Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 06, 2009, 05:30:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length

340227 Posts
37639 Topics
85453 Members

Latest Member: nikromant

Search:     Advanced search | Tag Cloud
+  Welcome to the Comodo Forum
|-+  Archive Boards
| |-+  Comodo Memory Firewall(Buffer Overflow Protection)
| | |-+  Feedback/Comments/Announcements/News
| | | |-+  Memory Firewall has security flaws!
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Memory Firewall has security flaws!  (Read 13797 times)
al6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: April 28, 2009, 07:20:49 AM »

Tjena...

Im currently developing a Swedish version of the Comodo BO Tester in order to learn more about security exploits and such. One thing tough; im not able to get warnings from Memory Firewall at all. I am explicitly creating a stack buffer overflow which overwrites the return address and then executes a small shellcode on the stack that jumps back to the code segment and returns the code 13 (as in bad luck Wink).

If I change the Data Execution Prevention settings to OptOut a.k.a "force everything to use DEP", the exploit is stopped by Windows. However, Memory Firewall does not seem to care at all, even if DEP is turned off.

The exploit should not be able to return the number 13, it should be closed by either DEP or Memory Firewall. Obviously my BO Tester is not recognized as a big enough threat but then what should i do to make Memory Firewall stop it?

Im posting the source code of my BO Tester here:

Code:
/* STACK BUFFER OVERFLOW EXPLOITION TEST
1. Overflow stack buffer
2. Execute code in stack buffer
3. Return code 13 */

#include <windows.h>

//return code 13
void exploited()
{
ExitProcess(13);
}

int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)
{
//Allocate on stack and initialize with shellcode "jmp eax"
volatile int buffer[32] = {0xe0ff};
//Overflow buffer with address of buffer
for(int i = 1; i < 64; i++)
buffer[i] = (int) buffer;
//Set eax to address of exploited
__asm
{
mov eax, exploited
}
//Return to buffer and execute "jmp eax" from the stack
}
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 10:17:50 AM by al6 » Logged
LeoniAquila
Still non-retired moderator but on vacation for a while
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6606



« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2009, 07:28:26 AM »

Hi and welcome al6. Wink

I'm just posting in this thread so I can easily monitor the answers here, as you're doing some interesting testing.
Logged

Moderator LeoniAquila:
Aims to keep the forum a friendly place. Any concerns? Please send me a PM and/or review the Forum Policy.
al6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2009, 10:58:40 AM »

This thread will need the help from the developers of Memory Firewall.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 03:35:08 PM by al6 » Logged
EricJH
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4163



« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2009, 01:01:24 PM »

Are you using Memory Firewall alongside with CIS 3.8? CIS3.8 has memory firewall integrated. May be the two of them bite?
Logged

Triple boot: XP SP3, Vista Ultimate 32 SP2 and Win7 RTM (default) , Always the latest CIS or CIS Beta (too lazy to update my sig) Athlon XP 2600 1 GB RAM. Opera Browser always using the latest snapshots; Opera 10.10 as of now
JoWa
Product Translator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2009, 01:12:28 PM »

CIS 3.9 RC1 gives no BO alert. The attachment shows the result. (sårbart = vulnerable)
Logged

Windows XP Pro SP3 | CIS 3.13.121240.574 | Dragon 0.9.0.16 | CSC 2.1.114194.1 | CSE 2.4.0.98 RC | MSI 865PE Neo2-FIS2R | Pentium 4 HT 3,4 GHz | 4×1 GB RAM | SATA: 300 GB, IDE: 75 + 150 GB | ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
al6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2009, 03:39:45 PM »

The problem is simple; Memory Firewall doesn't stop me from exploiting a buffer overflow. Im only using COMODO Memory Firewall 2.0.4.20. May i speak with the creators?

Är det omöjligt att få kontakt med grabbarna eller vad?
Logged
LeoniAquila
Still non-retired moderator but on vacation for a while
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6606



« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2009, 03:53:17 PM »

The problem is simple; Memory Firewall doesn't stop me from exploiting a buffer overflow. Im only using COMODO Memory Firewall 2.0.4.20. May i speak with the creators?

Är det omöjligt att få kontakt med grabbarna eller vad?

Easy, it may take a while for them to see this.
Logged

Moderator LeoniAquila:
Aims to keep the forum a friendly place. Any concerns? Please send me a PM and/or review the Forum Policy.
JoWa
Product Translator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2009, 05:53:21 PM »

New version of al6's BO Tester, new result… Wink
Logged

Windows XP Pro SP3 | CIS 3.13.121240.574 | Dragon 0.9.0.16 | CSC 2.1.114194.1 | CSE 2.4.0.98 RC | MSI 865PE Neo2-FIS2R | Pentium 4 HT 3,4 GHz | 4×1 GB RAM | SATA: 300 GB, IDE: 75 + 150 GB | ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
al6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2009, 10:16:09 AM »

This thread is very important, there is a serious mistake in Memory Firewall!

Memory Firewall is only detecting calls to ShellExecute, WinExec and so on, but it's not detecting calls to the standard C system() call. This is a serious security flaw since system() can do everything that ShellExecute can do. I want some developers in this thread.

Im not using Memory Firewall since i found out that it's useless, also, DEP and ASLR is a better way to protect your system since it does not need the "black list" of calls becaue everything is stopped.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 11:49:06 AM by al6 » Logged
LeoniAquila
Still non-retired moderator but on vacation for a while
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6606



« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2009, 05:30:40 AM »

I've tried to get attention from some developer, let's hope for a comment.

By the way, CMF has not been updated in a long time. AFAIK the stand alone CMF has been discontinued. Have you considered performing these tests on the CMF part of CIS, which is much newer?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 06:25:42 AM by LeoniAquila » Logged

Moderator LeoniAquila:
Aims to keep the forum a friendly place. Any concerns? Please send me a PM and/or review the Forum Policy.
EricJH
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4163



« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2009, 04:21:13 PM »

If I recall correctly CMF only protects to 3 out of 6 possible buffer overflow types. I tried the test on 3.9 RC2 and had three alerts about buffer overflow and terminated them and passed the test.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 04:36:25 PM by EricJH » Logged

Triple boot: XP SP3, Vista Ultimate 32 SP2 and Win7 RTM (default) , Always the latest CIS or CIS Beta (too lazy to update my sig) Athlon XP 2600 1 GB RAM. Opera Browser always using the latest snapshots; Opera 10.10 as of now
Tags:
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SSL Certificate Free Virus Removal Firewall
Page created in 0.036 seconds with 17 queries.
Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks
Design by 7dana.com