Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Buffer Overflow Experiment |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:34:26 +0800 |
Hi, Since you are using Fedora, have you disabled kernel.exec-shield ? the va randomize i.e. kernel.exec-shield-randomize is only one of the exec-shield features... So you may want to disable the whole exec-shiedl to test your code. regards, Rick On 9/13/07, Alcides <alcides.hercules@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi List,
I was wondering if someone has already done this.
I'm testing a small program written in C, especially coded for testing
buffer overflow.
In source code, I have assigned char buffer[512]; I compile with gcc and
run on bash.
As soon as I pass "512" characters as argument("A"x512--being precise),
the program gives " Segmentation fault (core dumped )" -->as desired.
1] Using GDB debugger, it has been verified that the extended
instruction pointer EIP has been overwritten, as expected.
(EIP-->0x41414141)
2] But, on passing "513" chars. argument, the EIP becomes 0x0 -->WHY
3]On passing 520 chars. argument, EIP takes 'some' value and EBP
becomes 0x41414141
4]Thereafter, every increment by 1 --> in input characters causes EIP to
remain the same as that 'some' value and EBP to take various incremental
values.
every time, for several unit increments
[I am using: 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7 kernel, i686, Disabled VA randomization]
Any views that help me understand why EIP becomes 0, are welcome.
Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by: Cenzic
Need to secure your web apps NOW?
Cenzic finds more, "real" vulnerabilities fast.
Click to try it, buy it or download a solution FREE today!
http://www.cenzic.com/downloads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by: Cenzic Need to secure your web apps NOW? Cenzic finds more, "real" vulnerabilities fast. Click to try it, buy it or download a solution FREE today! http://www.cenzic.com/downloads ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: anonymous socks proxies ??, Jamie Riden |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Buffer Overflow Experiment, Justin Ferguson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Buffer Overflow Experiment, Amit Bagree |
| Next by Thread: | Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss, Vivek P |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |