CAPEC

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

A Community Knowledge Resource for Building Secure Software

Home > CAPEC List > Individual CAPEC Dictionary Definition (Release 1.1)   View the CAPEC List

Individual CAPEC Dictionary Definition (Release 1.1)
Individual CAPEC Dictionary Definition (Release 1.1)

Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
Attack Pattern ID
Pattern Abstraction: Detailed

9

Typical Severity

High

Description

Summary

This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An attacker can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.

Attack Execution Flow

  1. 1- Attacker identifies command utilities exposed by the target host.

  2. 2- On the probing stage, the attacker interacts with the command utility and observes the results of its input. The attacker's goal is to uncover a buffer oveflow in the command utility. For instance the attacker may find that input data are not properly validated.

  3. 3- The attacker finds a buffer overflow vulnerability in the command utility and tries to exploit it. He crafts malicious code and injects it using the command utility. The attacker can at worst execute remote code on the target host.

Attack Prerequisites

The target host exposes a command-line utility to the user.

The command-line utility exposed by the target host has a buffer overflow vulnerability that can be exploited.

Typical Likelihood of Exploit

High

Methods of Attack
  • Injection
  • API Abuse
Examples-Instances

Description

Attack Example: HPUX passwd

A buffer overflow in the HPUX passwd command allows local users to gain root privileges via a command-line option.</AttackExample>
<AttackExample>Attack Example: Solaris getopt

A buffer overflow in Solaris’s getopt command (found in libc) allows local users to gain root privileges via a long argv[0].

Attacker Skill or Knowledge Required

Low : An attacker can simply overflow a buffer by inserting a long string into an attacker-modifiable injection vector. The result can be a DoS. High : Exploiting a buffer overflow to inject malicious code into the stack of a software system or even the heap can require a higher skill level.

Probing Techniques

The attacker can probe for services available on the target host. Many services may expose a command utility. For instance Telnet is a service which can be invoked through a command shell.

Solutions and Mitigations

Carefully review the service's implementation before making it available to user. For instance you can use manual or automated code review to uncover vulnerabilities such as buffer overflow.

Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.

Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.

Compiler-based canary mechanisms such as StackGuard, ProPolice and the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag. Unless this provides automatic bounds checking, it is not a complete solution.

Operational: Use OS-level preventative functionality. Not a complete solution.

Apply the latest patches to your user exposed services. This may not be a complete solution, specially against zero day attack.

Do not unnecessarily expose services.

Attack Motivation-Consequences
  • Privilege Escalation
  • Run Arbitrary Code
  • Data Modification
  • Denial of Service
  • Information Leakage
Injection Vector

The user supplied data.

Payload

The buffer overrun by the attacker.

Activation Zone

When the function returns control to the main program, it jumps to the return address portion of the stack frame. Unfortunately that return address may have been overwritten by the overflowed buffer and the address may contain a call to a privileged command or to a malicious code.

Payload Activation Impact

The most common is remote code execution.

Related Weaknesses
CWE-IDWeakness NameWeakness Relationship Type
120Unbounded Transfer ('Classic Buffer Overflow')Targeted
118Range ErrorsTargeted
119Failure to Constrain Operations within the Bounds of an Allocated Memory BufferTargeted
74Failure to Sanitize Data into a Different Plane (aka 'Injection')Targeted
20Insufficient Input ValidationTargeted
Related Attack Patterns
IDNameRelationship TypeRelationship Description
100Overflow BuffersMore Detailed
10Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesMore Detailed
Related Security Principles
  • Reluctance to trust
  • Defense in Depth
  • Least Privilege
Related Guidelines
  • Bound checking should be performed when copying data to a buffer.
Purpose

Penetration

CIA Impact
Confidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact
HighHighHigh
Technical Context
Architectural ParadigmFrameworkPlatformLanguage
AllAllAllAll
References

G. Hoglund and G. McGraw. Exploiting Software: How to Break Code. Addison-Wesley, February 2004.

CWE – Buffer Errors

Source
Submission(s)
SubmitterOrganizationDateComment
G. Hoglund and G. McGraw. Exploiting Software: How to Break Code. Addison-Wesley, February 2004.Cigital, Inc2007-03-01
Modification(s)
ModifierOrganizationDateComment
Eric DalciCigital, Inc2007-02-13Fleshed out content to CAPEC schema from the original descriptions in "Exploiting Software"
Sean BarnumCigital, Inc2007-03-05Review and revise
Richard StruseVOXEM, Inc2007-03-26Review and feedback leading to changes in Attack Execution Flow, Probing Techniques and Method of Attack
Sean BarnumCigital, Inc2007-04-13Modified pattern content according to review and feedback
Back to top
 

CAPEC is sponsored by the National Cyber Security Division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Vision and Technical Leadership provided by Cigital, Inc.

This Web site is hosted by The MITRE Corporation.
Copyright 2008, The MITRE Corporation.

Contact capec@mitre.org for more information.
Page Last Updated: April 18, 2008
Privacy policy
Terms of use
Contact us