accept no compromises

Foritfy Arbitrary Memory Address Space

Foritfy Arbitrary Memory Address Space
Posted Apr 28, 2010
Authored by Dan Rosenberg

Fortify (FORTIFY_SOURCE as used with gdb) suffers from a little trick that allows for reading of arbitrary address space.

tags | paper, arbitrary
MD5 | d8d53c926f4714c404d8adaf19edcabc

Foritfy Arbitrary Memory Address Space

Change Mirror Download
I wanted to share a neat little trick I discovered while playing with
gcc's FORTIFY_SOURCE feature. For those who don't know, this feature
attempts to prevent exploitation of a subset of buffer overflows by
inserting a set of checks at compile-time, including stack canaries
for some functions. It's enabled by default in many cases. In
particular, when FORTIFY_SOURCE detects an overflow, it aborts
execution and prints an error message that might look similar to the
following:

*** stack smashing detected ***: ./strcpy terminated
======= Backtrace: =========
/lib/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x40)[0x502b30]
/lib/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x0)[0x502af0]
./strcpy[0x80484d5]
[0x41414141]
======= Memory map: ========
...
Aborted

Notice that this error message contains a reference to the
application's name, which is obtained by simply relying on argv[0].
Assuming the application was aborted because of a controllable
stack-based buffer overflow, in some cases an attacker may be able to
continue overflowing past the vulnerable buffer, overwriting the
argv[0] pointer, causing the error message to print arbitrary memory
addresses, as in the following contrived example:

$ ./strcpy `perl -e 'print "\xa0\x85\x04\x08"x80'`

*** stack smashing detected ***: THIS IS A SECRET terminated
======= Backtrace: =========
/lib/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x40)[0x1f3b30]
/lib/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x0)[0x1f3af0]
THIS IS A SECRET[0x80484d5]
THIS IS A SECRET[0x80485a0]
======= Memory map: ========
...
Aborted

If an attacker ever stumbles upon a setuid application with an
overflow that's caught by FORTIFY_SOURCE, this may be used to read the
application's address space (which may contain sensitive information),
even if code execution is mitigated. Because it relies on the
existence of another vulnerability, I wouldn't consider this a serious
issue by any means, but it's probably something that's worth fixing
eventually.

Happy hacking,
Dan Rosenberg

Comments

RSS Feed Subscribe to this comment feed

No comments yet, be the first!

Login or Register to post a comment

File Archive:

May 2012

  • Su
  • Mo
  • Tu
  • We
  • Th
  • Fr
  • Sa
  • 1
    May 1st
    37 Files
  • 2
    May 2nd
    53 Files
  • 3
    May 3rd
    33 Files
  • 4
    May 4th
    4 Files
  • 5
    May 5th
    10 Files
  • 6
    May 6th
    17 Files
  • 7
    May 7th
    19 Files
  • 8
    May 8th
    36 Files
  • 9
    May 9th
    34 Files
  • 10
    May 10th
    35 Files
  • 11
    May 11th
    20 Files
  • 12
    May 12th
    18 Files
  • 13
    May 13th
    11 Files
  • 14
    May 14th
    27 Files
  • 15
    May 15th
    58 Files
  • 16
    May 16th
    54 Files
  • 17
    May 17th
    25 Files
  • 18
    May 18th
    53 Files
  • 19
    May 19th
    9 Files
  • 20
    May 20th
    15 Files
  • 21
    May 21st
    25 Files
  • 22
    May 22nd
    32 Files
  • 23
    May 23rd
    35 Files
  • 24
    May 24th
    26 Files
  • 25
    May 25th
    25 Files
  • 26
    May 26th
    11 Files
  • 27
    May 27th
    8 Files
  • 28
    May 28th
    0 Files
  • 29
    May 29th
    0 Files
  • 30
    May 30th
    0 Files
  • 31
    May 31st
    0 Files

Top Authors In Last 30 Days

File Tags

Systems

packet storm

© 2012 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.

close