "limited functionality accounts (was: Re: History Files)"
- In reply to: Granquist, Lamont: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Next in thread: M.C.Mar: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Next in thread: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Reply: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: No-Exec Stack Smashing 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]