Tag Archives: reverse_engineering

Accessing local variables in ProGuarded Android apps

Debugging applications without access to the source code always has its problems, especially with debuggers that were built with developers in mind, who obviously don’t have this restriction. In one of our Android app security projects, we had to attach a debugger to the app to step through heavily obfuscated code.

Continue reading Accessing local variables in ProGuarded Android apps

Trend Micro OfficeScan – A chain of bugs

Analyzing the security of security software is one of my favorite research areas: it is always ironic to see software originally meant to protect your systems open a gaping door for the attackers. Earlier this year I stumbled upon the OfficeScan security suite by Trend Micro, a probably lesser known host protection solution (AV) still used at some interesting networks. Since this software looked quite complex (big attack surface) I decided to take a closer look at it. After installing a trial version (10.6 SP1) I could already tell that this software will worth the effort:

  • The server component (that provides centralized management for the clients that actually implement the host protection functionality) is mostly implemented through binary CGIs (.EXE and .DLL files)
  • The server updates itself through HTTP
  • The clients install ActiveX controls into Internet Explorer

And there are possibly many other fragile parts of the system. Now I would like to share a series of little issues which can be chained together to achieve remote code execution. The issues are logic and/or cryptographic flaws, not standard memory corruption issues. As such, they are not trivial to fix or even decide if they are in fact vulnerabilities. This publication comes after months of discussion with the vendor in accordance with the disclosure policy of the HP Zero Day Initiative.

Continue reading Trend Micro OfficeScan – A chain of bugs

Quick and dirty Android binary XML edits

Last week I had an Android application that I wanted to test in the Android emulator (the official one included in the SDK). I had the application installed from Play Store on a physical device, and as I’ve done many times, I just grabbed it using Drozer and issued the usual ADB command to install it on the emulator. (The sizes and package names have been altered to protect the innocent.)

$ adb install hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk
1337 KB/s (27313378 bytes in 22.233s)
        pkg: /data/local/tmp/hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk
Failure [INSTALL_FAILED_CONTAINER_ERROR]

A quick search on the web revealed that the application most probably had the installLocation parameter set to preferExternal in the manifest file. Latter is an XML file called AndroidManifest.xml that contains important metadata about Android applications and is transformed into a binary representation upon compilation to reduce the size and processing power required on resource-constrained devics. Running android-apktool converted it back to text format, and revealed that it was indeed the cause.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<manifest android:versionCode="133744042" android:versionName="4.13.37"
  android:installLocation="preferExternal" package="hu.silentsignal.blogpost"
  xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android">

Most results of the web search agreed that the emulator (although capable of emulating SD cards) is incompatible with this setting, some suggested increasing the memory of the emulated device, others said the same about the SD card, but unfortunately none of these worked for us. The majority of accepted answers solved the problem by changing the preferExternal parameter to auto, which is the default.

Changing an Android application and repackaging it is also a breeze usually, apktool supports this natively, I just have to sign the resulting APK with a key of my own. However, this application used some features that apktool (and other tools invoked in the process, including AAPT) didn’t like. I’ve met this situation before, and there are usually two solutions.

  1. Removing such features in a way that the application can still be tested is a cumbersome series of iterations, and leads to almost certain insanity.

  2. Updating apktool and some dependencies so that they accept such features is rather painless, as it usually Just Works™.

However in this case, even beta versions couldn’t handle the task, I’ve even written some wrapper scripts around the dependencies to tweak with parameters like minimum and targeted API levels, but got nowhere. Then I realized, binary XML files still have to store the attribute names somewhere, so I fired up a hex editor and hoped that the Android runtime won’t complain about unknown attributes and will use the default value. It seemed that the format uses UTF-16 to store strings, and at offset 0x112, I changed the i to o, resulting in installLocatoon.

00f0  3a080000 82080000  0f006900 6e007300  |:.........i.n.s.|
0100  74006100 6c006c00  4c006f00 63006100  |t.a.l.l.L.o.c.a.|
0110  74006f00 6f006e00  00000b00 76006500  |t.o.o.n.....v.e.|
0120  72007300 69006f00  6e004300 6f006400  |r.s.i.o.n.C.o.d.|
0130  65000000 0b007600  65007200 73006900  |e.....v.e.r.s.i.|

Then, I simply updated the manifest in the APK file using a ZIP tool since APK files are just ZIP archives with specific naming conventions, just like JAR, DOCX and ODT files. Since the digital signature of the APK is now corrupted, I had to resign it with jarsigner, but installation still failed.

$ 7z -tzip a hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk AndroidManifest.xml

7-Zip [64] 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18
p7zip Version 9.20 (locale=hu_HU.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,4 CPUs)

Scanning

Updating archive hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk

Compressing  AndroidManifest.xml      

Everything is Ok
$ jarsigner -sigalg SHA1withRSA -digestalg SHA1 \
    -keystore s2.jks hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk s2
Enter Passphrase for keystore: 
$ adb install hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk
1337 KB/s (27313378 bytes in 22.233s)
        pkg: /data/local/tmp/hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk
Failure [INSTALL_PARSE_FAILED_NO_CERTIFICATES]

How can there be no certificates? Let’s list the contents with a ZIP tool, and look for the META-INF, an old friend from the Java world (JAR files) that contains a list of files with name and (in case of Android, SHA-1) hash (MANIFEST.MF), a public key (*.RSA in case of RSA), and a signature of the former with the latter (*.SF). The name of the public key and signature files are the same as their alias in the keystore converted to uppercase; see the last parameter of jarsigner in the above commands (s2).

   Date      Time    Attr     Size   Compressed  Name
------------------- ----- -------- ------------  --------------------
2014-04-03 14:44:42 .....   362941       110461  META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
2014-04-03 14:44:42 .....   369105       113933  META-INF/S2.SF
2014-04-03 14:44:42 .....     2046         1865  META-INF/S2.RSA
2014-02-27 13:37:16 .....      928          637  META-INF/CERT.RSA
2014-02-27 13:37:16 .....   361020       113942  META-INF/CERT.SF

See? It’s there! Also, another certificate (CERT.*), since without apktool (which rebuilds APK archives from scratch) everything except AndroidManifest.xml is included from the original file. Let’s delete the META-INF directory, and try again.

$ 7z -tzip d hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk META-INF

7-Zip [64] 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18
p7zip Version 9.20 (locale=hu_HU.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,4 CPUs)

Updating archive hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk

      
Everything is Ok
$ jarsigner -sigalg SHA1withRSA -digestalg SHA1 \
    -keystore s2.jks hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk s2
Enter Passphrase for keystore: 
$ adb install hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk                            
1337 KB/s (27313378 bytes in 22.233s)
        pkg: /data/local/tmp/hu.silentsignal.blogpost.apk
Success

With this last modification, it worked, and I was able to explore the application within the emulator that makes it much more easier to set a global proxy and manipulate certificates than a physical device, and I haven’t even mentioned faking sensors and GSM information, or taking snapshots. The lesson here was that

  • if a difficult format takes more than 5 minutes to recreate, it’s worth considering manual editing in case of simple modifications,
  • most XML readers (including the Android runtime) tend to ignore unknown attributes, and
  • the META-INF directory should be removed before signing an APK file, otherwise the runtime refuses it.

Thanks to Etamme for the featured image Androids, licensed under CC-BY-3.0

From Read to Domain Admin – Abusing Symantec Backup Exec with Frida

Symantec (formerly Veritas) Backup Exec is one of my all-time favorites in pentest projects: it has a very nice list of vulnerabilities ranging form basic stack overflows through a hardcoded password to arbitrary file reads. Although most of these vulnerabilities aren’t new, some users tend to accept the risk of running unsupported versions because purchasing the new releases isn’t cheap. But this is not the best part from an attackers perspective.

Backup Exec is a backup software (surprise!) that by definition needs access to the most important parts of the domain (why would you backup something you don’t care about?), so as you get access to a Backup Exec instance theoretically you also get access to the most important data on the network. In practice all Backup Exec installations I  encountered had domain administrative access granted.

But how exactly can we escalate our privileges from a single Backup Exec instance?

My most recent “date”  with Backup Exec turned out a bit unusual. The software itself was the most recent version with all publicliy known bugs patched, but on the same host there was another “enterprice level” application that granted me limited file read rights through a pretty dumb vulnerability.

Since I didn’t have broad permissions and I didn’t know anything about the filesystem, I couldn’t access any interesting configuration files, password dumps or other precious loot. But I knew, my old lady is listening at port 10000, so I started to enumerate the default files of Backup Exec.

This software uses  MS SQL Server to store all the information required to perform backup and restore, but unfortunately the database files were inaccessible by my user. However the database backup located at <BackupExec Dir>\data\bedb.bak was readable!

So I grabbed the file and read Symantec’s documentation about the DB recovery process. After incrementing the infamous Lamer Counter a couple of times (#ProTip: if you use cURL to download something, don’t forget to remove the HTTP response headers from the output) I realized that this .bak file is just a standard MS SQL backup that you can parse with any SQL Server instance. 

In the recovered database you will find a table called LoginAccounts that contains all the domain usernames and passwords that were configured by the administrators of the system, to let BE access different hosts on the network. The trick is that the passwords are in some custom weird form that you can’t easily decipher.

Reversing the custom encryption

When you encounter a similar situation, you first have to figure out if the algorithm that produced the weird ciphertext depends on some configurable key. If it does, you’re probably out of luck, but if it doesn’t, your chances are good to recover some meaningful data in finite amount of time. 

I installed two separate instances of Backup Exec and configured two accounts with the same password. Then I queried the password on both instances to see if they are the same. Since the passwords are stored in an NVARCHAR (multibyte) field but the actual value is simple printable ASCII as the result of a simple SELECT you’ll get a bunch of not printable/alien characters which are hard to handle so you better cast to varbinary. But beware, the encrypted passwords are several hundred bytes long, and MSSQL truncates them by default so you have to use a query like this:

SELECT cast(AccountPassword as varbinary(1024)) FROM LoginAccounts;

Sample result after unhexlify:

ANdnf5Q7WkiWnRE8fB6mN3@ije2kL?LcG<B?IZ7M329neVU:QIBN>3lP<H_JF\PMYk[0KXZe4kVggR<HV@VB]BS64:_V<PlQQdR[TbcV^>\RN7@H]=THYc?`i:g4022kW1o[klm7D7T:ZnjOnUjbRon0aO;c6L61B5_3:Gh6j6[[D\j_Xe8ZiElZ0l][g0OGI3Rb=<7N;NV^>Ni?8<7_2`ENB^IHnMmhJXANfbo3gWeQK:_3bH`7A1l\L_j\eYEMkf_^`N0H7bm9U4bjW_BmaHVPB;1W1be5\No8nj>mlALn]=74Y`8X67^F;HSQefCeOH@GTQ7ABDSkE1AF<X:B=Y@3Dg_Ol9cjh>SFJ3d^gc;1]Ea6^S:TC^MC36XSc<HoPll9[j^2`S>iIjlU]Be\7]a2<HNK@U`f@FAE2ZBXPBONebD5Y;mG^G@b2ZZJXd3:AB@JQhM[0=Fg59=j7@NZe<Mcc?aIg[ld@37`\lU?Ca\TTn6DGE\8TP@2FB1l<W6<@:6PI1]?]oSVgMK7hkBmhD0]ZFWL<\OPdG?HoK52f7_A_1X]<K7C\NQJI\G?jG7YW4aN>Qj;hWRQ`AS4aSaB;?Y13a\18j@f:M`CQ>[i]XkaYTVF[d_j1K0R_m>U5AmdYL0gPc4DSJ=ND3M;dlHZ:WP0YoIC>4[IE:dMB<BQC34

 The ciphertexts were same which meant that there was no installation specific secret in my way. Great!

Backup Exec needs to access the plaintext data, so there has to be a decryption function somewhere. Since there are tons of executables and libraries included with the software, first I ran a fast script hoping I can find some helpful exports:

find . -name '*.dll' -exec strings -f {} \; | fgrep -i decrypt

The developers were kind enough with me, the output showed that bemsdk.dll exports a lot of interesting methods:

?Decrypt@CBemDataEncryptionKeyX@@QAEHXZ
?Decrypt@CBemLoginAccountX@@QAEHXZ
?Decrypt@CBemScriptDetail@@QAEXXZ
?Decrypt@CEncrypt@@QAEHPAEF0AAF@Z
?Decrypt@CEncrypt@@QAEHPA_W0@Z
?Decrypt@CEncrypt@@QAEH_NPA_W1@Z
?DecryptDataEncryptionKeyMap@CBemJobOptionsDeleteFromArchive@@QAEXXZ
?DecryptDataEncryptionKeyMap@CBemJobOptionsRestore@@QAEXXZ
?DecryptDataEncryptionKeyMap@CBemJobOptionsRestoreArchive@@QAEXXZ
?DecryptInPlace@CEncrypt@@QAEHPADH@Z
?DecryptInPlace@CEncrypt@@QAEHPAEAAF@Z
?GetDecryptedValue@CBemConfigParam@@QBE?AVmstring@@XZ
?GetDecryptedValue@CBemStructBase@@QBE?BVmstring@@PB_W@Z
?Decrypt@CBemDataEncryptionKeyX@@QAEHXZ
?Decrypt@CBemLoginAccountX@@QAEHXZ
?Decrypt@CBemScriptDetail@@QAEXXZ
?Decrypt@CEncrypt@@QAEHPAEF0AAF@Z
?Decrypt@CEncrypt@@QAEHPA_W0@Z
?Decrypt@CEncrypt@@QAEH_NPA_W1@Z
?DecryptDataEncryptionKeyMap@CBemJobOptionsDeleteFromArchive@@QAEXXZ
?DecryptDataEncryptionKeyMap@CBemJobOptionsRestore@@QAEXXZ
?DecryptDataEncryptionKeyMap@CBemJobOptionsRestoreArchive@@QAEXXZ
?DecryptInPlace@CEncrypt@@QAEHPADH@Z
?DecryptInPlace@CEncrypt@@QAEHPAEAAF@Z
?GetDecryptedValue@CBemConfigParam@@QBE?AVmstring@@XZ
?GetDecryptedValue@CBemStructBase@@QBE?BVmstring@@PB_W@Z

CBemLoginAccountX::Decrypt seems particularly interesting, let’s take a look at it in IDA:

As you can see, this method calls CEncrypt::Decrypt(wchar_t,wchar_t). It looks straightforward to LoadLibrary() this DLL in a small wrapper program and call CEncrypt::Decrypt() with the parameters dumped from the DB. But if you take a closer look, you can also see that depending on the object state the encrypted data may first run though a simple loop that uses a possibly dynamically constructed memory reqion (dirty_bastard on the pic) to transform the ciphertext before the actual encryption happens. I can reuse the Decrypt methods, but only after this region is constructed, so I turned to dynamic analysis.

My first night with Frida

I tried to attach a debugger to the management application (BkupExec.exe). First time I failed because the process was protected by a service called bedbg.exe, but killing it made it possible to attach with a debugger. But BkupExec.exe is a .NET application that uses bemsdk.dll thourh a wrapper assembly (bemsdkwrapper.dll) and my debugger became useless, because of all the dynamic memory magic performed by the process.

Luckily, at this time I’ve already took a look at Frida.RE, and although I’ve never used it before, it seemed like a good fit for this job. The concept was simple: hook CDecrypt::Decrypt(), replace its first argument with the ciphertext to be decrypted, wait for the method to finish and read the output buffer (second argument). Here’s the final code:

Interceptor.attach(ptr("0xdeadbeef"), { // address of CEncrypt::Decrypt()
	x:0,
	onEnter: function(args) {
		send("Decrypt (Before): ",Memory.readByteArray(args[0],697));
		a=Memory.readByteArray(args[0],128);
		args[0]=Memory.allocAnsiString("ciphertext"); // Your ciphertext here
		send("Decrypt (After): ",Memory.readByteArray(args[0],697));
		this.x=args[1];	
	},
	onLeave:function(retval){send("Leave: "+Memory.readUtf16String(this.x));}
	});

But the road that led me here wasn’t exactly straight.

First of all, I needed a way to trigger the password decryption somehow. I could theoretically fire a call to the decryption function myself but I couldn’t figure out a way to get the address of the newly created LoginAccountX instances (the question is still open at StackExchange). Luckily I found a way to trigger this action from the GUI: when creating new backup jobs, the management application checks if it can access the resource to be backed up using the default Login Account.

But my original script didn’t work.

The first problem was with character encodings (there is always a problem with the character encodings): the implementation of wchar_t is platform dependent; in my case, the output buffer turned out to be readable as a UTF-16 string, which was the last thing for me to try out. Also, I had to realize that although the API defines the ciphertext parameter as a wchar_t string, it has to be provided in simple ASCII. The lesson is when experimenting with Frida, always use Memory.readByteArray() first, implicit conversations of the V8 engine and your API (Python in my case) can mess things up badly.

Second, I used the create_script() method of the Python API to provide a JavaScript script as a string to Frida to run. This wasn’t the best idea, since my ciphertext contained backslashes, which need to be double-escaped in order to pass through both the Python and the JavaScript interpreters. I spent hours on figuring this out, LC++;

But finally my hook script was able extract the plaintext passwords for the Domain Administrator account (and several others).

Exploitation in Practice

Repeating the process is a bit time consuming:

  1. Grab a copy of bedb.bak
  2. Import the DB backup to an MS SQL database
  3. Copy the encrypted passwords
  4. Install Backup Exec (trial is available from Symantec)
  5. Install Frida.RE
  6. Get the address of the Decrypt() export
  7. Replace the appropriate parameters and attach to the BkupExec process with the above script 
  8. Trigger decryption by adding a new backup job

But it’s totally worth it: with read-only access on a BackupExec server (e.g. CVE-2005-2611)  you can get plain text user accounts (probably with high privileges). 

The dynamic analysis revealed, that you can also simply build a wrapper program around bemsdk.dll, since the problematic section of code is not called during the standard execution. I still find the Frida.RE way more convenient though.

I have to emphasize that this is not a vulnerability in Symantec’s product, but administrators should keep in mind that their passwords for backup accounts are stored in fully reversible form (equivalent to plaintext).