full-disclosure - Re: VML Exploit vs. AV/IPS/IDS signatures

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200609261017.08081.fdlist@digitaloffense.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:17:07 -0500
From: H D Moore <fdlist@...italoffense.net>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VML Exploit vs. AV/IPS/IDS signatures

Nice work Aviv! All of these methods, along with a few extras, are 
implemented in the Metasploit 2.6 version of this module. Last I checked, 
not a single AV or IPS could pick it up. This module should work on every 
version and service pack of Windows.

http://metasploit.com/projects/Framework/exploits.html#ie_vml_rectfill

-HD

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 09:04, avivra wrote:
> I've used 5 simple methods, trying to evade being detected by the
> signature: 1) I've replaced the location where EIP should jump when the
> exploit is activated, with a different valid address.
> 2) I've replaced the VML element from "rect" with one of the other VML
> elements. 3) I've replaced the payload with a different valid shell
> code. 4) I've replaced the namespace key with a random key.
> 5) A combination of all of the above.
>
> Please note that when I changed the code using any of the methods, the
> exploit still worked.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/