Re: New Javascript Packer: JSidle

[Miguel Rios <miguelrios35 () yahoo com>]

No worries. Thanks for trying to help out.
That's why I really like the spirit here of this community. Quite rare to find this kind of environment nowadays.

--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Thorgul <thorgul () gmail com> wrote:

From: Thorgul <thorgul () gmail com>
Subject: Re: [framework] New Javascript Packer: JSidle
To: "Miguel Rios" <miguelrios35 () yahoo com>
Cc: "framework () spool metasploit com" <framework () spool metasploit com>
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 11:25 AM

Yep, sorry, I get confused and mixed up JSidle and JSlides... And m'y answers was even worse...
Just checked the code and your problem should have been somewhere in the JSidle patching process. Anyhow, sorry for the 
stupide answers.  

-- Guillaume Thiaux
Le 13 juil. 2010 à 13:15, Miguel Rios <miguelrios35 () yahoo com> a écrit :

Anyway, problem has been fixed. I just deleted jsidle and repatched.
Now I notice the PDF gets picked up by Bitdefender and Kaspersky as Generic exploits, obviously because of the 
"suspicious" encrypted javascript.
I tried the geticon exploit and it worked perfectly (no noticeable delay) on an XP SP3 with Adobe 8.0 installed.

--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Miguel Rios <miguelrios35 () yahoo com> wrote:

From: Miguel Rios <miguelrios35 () yahoo com>
Subject: Re: [framework] New Javascript Packer: JSidle
To: "Thorgul" <thorgul () gmail com>
Cc: "framework () spool metasploit com" <framework () spool metasploit com>
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 10:45 AM

?? Now you've got me confused. My error say Exploit failed: uninitialized constant Rex::Exploitation::JSidle   not 
JSilde as you wrote. I don't see a typo in my output.

Anyone else have any suggestions as to what may be the problem?

--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Thorgul <thorgul () gmail com> wrote:

From: Thorgul <thorgul () gmail com>
Subject: Re: [framework] New Javascript Packer: JSidle
To: "Miguel Rios" <miguelrios35 () yahoo com>
Cc: "Sven Taute" <sven.taute () gmail com>, "framework () spool metasploit com"
 <framework () spool metasploit com>
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 10:28 AM

Seems to be a typo error. Your error say Rex::Explotation::JSilde instead
 of Rex::Explotation::JSilde. Try to patch the adobe_geticon code and try again ;)
-- Guillaume Thiaux
Le 13 juil. 2010 à 12:02, Miguel Rios <miguelrios35 () yahoo com> a écrit :

No problem. Glad to help out.
Although after much messing around the framework I got myself into a bit of trouble:

msf exploit(adobe_geticon) >
 exploit

[-] Exploit failed: uninitialized constant Rex::Exploitation::JSidle
[*] Exploit completed, but no session was created.

Why am I getting the uninitialized constant error? I must have broken something. Anyone else getting this error?

--- On Mon, 7/12/10, Sven Taute <sven.taute () gmail com> wrote:

From: Sven Taute <sven.taute () gmail com>
Subject: Re: [framework] New Javascript Packer: JSidle
To: "Miguel Rios" <miguelrios35 () yahoo com>
Cc: framework () spool metasploit com, "Jonathan R" <agentsmith15 () gmail com>
Date: Monday, July 12,
 2010, 5:30 PM

Thanks for testing. I think it is very difficult to permanently 
circumvent the detection of malicious javascript in PDF files. In
contrast to web-based exploits, AV can flag the usage of JS obfuscation
as malicious, though it does not see the real exploit (therefore the
"generic" detection).

In the first development phase I only targeted web-based exploits - the
usage for PDFs was more of a side product.

- Sven


On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Miguel Rios <miguelrios35 () yahoo com> wrote:

> Well, just thought I'd share my results with NOD after applying the
> jsidle patch for new icon adobe exploit. Bottom line, NOD still flags
> it as PDF/Exploit.Gen. Tried encrypting it also and it did cut
 down
> on detections but NOD still flags it as
 PDF/Exploit.Gen. Seems NOD is
> doing a pretty good job in flagging malicious PDFs.
>
> --- On Sat, 7/10/10, Jonathan R <agentsmith15 () gmail com> wrote:
>
> From: Jonathan R <agentsmith15 () gmail com>
> Subject: Re: [framework] New Javascript Packer: JSidle
> To: "Miguel Rios" <miguelrios35 () yahoo com>,
> framework () spool metasploit com Date: Saturday, July 10, 2010, 11:15 PM
>
> NOD prides themselves on having one of the best heuristics engines, so
> I believe NOD would mark the PDF as
 suspicious and not a specific
> threat. You can do what many malware writers do and split the PDF into
> multiple parts and you can narrow the range of where/what in the PDF
> is getting flagged. Then change things accordingly.
>
>
> This idea of delaying code to bypass detection has been brought up
> before by well known virus writers like Z0mbie and Second Part To
> Hell/[rRlf].
> http://vxheavens.com/lib/vzo23.html   <--- Z0mbie's Paper
> http://www.hack0wn.com/view.php?xroot=72.0&cat=papers   <--- SPTH/rHlf
>
> This is all based upon the fact that a anti virus like Norton or NOD
> can only spend about 3 or 4 seconds on each file. Otherwise a AV
 scan
> would take to long.
>
>
>
>        









      _______________________________________________
https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework



      
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework



      


_______________________________________________
https://mail.metasploit.com/mailman/listinfo/framework