When IBM promised to release a workaround for the vulnerability we found in their product, I truly expected such a widely respected company to release an enterprise-ready workaround, and not just a manual approach to setting registry permissions in the GUI.
A few months back, my good friend Flemming Riis and I found a fundamental security vulnerability in the IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) client, while researching IBM TSM’s handling of authentication ("Node ID" and "Node Password") and unsafe implementations of TSM, which we covered in a few blogposts Backdoors and data compromise via Backup Systems (in danish only) and Protecting your secrets.
We couldn't believe our own eyes when we, in very little time, found a pretty important – and incredibly trivial – security vulnerability in the TSM product.
We then initiated a Responsible Disclosure process with the IBM Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT), which I will describe further below, as it illustrates how important it is for researchers to set requirements and insist on deadlines being met.
This blog post was a submission to Microsoft Bypass Bug Bounty program, but was not eligible to the scope of the program. Thus I am releasing a blog post on the technique which is based on leaking the stack address and overwriting the structured exception handler, thus turning a use-after-free into a structured exception handler overwrite.
To facilitate this bypass, I have again chosen to use vulnerability for Internet Explorer 11 which was patched in MS16-063 in June of 2016 and written about by the company Theori and I’ve previously used in CFG bypass posts here and here.
Klumme: Stærke passwords, der ikke kan hackes, er en mangelvare i danske virksomheder. Men det kan der gøres noget ved. Her er syv skridt til virkelig gode passwords.
Jeg ser ofte implementerede kontroller omkring password kompleksitet. Formålet med disse kontroller er at sikre, at brugere anvender et stærkt password. Altså et password som en angriber ikke vil kunne udnytte og benytte i et angreb i mod virksomheden.
Det er min påstand, at klassiske adgangskodepolitikker med et krav om 8-10 karakterer, store og små bogstaver, tal eller specieltegn, ikke fungerer til at sikre, at brugere benytter et stærkt password.
Læs mere her: https://www.computerworld.dk
This blog post is an addendum to the three blog posts about Windows kernel shellcode I posted based on the techniques by Cesar Cerrudo. You can find the previous blog posts here, here and here.
An assumption in my previous blog posts was the ability to execute arbitrary assembly code in kernel context. While it is possible to obtain this from a write-what-where vulnerability condition and often from a pool overflow, it does require both a kernel read/write primitive and a KASLR bypass to some kernel driver. If we limit ourselves to using the read/write primitive to perform a data only attack, we can omit the KASLR bypass. This blog post describes how each of the three methods can be converted to a data only attack instead of an actual shellcode.
The same assumptions as in the previous blog post apply here, that being the exploit has gained arbitrary kernel mode code execution and we can handcraft the assembly code to run. I see the ACL NULL technique used almost as much as the token replacement one. The idea is to locate the SecurityDescriptor, or in effect the ACL, of a privileges process and replace it with NULL. This value tells Windows that no permissions have been assigned for the process and hence everyone has full access to it. In Windows 10 Anniversary a mitigation for this has been implemented as noted by Nettitude Labs
When creating Windows kernel exploits the goal is often to somehow gain higher privileges, often SYSTEM. This part of the exploit writing is normally the very last part, and often not very discussed since so many steps come before it. The most common ways I’ve seen that done is either by stealing a process token of a privileged process or by removing the ACL of a privileged process. In essence the techniques I normally come across and use myself are derived and often referenced from the Black Hat presentation by Cesar Cerrudo in 2012. It is a great presentation and white paper and should definitely be read. There are however two issues when trying to use the methods from the white paper; firstly, it does not supply the actual shellcode only the technique in theory and secondly it was written prior to the release of Windows 8.1 much less Windows 10.
Sammen med min gode ven og kollega, Flemming Riis, har jeg på det seneste undersøgt opsætningen af nogle udbredte backupsystemer, herunder hvordan de potentielt kan misbruges af angribere.
Tanken er ikke at »male fanden på væggen«, men at gøre opmærksom på en reel problemstilling, som i følge vores erfaring er noget overset.
Læs mere her: https://www.version2.dk
The last couple of years I have had an interest in application whitelisting bypasses and avidly followed the work of Casey Smith (@subtee) and Matt Graeber (@mattifestation). The major conclusion from their work is that application whitelisting has to be locked down to avoid trusted application launching attacker code. While it seems quite clear that on Windows 7 and 8.1 Powershell is an easy way to bypass application whitelisting through reflective PE injection, Windows 10 is a different story. With the activation of Powershell Constrained Language Mode along with AppLocker in Windows 10 this avenue seems closed. While Casey Smith has a lot of research on bypassing application whitelisting in other ways here, they all assume prior code execution on the victim machine. I am a great fan of PowerShell Empire by Veris Group as an attack framework, and I really like the HTML Application attack vector. As I will show below this attack does not work out of the box when Powershell Constrained Language Mode is enabled. But then I got to thinking whether using prior public research and code would it make it possible to make the attack vector viable again. This blog post describes how I did that though a lot of nested techniques and code.