432 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
432 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "Lifting a reloc based VM | Svartalfheim @ FCSC 2024"
|
|
date: "2024-04-14 22:00:00"
|
|
author: "Juju"
|
|
tags: ["Reverse", "Writeup", "fcsc"]
|
|
toc: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Intro
|
|
|
|
Svartalfheim is a weird reversing challenge. It seems like a simple x64 ELF with
|
|
only a few bytes of machine code, but after playing with it, you might notice
|
|
some quantum behaviours. The program might be patching itself when you are
|
|
not looking at it, so stay alert :eyes:.
|
|
|
|
## Challenge description
|
|
|
|
`reverse` | `467 pts` `14 solves` :star::star::star:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Trouvez le flag accepté par le binaire.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Author: `Quanthor_ic`
|
|
|
|
## Given files
|
|
|
|
[svartalfheim](/svartalfheim/svartalfheim)
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Writeup
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Things are already weird without opening up any disassembler:
|
|
`file` tells us the the binary is dynamically linked but ldd says otherwise.
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
$ file svartalfheim
|
|
svartalfheim: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
|
|
dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, no
|
|
section header
|
|
|
|
$ ldd svartalfheim
|
|
not a dynamic executable
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Here is the decompiled code of the entrypoint.
|
|
|
|
{{< code file="/static/svartalfheim/main.c" language="c" >}}
|
|
|
|
Basically, it simply deletes a file named `_` from the current directory, then
|
|
re-create it and open it write mode.
|
|
|
|
The process then dumps itself into the opened file, close it and execve the
|
|
dumped file.
|
|
|
|
Cool so this should do absolutely nothing except calling itself endlessly.
|
|
|
|
But what if we give it a try:
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
./svartalfheim
|
|
Welcome to Svartalfheim
|
|
FCSC{test}
|
|
Nope
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
WTF is going on ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Quantum binary
|
|
|
|
So first I wanted a way to see what was happening between each execution.
|
|
|
|
I patched the `execve` with a breakpoint in the binary.
|
|
|
|
It will now crash instead of starting itself again and I can inspect the
|
|
`_` file before the next instance deletes it.
|
|
|
|
Here is the diff of the hexdump of the patched binary (breakpoint instead
|
|
of execve) with the hexdump of the `_` file after a single execution:
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
$ diff svartalfheim_breakpointed.hex first_run.hex
|
|
517c517
|
|
< 00002040: 0700 0000 0000 0000 e821 0400 0000 0000 .........!......
|
|
---
|
|
> 00002040: 0700 0000 0000 0000 3037 0400 0000 0000 ........07......
|
|
519c519
|
|
< 00002060: 0800 0000 0000 0000 3000 0000 0000 0000 ........0.......
|
|
---
|
|
> 00002060: 0800 0000 0000 0000 6000 0000 0000 0000 ........`.......
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
A total of 3 bytes have changed, so I go check the corresponding addresses
|
|
in my decompiler:
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/rela_patched.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
The first two bytes that are patched are the relocation table addr inside
|
|
the dynamic table.
|
|
|
|
The last byte patched is the size of said relocation table.
|
|
|
|
This means that at the next execution, the program will have different relocations.
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should take a look at the original relocation table:
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/original_relocs.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
Unusual relocations indeed. So the first one points to the relocation table
|
|
address inside the dynamic table and the second one to the relocation table
|
|
size, also in the dynamic table, the two values that were patched in the next
|
|
binary. We can already guess that the relocation table will be patched at
|
|
every execution, running new relocations every time, just like a processor
|
|
run instructions and increments its program counter. This might be a
|
|
relocation based virtual machine.
|
|
|
|
## Reloc based virtual machine
|
|
|
|
### Figuring out the instruction set
|
|
|
|
So since the relocation table have changed in the next binary, let's open this
|
|
one and check the new relocation table:
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/second_relocs.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
Once again we can see relocs pointing to DT_RELA and DT_RELASZ values, but there are also two other addresses that are patched.
|
|
|
|
When looking them up, we can see that these two addresses are located inside
|
|
the symbol table. To be precise, the values of symbol `1` and `2` are patched.
|
|
|
|
Below is the corresponding symbol table:
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/second_symtab.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
Great so now let's run the binary a second time and inspect the third relocation table.
|
|
|
|
I will stop on this one a bit longer because it actually contains the entire
|
|
instruction set.
|
|
|
|
But first, what is *really* happening ?
|
|
|
|
The relocation table holds ... relocations indeed.
|
|
|
|
Relocations are applied by `ldso` when a process is loaded into memory
|
|
(so at `execve`).
|
|
|
|
Applying a relocation has different effects depending on the relocation type
|
|
(denoted in the lower 32 bits of the `info` field of the reloc).
|
|
|
|
However, most relocation types imply dereferencing the `value` of a symbol (see the above screenshot for an example of the symbol table) and storing it in the relocation address.
|
|
|
|
The said symbol is denoted by the higher 32 bits of the `info` field of the reloc.
|
|
|
|
Now let's really look at the third relocation table and run it in our mind:
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/third_relocs.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
The first relocation is of type `0x8`, and has symbol `0x0` (which mean no symbol)
|
|
|
|
It points to the address of the `value` of symbol `0x5`.
|
|
|
|
Relocation type `0x8` will simply put its `addend` value at the address pointed by its `addr` field. Thus storing `0xff` in the `0x5` symbol `value`
|
|
|
|
Basically this relocation is a `mov mem, imm` instruction.
|
|
|
|
Second relocation is of type `0x1` and symbol `0x1`.
|
|
|
|
This relocation will take the `value` of symbol `0x1`, add the reloc
|
|
`addend` value, and store the result at the relocation `addr`
|
|
|
|
So it looks like some sorts of `add mem, reg, imm` instruction, considering
|
|
symbols as registers.
|
|
|
|
I'll do the third relocation and we will have the whole instruction set:
|
|
|
|
The type is `0x5`, symbol `0x1`. It will take the value of the corresponding symbol, dereference it, and store it in the reloc `addr`.
|
|
|
|
The assembly for this might look like `mov mem, [reg]`
|
|
|
|
Here we go, that's it, an instruction set of 3 instructions,
|
|
there isn't even an instruction to branch or to add two registers together.
|
|
|
|
Let's write an interpreter for the VM so we can debug it.
|
|
|
|
### Writing the interpreter
|
|
|
|
Basically the interpreter will have multiple roles in the analysis:
|
|
|
|
* Get an execution trace and disassembly of the virtual machine
|
|
* Set breakpoints during execution
|
|
* Dump process to inspect the patched ELF at any stage easily and fast
|
|
|
|
{{< code file="/static/svartalfheim/interpreter.py" language="py" >}}
|
|
|
|
This interpreter stops every time that the VM patches the native code section
|
|
of the binary, this way I can stop whenever IO is performed, dump the binary
|
|
and analyse it.
|
|
|
|
The VM patches the native code a total of 7 times:
|
|
|
|
* Setup a syscall to write the prompt on stdout
|
|
* Immediately after, reset the native code to its original content
|
|
* Setup a syscall to read the flag from stdin
|
|
* Immediately after, reset the native code to its original content
|
|
* Setup a syscall to write the flag validation
|
|
* Immediately after, reset the native code to its original content
|
|
* Setup a syscall to exit the program instead of the `execve` it again
|
|
|
|
Investigating the third dumped binary will show us the flag address given to `read`, which will allow us to inject it in our interpreter:
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/radare_read.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
The interpreter also builds a disassembled execution trace:
|
|
|
|
I tried to make it readable as if it was intel assembly.
|
|
|
|
I added some comments for easier analysis:
|
|
|
|
* NATIVE CODE LOADING means that this block (a complete run of a single relocation table) has patched the native code section
|
|
* The commented hexstring is the data that is being outputed in the destination operand
|
|
* PATCHING CODE means that this instruction has a destination address pointing to the next instruction, meaning it is trying to patch its own code
|
|
* PATCHING FAR is the same but on an instruction of the same block but not the next one
|
|
|
|
These were really helpful during analysis to have a reminder to check for code patching.
|
|
|
|
You might be saying that the example assembly below doesn't correspond to the
|
|
instruction set defined above as there was no such instruction as
|
|
`add reg, reg, imm`, it is indeed true, but the trick is that every register
|
|
are memory mapped (since they are simply symbols in the symtab of the ELF), so a memory deref can actually be a register and my disassembler lifts this.
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
0x48080: mov [0x480f0], $0xffffffffffffffa0 # a0ffffffffffffff PATCHING FAR
|
|
0x48098: add [0x480b0], r4, $0x480d8 # f080040000000000 PATCHING CODE
|
|
0x480b0: mov [0x480f0], $0x0 # 0000000000000000 PATCHING FAR
|
|
0x480c8: add r1, r1, $0x0 # 1036040000000000
|
|
0x480e0: add r1, r1, $0x0 # 1036040000000000
|
|
0x480f8: add r1, r1, $0x10 # 2036040000000000
|
|
0x48110: mov DT_RELA, [r1].8 # 5881040000000000
|
|
0x48128: add r2, r1, $0x8 # 2836040000000000
|
|
0x48140: mov DT_RELASZ, [r2].8 # 7800000000000000
|
|
#End of block
|
|
0x48158: mov r7, $0x5 # 0500000000000000
|
|
0x48170: add r1, r1, $0x10 # 3036040000000000
|
|
0x48188: mov DT_RELA, [r1].8 # d081040000000000
|
|
0x481a0: add r2, r1, $0x8 # 3836040000000000
|
|
0x481b8: mov DT_RELASZ, [r2].8 # f000000000000000
|
|
#End of block
|
|
# NATIVE CODE LOADING:
|
|
0x481d0: mov [0x4100e], $0xba48 # 48ba000000000000
|
|
0x481e8: mov [0x41016], $0xbe480000 # 000048be00000000
|
|
0x48200: mov [0x4101e], $0x6a5f016a00000000 # 000000006a015f6a
|
|
0x48218: mov [0x41026], $0x90909090050f5801 # 01580f0590909090
|
|
0x48230: add [0x41010], r7, $0x0 # 0500000000000000
|
|
0x48248: add [0x4101a], r8, $0x0 # 23a2050000000000
|
|
0x48260: add r1, r1, $0x10 # 4036040000000000
|
|
0x48278: mov DT_RELA, [r1].8 # c082040000000000
|
|
0x48290: add r2, r1, $0x8 # 4836040000000000
|
|
0x482a8: mov DT_RELASZ, [r2].8 # c000000000000000
|
|
#End of block
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Side channel attempt
|
|
|
|
My first attempt at a solver was really simple, I thought that maybe the
|
|
VM would check bytes one by one.
|
|
|
|
So I added a method to inject the flag into my interpreter's memory and tried
|
|
to bruteforce the first char, watching for the length of the execution trace every time.
|
|
|
|
But all 256 possible bytes gave the same number of instructions
|
|
|
|
At this points I was thinking about lifting the code a little more to reduce
|
|
the trace size before reading it, but I was in the mood to read 65000+ lines of the same 3 instructions.
|
|
|
|
## Analysing the execution trace
|
|
|
|
Just kidding I did not actually read the whole execution trace.
|
|
|
|
I knew that the flag start with `FCSC{`, so I dumped 2 execution trace:
|
|
|
|
* One with the flag as `FCSC{test`
|
|
* The other one with `HCSC{test`
|
|
|
|
I put them side by side (`FCSC{` on the left, `HCSC{` on the right), jumped right after the `read` call, and started comparing them, and lifting the code on paper.
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/trace_read.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
I will not show you the whole execution trace to keep your eyes safe, but
|
|
the VM starts by a bunch of `mov reg, imm` instructions to initialize some
|
|
variables.
|
|
|
|
And then a fun pattern appears:
|
|
|
|
### `add mem, reg, reg`
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/add_reg_reg.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
These three instructions together can actually be lifted to `add r13.b, r6, r13`
|
|
|
|
It is crucial to understand this simple pattern before we continue to how
|
|
branching are handled in this VM.
|
|
|
|
Start by looking the first instruction: it takes the value of `r13`, add 0,
|
|
and store it at `0x45a50`. The first thing to notice is that `add mem, reg,
|
|
$0x0` is actually equivalent to a `mov mem, reg`, but there is no such
|
|
instruction in our instruction set (`mov mem, [reg]` will deref the reg) thus the add instruction trick.
|
|
|
|
Then if you look the destination address, it points to the the next instruction `addend`. Looking at the comment, we know that the output value is `0x0` on 8 bytes.
|
|
|
|
So now when we look at the second instruction, it is indeed `add r13, r6,
|
|
$0x0`, but said immediate `$0x0` was patched by previous instruction, with the
|
|
value of `r13`, even if the instruction add an immediate, in this context,
|
|
the immediate was patched with a register. Thus performing a `add mem, reg, reg`
|
|
|
|
The third instruction simply zeroes out the 7 higher bytes of the `r13`
|
|
register, my disassembler did not lift the addresses of the higher bytes of
|
|
regs but trust me on this one.
|
|
|
|
The comment on the second instruction shows us that the addition had a result of `0x1` (64 bits little endian) (`r6` had value 1), so these 3 instructions simply increment `r13`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Lookup tables
|
|
|
|
I skipped a few instructions, all you need to know is that `r3` points
|
|
to the first byte of the flag, and that `r12` was initialized with a byte
|
|
coming from an array indexed with the same counter as the flag.
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/lut_lookup.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
The first block simply loads the current flag byte in `r11` (`0x46` = `'F'`)
|
|
and the second one basically substitutes the byte from the flag based on a lookup table.
|
|
|
|
The LuT is indexed based on the flag byte and `r12`, which I assume is some
|
|
sort of nonce to add the information of the position of the byte in the
|
|
flag during the substitution.
|
|
|
|
Here is a c equivalent I lifted on paper:
|
|
|
|
```c
|
|
uint64_t r12 = nonce[i];
|
|
uint64_t r11 = flag[i];
|
|
uint64_t r3 = (r11 << 32) + r12;
|
|
uint64_t *LuT = 0x49000;
|
|
r11 = *(LuT + r3);
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The next few blocks are not that important, they store the LuTed byte in memory, increment string iterators and decrement size counters
|
|
|
|
But then comes the one most important code pattern of this VM:
|
|
|
|
### Branching
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/for.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
These two blocks perform a branch
|
|
|
|
It essentially is a `test r7, r7; jne mem`
|
|
|
|
Here is how it works after lifting:
|
|
|
|
```c
|
|
// First block
|
|
jump_table = 0x59000;
|
|
r4 = jump_table[r7]; // r7 is remaining flag len
|
|
// Second block
|
|
r1 = r1 + 0x10 - 0xf0 + r4;
|
|
// DT_RELA = r1, r1 is the program counter
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
So `0x59000` contains a jump table indexed on the remaining flag size.
|
|
|
|
Here you can see at instruction `0x46628`, the jump offset is in the comment.
|
|
|
|
I noticed it changed when `r7` reached 0.
|
|
|
|
It is essentialy the first `for` loop iterating on the flag, applying lookup
|
|
tables on each byte.
|
|
|
|
### Flag checking
|
|
|
|
After that there is a really similar block of code, also performing lookups
|
|
of some sort I did not really bother to understand (as the ones of the
|
|
previous step) because I found a really interesting branch which was not a loop.
|
|
|
|
I notice a similar pattern than the for loop above, sligthly different but
|
|
still some kind of jump table.
|
|
|
|
What stroke me is that as you can see on the screenshot bellow, it was
|
|
the first time in the whole execution trace, that my purposely wrong flag, ran
|
|
to a different branch than the one starting with `FCSC{`
|
|
|
|
{{< image src="/svartalfheim/check.png" style="border-radius: 8px;" >}}
|
|
|
|
What I did not notice at first is that there are two different branchments in
|
|
the screenshot (with the jump offsets marked in red). I noticed it quickly and
|
|
backported it to my solver.
|
|
I do not actually know what is the meaning of these 2 checks regarding the
|
|
previous look up tables but all I know is that I needed to hit jump
|
|
offset `0x18` twice for a flag byte to be valid.
|
|
|
|
So I modified my interpreter to add a breakpoint at the addresses marked in red,
|
|
check the value moved in `r4` is `0x18`.
|
|
|
|
And then bruteforced byte by byte:
|
|
|
|
While bruteforcing the `n`th byte, I need to hit the breakpoint succesfully (with `0x18` in `r4`) `2*n` times. If the breakpoint check fails once then the byte is fucked up.
|
|
|
|
# Solver
|
|
|
|
Here is the complete solver code, with the interpreter, correct breakpoints and
|
|
bruteforcing
|
|
|
|
{{< code file="/static/svartalfheim/solve.py" language="python" >}}
|
|
|
|
```console
|
|
$ ./solve.py
|
|
bytearray(b'F\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00')
|
|
bytearray(b'FC\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00')
|
|
bytearray(b'FCS\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00')
|
|
...
|
|
bytearray(b'FCSC{162756828312aad562394d47c854134803a092d7f5b9eb795528f4a0f16f7c65}')
|
|
|
|
$ ./svartalfheim
|
|
Welcome to Svartalfheim
|
|
FCSC{162756828312aad562394d47c854134803a092d7f5b9eb795528f4a0f16f7c65}
|
|
Well done!
|
|
```
|