Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worma.k.a.Morris worm
From: "Dave \"No, not that one\" Korn" <davek_throwaway () hotmail com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:16:30 -0000
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:21:16 GMT, "Dave \"No, not that one\" Korn" said:Georgi Guninski wrote:my question was: when was the first provable *public* (as in common sense) announcement of the exploitability of buffer overflows.The use of smashing the stack to seize control of the program flow was in everyday usage on the Commodore PET from around 1979-1980ish. It was our standard technique for making programs autorun after loading!Was that a "classic" smash-the-stack, where an overly long paramater is used to over-write the return pointer, or were you guys just intercepting the return pointer directly?
Well, it wasn't a parameter, but it was overwriting the return pointer. Everything lived at absolute addresses on that machine, there being no dynamic allocation or memory management. The stack lived a short distance in memory below the area reserved for program code. By setting the (absolute) load address of your program a couple of pages lower than usual, the first thing that got loaded was your stack, then your program area, so you could overwrite the stack with an address in the code region and as soon as the kernel's tape load routine returned you seized control.
If the latter, I'm pretty sure there was software that would overlay return pointers in order to redirect program flow as far back as IBM's OS/360 in the 1967-75 timeframe.
Indeed, and there's also the age-old technique of implementing a computed goto by pushing the address on the stack and executing a ret (rts for you old 6502 heads out there) instruction. This is all kind of tangential to Georgi's question about when the first public announcement was made, but the point I'm getting at is that the general principles of stack manipulation to control program flow either deliberately or unexpectedly had been in the air for some time; so no matter when the first public announcement of *a* stack-smashing buffer overflow vulnerability was made, it would already have been common knowledge that buffer overflows *in general* could be used to manipulate the stack; I don't suppose there was one initial announcement and then suddenly everyone realised the stack could be smashed, I reckon lots of people were gradually putting two and two together independently. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm morrisworm.com (Nov 02)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm Riad S. Wahby (Nov 02)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm Georgi Guninski (Nov 03)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm deep fried (Nov 03)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 03)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 03)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm Blue Boar (Nov 03)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worm a.k.a. Morris worm Georgi Guninski (Nov 03)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worma.k.a. Morris worm Dave "No, not that one" Korn (Nov 12)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worma.k.a. Morris worm Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 12)
- Re: 18th anniversary of Internet worma.k.a.Morris worm Dave "No, not that one" Korn (Nov 13)