shell
Writing shellcode, but the buffer isn't provided?
Last updated
Writing shellcode, but the buffer isn't provided?
Last updated
This binary is arguably more complex than location, and will be a lot more annoying. We'll understand why this is the case in a minute, but it lives up to the description that shellcodes may not be a good solution in all cases.
Checking security, we see that
We notice the stack is executable, meaning that shellcode is a possibility. The existence of a buffer overflow means that we can overwrite the return address of the function to jump to our shellcode.
We note that PIE is turned off. For the sake of simplicity, ASLR is turned off on the remote server, meaning that addresses will be static. This means that the write location is going to be static.
Checking the functions of the binary, it seems that main() and read_in() are the only functions that aren't standard library functions. Since there is no win(), we need to get the flag another way. We choose to pop a shell because (1) the stack is executable, (2) the stack is smashable, and (3) we can't get the flag any other way.
We see that read_in() allocates a buffer that is 0x134 large for our input. This is a lot of room for us to use for shellcode.
This will be very similar to how it was done in location, so many details are omitted.
We use the same shellcode because the code follows the same architecture. We know that we need to adjust the buffer to size 0x138 to reach the return pointer.
The main difference is getting the address to jump. Unlike location, we are not provided this address. However, we discussed earlier that the address is statically chosen, meaning we have a tactical advantage. By looking in gdb at the location the binary chooses for writing, we have the address.
We use this for our address we jump to. This makes the payload:
Like the other binaries, we define the process and send it off. Just like that, we pop a shell and can cat flag.txt to get the flag.
Some Final Notes: This threat model is implausible in reality. Having this many security features disabled is not something you're likely to see. This is more of an intro as to what shellcode is capable of. You should understand the basics of what the shellcode does and then how to execute shellcode against a binary.