You are browsing the archive for Code Injection.

PROPagate follow-up #2 – Some more Shattering Attack Potentials

February 4, 2018 in Anti-*, Code Injection, Compromise Detection, EDR, Incident Response, Malware Analysis

A few months back I discovered a new code injection technique that I named PROPagate. Using a subclass of a well-known shatter attack one can modify the callback function pointers inside other processes by using Windows APIs like SetProp, and potentially others. After pointing out a few ideas I put it on a back burner for a while, but I knew I will want to explore some more possibilities in the future.

In particular, I was curious what are the chances one could force the remote process to indirectly call the ‘prohibited’ functions like SetWindowLong, SetClassLong (or their newer alternatives SetWindowLongPtr and SetClassLongPtr), but with the arguments that we control (i.e. from a remote process). These API are ‘prohibited’ because they can only be called in a context of a process that owns them, so we can’t directly call them and target windows that belong to other processes.

It turns out his may be possible!

If there is one common way of using the SetWindowLong API it is to set up pointers, and/or filling-in window-specific memory areas (allocated per window instance) with some values that are initialized immediately after the window is created. The same thing happens when the window is destroyed – during the latter these memory areas are usually freed and set to zeroes, and callbacks are discarded.

These two actions are associated with two very specific window messages:

  • WM_NCCREATE
  • WM_NCDESTROY

In fact, many ‘native’ windows kick off their existence by setting some callbacks in their message handling routines during processing of these two messages.

With that in mind, I started looking at existing processes and got some interesting findings. Here is a snippet of a routine I found inside Windows Explorer that could be potentially abused by a remote process:

Or, it’s disassembly equivalent (in response to WM_NCCREATE message):

So… since we can still freely send messages between windows it would seem that there is a lot of things that can be done here. One could send a specially crafted WM_NCCREATE message to a window that owns this routine and achieve a controlled code execution inside another process (the lParam needs to pass the checks and include pointer to memory area that includes a callback that will be executed afterwards – this callback could point to malicious code). I may be of course wrong, but need to explore it further when I find more time.

The other interesting thing I noticed is that some existing windows procedures are already written in a way that makes it harder to exploit this issue. They check if the window-specific data was set, and only if it was NOT they allow to call the SetWindowLong function. That is, they avoid executing the same initialization code twice.

PROPagate follow-up – Some more Shattering Attack Potentials

November 7, 2017 in Anti-*, Code Injection, Malware Analysis, Random ideas

We now know that one can use SetProp to execute a shellcode inside 32- and 64-bit applications as long as they use windows that are subclassed.

There are more possibilities.

While SetWindowLong/SetWindowLongPtr/SetClassLong/SetClassLongPtr are all protected and can be only used on windows belonging to the same process, the very old APIs SetWindowWord and SetClassWord … are not.

As usual, I tested it enumerating windows running a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system and setting properties to unpredictable values and observing what happens.

It turns out that again, pretty much all my Window applications crashed on Window 10. These 16 bits seem to be quite powerful…

I am not a vulnerability researcher, but I bet we can still do something interesting; I will continue poking around. The easy wins I see are similar to SetProp e.g. GWL_USERDATA may point to some virtual tables/pointers; the DWL_USER – as per Microsoft – ‘sets new extra information that is private to the application, such as handles or pointers’. Assuming that we may only modify 16 bit of e.g. some offset, redirecting it to some code cave or overwriting unused part of memory within close proximity of the original offset could allow for a successful exploit.