Buffer overflows

In computer security and programming, a buffer overflow, or buffer overrun, is an anomaly where a program, while writing data to a buffer, overruns the buffer's boundary and overwrites adjacent memory. This is a special case of violation of memory safety.
Buffer overflows can be triggered by inputs that are designed to execute code, or alter the way the program operates. This may result in erratic program behavior, including memory access errors, incorrect results, a crash, or a breach of system security. Thus, they are the basis of many software vulnerabilities and can be maliciously exploited.
Programming languages commonly associated with buffer overflows include C and C++, which provide no built-in protection against accessing or overwriting data in any part of memory and do not automatically check that data written to an array (the built-in buffer type) is within the boundaries of that array. Bounds checking can prevent buffer overflows.

A buffer overflow occurs when data written to a buffer, due to insufficient bounds checking, corrupts data values in memory addresses adjacent to the allocated buffer. Most commonly this occurs when copying strings of characters from one buffer to another.

Exploitation

The techniques to exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability vary per architecture, operating system and memory region. For example, exploitation on the heap (used for dynamically allocated memory), is very different from exploitation on the call stack.

Stack-based Exploitation
A technically inclined user may exploit stack-based buffer overflows to manipulate the program to their advantage in one of several ways:

• By overwriting a local variable that is near the buffer in memory on the stack to change the behavior of the program which may benefit the attacker.
• By overwriting the return address in a stack frame. Once the function returns, execution will resume at the return address as specified by the attacker, usually a user input filled buffer.
• By overwriting a function pointer,[ or exception handler, which is subsequently executed.

With a method called "trampolining", if the address of the user-supplied data is unknown, but the location is stored in a register, then the return address can be overwritten with the address of an opcode which will cause execution to jump to the user supplied data. If the location is stored in a register R, then a jump to the location containing the opcode for a jump R, call R or similar instruction, will cause execution of user supplied data.
The locations of suitable opcodes, or bytes in memory, can be found in DLLs or the executable itself. However the address of the opcode typically cannot contain any null characters and the locations of these opcodes can vary between applications and versions of the operating system. The Metasploit Project is one such database of suitable opcodes, though only those found in the Windows operating system are listed.
Stack-based buffer overflows are not to be confused with stack overflows. Also note that these vulnerabilities are usually discovered through the use of a fuzzer.

Heap-based Exploitation
A buffer overflow occurring in the heap data area is referred to as a heap overflow and is exploitable in a different manner to that of stack-based overflows. Memory on the heap is dynamically allocated by the application at run-time and typically contains program data.
Exploitation is performed by corrupting this data in specific ways to cause the application to overwrite internal structures such as linked list pointers. The canonical heap overflow technique overwrites dynamic memory allocation linkage (such as malloc meta data) and uses the resulting pointer exchange to overwrite a program function pointer.
Microsoft's GDI+ vulnerability in handling JPEGs is an example of the danger a heap overflow can present.

Barriers to Exploitation
Manipulation of the buffer, which occurs before it is read or executed, may lead to the failure of an exploitation attempt. These manipulations can mitigate the threat of exploitation, but may not make it impossible.
Manipulations could include conversion to upper or lower case, removal of metacharacters and filtering out of non-alphanumeric strings. However, techniques exist to bypass these filters and manipulations; alphanumeric code, polymorphic code, self-modifying code and return-to-libc attacks. The same methods can be used to avoid detection by intrusion detection systems. In some cases, including where code is converted into unicode, the threat of the vulnerability have been misrepresented by the disclosers as only Denial of Service when in fact the remote execution of arbitrary code is possible.

Practicalities of Exploitation
In real-world exploits there are a variety of challenges which need to be overcome for exploits to operate reliably. These factors include null bytes in addresses, variability in the location of shellcode, differences between environments and various counter-measures in operation.

NOP Sled Technique
A NOP-sled is the oldest and most widely known technique for successfully exploiting a stack buffer overflow. It solves the problem of finding the exact address of the buffer by effectively increasing the size of the target area.
To do this much larger sections of the stack are corrupted with the no-op machine instruction. At the end of the attacker-supplied data, after the no-op instructions, an instruction to perform a relative jump to the top of the buffer where the shellcode is located. This collection of no-ops is referred to as the "NOP-sled" because if the return address is overwritten with any address within the no-op region of the buffer it will "slide" down the no-ops until it is redirected to the actual malicious code by the jump at the end.
This technique requires the attacker to guess where on the stack the NOP-sled is instead of the comparatively small shellcode.
Because of the popularity of this technique, many vendors of intrusion prevention systems will search for this pattern of no-op machine instructions in an attempt to detect shellcode in use. It is important to note that a NOP-sled does not necessarily contain only traditional no-op machine instructions; any instruction that does not corrupt the machine state to a point where the shellcode will not run can be used in place of the hardware assisted no-op.
As a result it has become common practice for exploit writers to compose the no-op sled with randomly chosen instructions which will have no real effect on the shellcode execution.

Preventing Overflows Vulnerabilities

Various techniques have been used to detect or prevent buffer overflows, with various tradeoffs. The most reliable way to avoid or prevent buffer overflows is to use automatic protection at the language level. This sort of protection, however, cannot be applied to legacy code, and often technical, business, or cultural constraints call for a vulnerable language. The following sections describe the choices and implementations available.

Choice of programming language
The choice of programming language can have a profound effect on the occurrence of buffer overflows. As of 2008, among the most popular languages are C and its derivative, C++, with a vast body of software having been written in these languages. C and C++ provide no built-in protection against accessing or overwriting data in any part of memory; more specifically, they do not check that data written to a buffer is within the boundaries of that buffer. However, the standard C++ libraries provide many ways of safely buffering data, and techniques to avoid buffer overflows also exist for C.
Many other programming languages provide runtime checking and in some cases even compile-time checking which might send a warning or raise an exception when C or C++ would overwrite data and continue to execute further instructions until erroneous results are obtained which might or might not cause the program to crash. Examples of such languages include Ada, Eiffel, Lisp, Modula-2, Smalltalk, OCaml and such C-derivatives as Cyclone and D. The Java and .NET Framework bytecode environments also require bounds checking on all arrays. Nearly every interpreted language will protect against buffer overflows, signalling a well-defined error condition.
Often where a language provides enough type information to do bounds checking an option is provided to enable or disable it. Static code analysis can remove many dynamic bound and type checks, but poor implementations and awkward cases can significantly decrease performance. Software engineers must carefully consider the tradeoffs of safety versus performance costs when deciding which language and compiler setting to use.

Use of safe libraries
The problem of buffer overflows is common in the C and C++ languages because they expose low level representational details of buffers as containers for data types. Buffer overflows must thus be avoided by maintaining a high degree of correctness in code which performs buffer management. It has also long been recommended to avoid standard library functions which are not bounds checked, such as gets, scanf and strcpy.
The Morris worm exploited a gets call in fingerd. Well-written and tested abstract data type libraries which centralize and automatically perform buffer management, including bounds checking, can reduce the occurrence and impact of buffer overflows.
The two main building-block data types in these languages in which buffer overflows commonly occur are strings and arrays; thus, libraries preventing buffer overflows in these data types can provide the vast majority of the necessary coverage. Still, failure to use these safe libraries correctly can result in buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities; and naturally, any bug in the library itself is a potential vulnerability. "Safe" library implementations include "The Better String Library", Vstr  and Erwin. The OpenBSD operating system's C library provides the strlcpy and strlcat functions, but these are more limited than full safe library implementations.

Buffer overflow protection
Buffer overflow protection is used to detect the most common buffer overflows by checking that the stack has not been altered when a function returns. If it has been altered, the program exits with a segmentation fault. Three such systems are Libsafe,  and the StackGuard and ProPolice gcc patches.
Microsoft's Data Execution Prevention mode explicitly protects the pointer to the SEH Exception Handler from being overwritten.
Stronger stack protection is possible by splitting the stack in two: one for data and one for function returns. This split is present in the Forth language, though it was not a security-based design decision. Regardless, this is not a complete solution to buffer overflows, as sensitive data other than the return address may still be overwritten.

Pointer protection
Buffer overflows work by manipulating pointers (including stored addresses). PointGuard was proposed as a compiler-extension to prevent attackers from being able to reliably manipulate pointers and addresses.
The approach works by having the compiler add code to automatically XOR-encode pointers before and after they are used. Because the attacker (theoretically) does not know what value will be used to encode/decode the pointer, he cannot predict what it will point to if he overwrites it with a new value. PointGuard was never released, but Microsoft implemented a similar approach beginning in Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1.
Rather than implement pointer protection as an automatic feature, Microsoft added an API routine that can be called at the discretion of the programmer. This allows for better performance (because it is not used all of the time), but places the burden on the programmer to know when it is necessary.
Because XOR is linear, an attacker may be able to manipulate an encoded pointer by overwriting only the lower bytes of an address. This can allow an attack to succeed if the attacker is able to attempt the exploit multiple times and/or is able to complete an attack by causing a pointer to point to one of several locations (such as any location within a NOP sled). Microsoft added a random rotation to their encoding scheme to address this weakness to partial overwrites.

Executable space protection
Executable space protection is an approach to buffer overflow protection which prevents execution of code on the stack or the heap. An attacker may use buffer overflows to insert arbitrary code into the memory of a program, but with executable space protection, any attempt to execute that code will cause an exception.
Some CPUs support a feature called NX ("No eXecute") or XD ("eXecute Disabled") bit, which in conjunction with software, can be used to mark pages of data (such as those containing the stack and the heap) as readable and writeable but not executable. Some Unix operating systems (e.g. OpenBSD, Mac OS X) ship with executable space protection (e.g. W^X). Some optional packages include:

• PaX
• Exec Shield
• Openwall

Newer variants of Microsoft Windows also support executable space protection, called Data Execution Prevention.  Proprietary add-ons include:

• BufferShield
• StackDefender

Executable space protection does not generally protect against return-to-libc attacks, or any other attack which does not rely on the execution of the attackers code. However, on 64-bit systems using ASLR, as described below, executable space protection makes it far more difficult to execute such attacks.
Address space layout randomization
Address space layout randomization (ASLR) is a computer security feature which involves arranging the positions of key data areas, usually including the base of the executable and position of libraries, heap, and stack, randomly in a process' address space.
Randomization of the virtual memory addresses at which functions and variables can be found can make exploitation of a buffer overflow more difficult, but not impossible. It also forces the attacker to tailor the exploitation attempt to the individual system, which foils the attempts of internet worms. A similar but less effective method is to rebase processes and libraries in the virtual address space.

Deep packet inspection
The use of deep packet inspection (DPI) can detect, at the network perimeter, very basic remote attempts to exploit buffer overflows by use of attack signatures and heuristics. These are able to block packets which have the signature of a known attack, or if a long series of No-Operation instructions (known as a nop-sled) is detected, these were once used when the location of the exploit's payload is slightly variable.
Packet scanning is not an effective method since it can only prevent known attacks and there are many ways that a 'nop-sled' can be encoded. Shellcode used by attackers can be made alphanumeric, metamorphic, or self-modifying to evade detection by heuristic packet scanners and intrusion detection systems.

Like it ? Share it.