Vulnerability Development: Re: Thwarting /bin/bash, an anti-overflow concept ?

[Gerardo Richarte <gera () corest com>]

Alex Schütz wrote:
> Thinking this farther, we are going to force the exploit developer to 
> bring along his own binary code of /bin/bash. This may not be possible 
> in every case, since the buffer overflow cannot hold so much data.
        Embeding more than a 'execve("/bin/sh")' as egg is not a oh so crazy idea, take a look at, for example:

- Syscall Proxying
 http://www1.corest.com/common/showdoc.php?idx=259&idxseccion=11

- grugq's excelent Userland Exec
 http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/348638/2003-12-28/2004-01-03/0

- InlineEgg
 http://oss.corest.com/projects/inlineegg.html
 http://community.corest.com/~gera/ProgrammingPearls/InlineEgg.html

- ShellForge
 www.secdev.org/shellforge.html

- MOSDEF
 http://www.immunitysec.com/MOSDEF/

        And quite a few other similar things and projects I know some other people is working on.

        So, as usuall with too simple security protections, it's good to do it, unless you are going to believe that 
you are ANY safer by doing it. So, in short... why to do it if after doing so you can't feel safer?

        gera