\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{../style}

\usepackage{../langs}

\usepackage{../graphics}

\usepackage{../data}

%https://pentestn00b.wordpress.com/safe-to-hack-sites/

%http://pastebin.com/raw/0SNSvyjJ

%http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q1/645

% relative new buffer-overflow attack

%https://www.trustwave.com/Resources/SpiderLabs-Blog/How-I-Cracked-a-Keylogger-and-Ended-Up-in-Someone-s-Inbox/

% using an exploit from 2010

% https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=cve-2010-3333

\begin{document}

\fnote{\copyright{} Christian Urban, King's College London, 2014, 2015, 2016}

\section*{Handout 3 (Buffer Overflow Attacks)}

By far the most popular attack method on computers are buffer

overflow attacks or variations thereof. The first Internet

worm (Morris) exploited exactly such an attack. The popularity

is unfortunate because we nowadays have technology in place to

prevent them effectively. But these kind of attacks are still

very relevant even today since there are many legacy systems

out there and also many modern embedded systems often do not

take any precautions to prevent such attacks. The plot below

shows the percentage of buffer overflow attacks listed in the

US National Vulnerability Database.\footnote{Search for

``Buffer errors'' at

\url{http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/statistics}.}

\begin{center}

\begin{tikzpicture}

\begin{axis}[

    xlabel={year},

    ylabel={\% of total attacks},

    ylabel style={yshift=-1em},

    enlargelimits=false,

    xmin=1996.5,

    ymax=21,

    ytick={0,5,...,20},

    scaled ticks=false,

    axis lines=left,

    width=12cm,

    height=5cm,

    ybar,

    nodes near coords=

     {\footnotesize

      $\pgfmathprintnumber[fixed,fixed zerofill,precision=1,use comma]{\pgfkeysvalueof{/data point/y}}$},

    x tick label style={font=\footnotesize,/pgf/number format/1000 sep={}}]

\addplot

  table [x=Year,y=Percentage] {bufferoverflows.data};

\end{axis}

\end{tikzpicture}

\end{center}

\noindent This statistics shows that in the last seven years or so the

number of buffer overflow attacks is around 10\% of all attacks

(whereby the absolute numbers of attacks grow each year). So you can

see buffer overflow attacks are very relevant today. For example, very

recently (February 2016) a buffer overflow attack was discovered in the glibc

library:\footnote{\url{http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/extremely-severe-bug-leaves-dizzying-number-of-apps-and-devices-vulnerable/}}

\begin{quote}\it

``Since 2008, vulnerability has left apps and hardware open to remote

  hijacking: Researchers have discovered a potentially catastrophic flaw in

  one of the Internet's core building blocks that leaves hundreds or

  thousands of apps and hardware devices vulnerable to attacks that can take

  complete control over them.  The vulnerability was introduced in 2008 in

  GNU C Library, a collection of open source code that powers thousands of

  standalone applications and most distributions of Linux, including those

  distributed with routers and other types of hardware. A function known as

  getaddrinfo() that performs domain-name lookups contains a buffer overflow

  bug that allows attackers to remotely execute malicious code. It can be

  exploited when vulnerable devices or apps make queries to

  attacker-controlled domain names or domain name servers or when they're

  exposed to man-in-the-middle attacks where the adversary has the ability

  to monitor and manipulate data passing between a vulnerable device and the

  open Internet. All versions of glibc after 2.9 are vulnerable.''

\end{quote}

To understand how buffer overflow attacks work, we have to have

a look at how computers work ``under the hood'' (on the

machine level) and also understand some aspects of the C/C++

programming language. This might not be everyday fare for

computer science students, but who said that criminal hackers

restrict themselves to everyday fare? ...not to mention the

free-riding script-kiddies who use this technology without

even knowing what the underlying ideas are. If you want to be

a good security engineer who needs to defend against such attacks, 

then better you get to know the details too.

For buffer overflow attacks to work, a number of innocent

design decisions, which are really benign on their own, have

to come together. All these decisions were taken at a time

when there was no Internet: C was introduced around 1973; the

Internet TCP/IP protocol was standardised in 1982 by which

time there were maybe 500 servers connected (and all users

were well-behaved, mostly academics); Intel's first 8086 CPUs

arrived around 1977. So nobody of the ``forefathers'' can

really be blamed, but as mentioned above we should already be

way beyond the point that buffer overflow attacks are worth a

thought. Unfortunately, this is far from the reality. I let you

ponder why?

One such ``benign'' design decision is how the memory is laid

out into different regions for each process. 

\begin{center}

  \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]

  %\draw[step=1cm] (-3,-3) grid (3,3);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-2, -3) rectangle (2,3);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-2,1) -- (2,1);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-2,-1) -- (2,-1);

  \draw (0,2) node {\large\tt text};

  \draw (0,0) node {\large\tt heap};

  \draw (0,-2) node {\large\tt stack};

  \draw (-2.7,3) node[anchor=north east] {\tt\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}lower\\ address\end{tabular}};

  \draw (-2.7,-3) node[anchor=south east] {\tt\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}higher\\ address\end{tabular}};

  \draw[->, line width=1mm] (-2.5,3) -- (-2.5,-3);

  \draw (2.7,-2) node[anchor=west] {\tt grows};

  \draw (2.7,-3) node[anchor=south west] {\tt\footnotesize older};

  \draw (2.7,-1) node[anchor=north west] {\tt\footnotesize newer};

  \draw[|->, line width=1mm] (2.5,-3) -- (2.5,-1);

  \end{tikzpicture}

\end{center}

\noindent The text region contains the program code (usually

this region is read-only). The heap stores all data the

programmer explicitly allocates. For us the most interesting

region is the stack, which contains data mostly associated

with the control flow of the program. Notice that the stack

grows from higher addresses to lower addresses (i.e.~from the

back to the front). That means that older items on the stack

are stored behind, or after, newer items. Let's look a bit

closer what happens with the stack when a program is running.

Consider the following simple C program.

\lstinputlisting[language=C]{../progs/example1.c} 

\noindent The \code{main} function calls in Line 7 the

function \code{foo} with three arguments. \code{Foo} creates

two (local) buffers, but does not do anything interesting with

them. The only purpose of this program is to illustrate what

happens behind the scenes with the stack. The interesting

question is what will the stack look like after Line 3 has

been executed? The answer is illustrated in Figure~\ref{stack}.

\begin{figure} 

\begin{center} 

 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.65]

  \draw[gray!20,fill=gray!20] (-5, 0) rectangle (-3,-1);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-5,-1.2) -- (-5,0.2);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-3,-1.2) -- (-3,0.2);

  \draw (-4,-1) node[anchor=south] {\tt main};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-5,0) -- (-3,0);

  \draw[gray!20,fill=gray!20] (3, 0) rectangle (5,-1);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (3,-1.2) -- (3,0.2);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (5,-1.2) -- (5,0.2);

  \draw (4,-1) node[anchor=south] {\tt main};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (3,0) -- (5,0);

   %\draw[step=1cm] (-3,-1) grid (3,8);

  \draw[gray!20,fill=gray!20] (-1, 0) rectangle (1,-1);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,-1.2) -- (-1,7.4);

  \draw[line width=1mm] ( 1,-1.2) -- ( 1,7.4);

  \draw (0,-1) node[anchor=south] {\tt main};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,0) -- (1,0);

  \draw (0,0) node[anchor=south] {\tt arg$_3$=3};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,1) -- (1,1);

  \draw (0,1) node[anchor=south] {\tt arg$_2$=2};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,2) -- (1,2);

  \draw (0,2) node[anchor=south] {\tt arg$_1$=1};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,3) -- (1,3);

  \draw (0,3.1) node[anchor=south] {\tt ret};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,4) -- (1,4);

  \draw (0,4) node[anchor=south] {\small\tt last sp};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,5) -- (1,5);

  \draw (0,5) node[anchor=south] {\tt buf$_1$};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,6) -- (1,6);

  \draw (0,6) node[anchor=south] {\tt buf$_2$};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,7) -- (1,7);

  \draw[->,line width=0.5mm] (1,4.5) -- (1.8,4.5) -- (1.8, 0) -- (1.1,0); 

  \draw[->,line width=0.5mm] (1,3.5) -- (2.5,3.5);

  \draw (2.6,3.1) node[anchor=south west] {\tt back to main()};

\end{tikzpicture}

\end{center}

\caption{The stack layout for a program where the main

function calls an auxiliary function with three arguments

(1,2 and 3). The auxiliary function has two local

buffer variables {\tt buf}$_1$ and {\tt buf}$_2$.\label{stack}} 

\end{figure}

On the left is the stack before \code{foo} is called; on the

right is the stack after \code{foo} finishes. The function

call to \code{foo} in Line 7 (in the C program above) pushes

the arguments onto the stack in reverse order---shown in the

middle. Therefore first 3 then 2 and finally 1. Then it pushes

the return address onto the stack where execution should

resume once \code{foo} has finished. The last stack pointer

(\code{sp}) is needed in order to clean up the stack to the

last level---in fact there is no cleaning involved, but just

the top of the stack will be set back to this address. So the

last stack pointer also needs to be stored. The two buffers

inside \pcode{foo} are on the stack too, because they are

local data within \code{foo}. Consequently the stack in the

middle of Figure~\ref{stack} is a snapshot after Line 3 has

been executed. 

In case you are familiar with assembly instructions you can

also read off this behaviour from the machine code that the

\code{gcc} compiler generates for the program

above:\footnote{You can make \pcode{gcc} generate assembly

instructions if you call it with the \pcode{-S} option, for

example \pcode{gcc -S out in.c}\;. Or you can look at this

code by using the debugger. How to do this will be explained

in the last section.} It generates the following code for the

\pcode{main} and \pcode{foo} functions.

\begin{center}\small

\begin{tabular}[t]{p{11cm}}

{\lstinputlisting[language={[x86masm]Assembler},

  morekeywords={movl},xleftmargin=5mm]

  {../progs/example1a.s}}

\end{tabular}

\end{center}

\noindent Again you can see how the function \pcode{main}

prepares in Lines 2 to 7 the stack before calling the function

\pcode{foo}. You can see that the numbers 3, 2, 1 are stored

on the stack (the register \code{\%esp} refers to the top of

the stack; \pcode{$0x1}, \pcode{$0x2} \pcode{$0x3} are the

hexadecimal encodings for \pcode{1} to \pcode{3}). The code

for the foo function is as follows:

\begin{center}\small

\begin{tabular}[t]{p{11cm}}

{\lstinputlisting[language={[x86masm]Assembler},

  morekeywords={movl,movw},xleftmargin=5mm]

  {../progs/example1b.s}}  

\end{tabular}

\end{center}

\noindent You can see how the function \pcode{foo} stores

first the last stack pointer onto the stack and then

calculates the new stack pointer to have enough space for the

two local buffers (Lines 2 - 4). Then it puts the two local

buffers onto the stack and initialises them with the given

data (Lines 5 to 9). Since there is no real computation going

on inside \pcode{foo}, the function then just restores the

stack to its old state (Line 10) and crucially sets the return

address where the computation should resume (Line 10). The

instruction \code{ret} then transfers control back to the

function \pcode{main} to the instruction just after the call

to \pcode{foo}, that is Line 10.

Another part of the ``conspiracy'' of buffer overflow attacks

is that library functions in C look typically as follows:

\begin{center}

\lstinputlisting[language=C,numbers=none]{../progs/app5.c}

\end{center} 

\noindent This function copies data from a source \pcode{src}

to a destination \pcode{dst}. The important point is that it

copies the data until it reaches a zero-byte (\code{"\\0"}). 

This is a convention of the C language which assumes all

strings are terminated by such a zero-byte.

The central idea of the buffer overflow attack is to overwrite

the return address on the stack. This address decides where

the control flow of the program should resume once the

function at hand has finished its computation. So if we 

can control this address, then we can modify the control

flow of a program. To launch an attack we need 

somewhere in a function a local a buffer, say

\begin{center}

\code{char buf[8];}

\end{center}

\noindent which is filled by some user input. The

corresponding stack of such a function will look as follows

\begin{center}

 \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.65]

  %\draw[step=1cm] (-3,-1) grid (3,8);

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,1.2) -- (-1,6.4);

  \draw[line width=1mm] ( 1,1.2) -- ( 1,6.4);

  \draw (0,2) node[anchor=south] {\ldots};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,3) -- (1,3);

  \draw (0,3.1) node[anchor=south] {\tt ret};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,4) -- (1,4);

  \draw (0,4) node[anchor=south] {\small\tt last sp};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,5) -- (1,5);

  \draw (0,5.1) node[anchor=south] {\tt buf};

  \draw[line width=1mm] (-1,6) -- (1,6);

  \draw (2,5.1) node[anchor=south] {\code{$esp}};

  \draw[<-,line width=0.5mm] (1.1,6) -- (2.5,6);

  \draw[->,line width=0.5mm] (1,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5);

  \draw (2.6,4.1) node[anchor=south west] {\code{??}};

  \draw[->,line width=0.5mm] (1,3.5) -- (2.5,3.5);

  \draw (2.6,3.1) node[anchor=south west] {\tt jump to \code{\\x080483f4}};

\end{tikzpicture}

\end{center}

\noindent We need to fill this buffer over its limit of 8

characters so that it overwrites the stack pointer and then

also overwrites the return address. If, for example, we want

to jump to a specific address in memory, say,

\pcode{\\x080483f4} then we can fill the buffer with the data

\begin{center}

\code{char buf[8] = "AAAAAAAABBBB\\xf4\\x83\\x04\\x08";}

\end{center}

\noindent The first eight \pcode{A}s fill the buffer to the

rim; the next four \pcode{B}s overwrite the stack pointer

(with what data we overwrite this part is usually not

important); then comes the address we want to jump to. Notice

that we have to give the address in the reverse order. All

addresses on Intel CPUs need to be given in this way. Since

the string is enclosed in double quotes, the C convention is

that the string internally will automatically be terminated by

a zero-byte. If the programmer uses functions like

\pcode{strcpy} for filling the buffer \pcode{buf}, then we can

be sure it will overwrite the stack in this manner---since it

will copy everything up to the zero-byte. Notice that this

overwriting of the buffer only works since the newer

item---the buffer---is stored on the stack before the older

items, like return address and arguments. If it had be the

other way around, then such an overwriting by overflowing a

local buffer would just not work. Had the designers of C 

been able to foresee what headaches their way of

arranging the stack will cause, how different could be

the IT-World today?

What the outcome of such an attack is can be illustrated with

the code shown in Figure~\ref{C2}. Under ``normal operation''

this program ask for a login-name and a password. Both of

which are stored in \code{char} buffers of length 8. The

function \pcode{match} tests whether two such buffers contain

the same content. If yes, then the function lets you ``in''

(by printing \pcode{Welcome}). If not, it denies access (by

printing \pcode{Wrong identity}). The vulnerable function is

\code{get_line} in Lines 11 to 19. This function does not take

any precautions about the buffer of 8 characters being filled

beyond its 8-character-limit. Let us suppose the login name is

\pcode{test}. Then the buffer overflow can be triggered with a

specially crafted string as password (remember

\pcode{get\_line} requires a \pcode{\\n} at the end of the

input):

\begin{center}

\code{AAAAAAAABBBB\\x2c\\x85\\x04\\x08\\n}

\end{center}

\noindent The address at the end happens to be the one for the

function \pcode{welcome()}. This means even with this input

(where the login name and password clearly do not match) the

program will still print out \pcode{Welcome}. The only

information we need for this attack to work is to know where

the function \pcode{welcome()} starts in memory. This

information can be easily obtained by starting the program

inside the debugger and disassembling this function. 

\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none,language={[x86masm]Assembler},

  morekeywords={movl,movw}]

$ gdb C2

GNU gdb (GDB) 7.2-ubuntu

(gdb) disassemble welcome

\end{lstlisting}

\noindent \pcode{C2} is the name of the program and

\pcode{gdb} is the name of the debugger. The output will be

something like this

\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none,language={[x86masm]Assembler},

  morekeywords={movl,movw}]

0x0804852c <+0>:     push   %ebp

0x0804852d <+1>:     mov    %esp,%ebp

0x0804852f <+3>:     sub    $0x4,%esp

0x08048532 <+6>:     movl   $0x8048690,(%esp)

0x08048539 <+13>:    call   0x80483a4 <puts@plt>

0x0804853e <+18>:    movl   $0x0,(%esp)

0x08048545 <+25>:    call   0x80483b4 <exit@plt>

\end{lstlisting}

\noindent indicating that the function \pcode{welcome()}

starts at address \pcode{0x0804852c} (top address in the 

left column).

\begin{figure}[p]

\lstinputlisting[language=C]{../progs/C2.c}

\end{figure}

This kind of attack was very popular with commercial programs

that needed a key to be unlocked. Historically, hackers first 

broke the rather weak encryption of these locking mechanisms.

After the encryption had been made stronger, hackers used

buffer overflow attacks as shown above to jump directly to

the part of the program that was intended to be only available

after the correct key was typed in. 

\subsection*{Payloads}

Unfortunately, much more harm can be caused by buffer overflow

attacks. This is achieved by injecting code that will be run

once the return address is appropriately modified. Typically

the code that will be injected starts a shell. This gives the

attacker the ability to run programs on the target machine and

to have a good look around in order to obtain also full root

access (normally the program that is attacked would run with

lesser rights and any shell injected would also only run with

these lesser access rights). If the attacked program was 

already running as root, then the attacker can congratulate

him or herself to another computer under full control\ldots

no more work to be done.

In order to be send as part of the string that is overflowing

the buffer, we need the code for starting the shell to be

represented as a sequence of characters. For example

\lstinputlisting[language=C,numbers=none]{../progs/o1.c}

\noindent These characters represent the machine code for

opening a shell. It seems obtaining such a string requires

``higher-education'' in the architecture of the target system.

But it is actually relatively simple: First there are many

such strings ready-made---just a quick Google query away.

A nice selection of ready-made shell-codes can be found 

for example at

\begin{center}

\url{http://shellblade.net/shellcode.html}

\end{center}

Second, tools like the debugger can help us again. We can just

write the code we want in C, for example this would be the

program for starting a shell:

\lstinputlisting[language=C,numbers=none]{../progs/shell.c} 

\noindent Once compiled, we can use the debugger to obtain the

machine code, or even get the ready-made encoding as character

sequence. 

\lstinputlisting[language=C,numbers=none]{../progs/o2.c}

\noindent

While not too difficult, obtaining this string is not entirely

trivial using \pcode{gdb}. Remember the functions in C that

copy or fill buffers work such that they copy everything until

the zero byte is reached. Unfortunately the ``vanilla'' output

from the debugger for the shell-program above contains such

zero bytes. So a post-processing phase is needed to rewrite

the machine code in a way that it does not contain any zero

bytes. This is like some works of literature that have been

written so that the letter e, for example, is avoided. The

technical term for such a literature work is

\emph{lipogram}.\footnote{The most famous example of a

lipogram is a 50,000 words novel titled Gadsby, see

\url{https://archive.org/details/Gadsby}, which avoids the

letter `e' throughout.} For rewriting the machine code, you

might need to use clever tricks like

\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none,language={[x86masm]Assembler}]

xor %eax, %eax

\end{lstlisting}

\noindent This instruction does not contain any zero-byte when