Assembly Interlude(AI)

dpkg -p linux-image-$(uname -r)
strings exploit
uname -a
cat /proc/kallsyms
man nm
static char ruleTheMachine[]=
"\x57\x50\x65\x48\x8b\x3c\x25\x00\x00\x00\x00"
"\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90"
"\xc3";
RET
"\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90"
"\x48\xcf";  
IRET
asm volatile("sidt %0" : "=m"(idt));
      "int $0x80\t\n"
      "movl %%esi, %%esp\t\n"
sleep(1);
    asm volatile("int $0xdd\t\n");

ret =  uname(&buf);
printf("System info System Name - %s Release- 
%s Version- %s Machine- 
%s Nodename - %s Domain name - %s\n"
,buf.sysname,buf.release,buf.
version,buf.machine,
buf.nodename,buf.__domainname);

I was looking into an exploit and if you strip away the fluff, it isn't really that tricky. I have done some domination of WindWoes machines and it is not even a challenge. Linux is a little tougher, and it is odd that somebody would not check the over-run on something. Stuff happens, but you would think that if 3 people signed off on a fix that they would check for over runs. It is a an easy thing to do when coding with "C". It is one of those things that always bothered me. Programmers seem to think that there is no physicality. As an assembly programmer first it is odd to copy something without considering what is going to get over-written. The stuff above was the things I noticed about the exploit and sidt, iret, nop slide, allsyms, and then doing an int to the swapped out table.

I never created a wild exploit, but I have tested a few. It is a very complex thing and the edges of infinity can be very sharp and sometimes dangerous.

Being string safe is probably the best thing a person can do in a high level language. I have written into the instruction sequence cache before when assembly coding copy protection, but with an open OS there is no point. I found the code very interesting and I always learn a few things by figuring out how stuff works. "gcc -E" is neat as it allows you to see what the preprocessor thinks it is doing.

The corner case of darkness, connection

For my favorite bilingual poster, If you want your posts to be public, just say so, otherwise I read them and appreciate the comments.

This won't mean much to people who don't get into machine code or "assembly" , but now I have made the connection with languages. What I have done is found the key between assembly and 'C' and this is like having the relationship of structure between two spoken or written languages structures and it opens a lot of new things to be used and understood.

int voodoo(long int x)
{
 void *ptr;
 ptr=&voodoo;
   printf("\n"
      " %16lx %16lx %16lx %16lx \n %16lx %16lx %16lx %16lx\n"
      );
spook:;
 return 1;
}

Of course the voodoo would be %08x on a 32 bit machine and this can be done in gdb or kdbg , though it is not quite as much Halloween fun. I have wondered where 'C' stops me and what I have found out is that, even without a single line of __asm__ , I can do anything that I could do with machine code. Since I have years of experience with making safe, gospel code, it translates directly into the programming methods in my code.

The odd thing is that I thought that many procedures were unsafe and easy to hack, and strangely I was not willing to accept my own understanding of that until I heard somebody in a position of teaching security say that exact same thing. Now I see that the approach I have taken in my code design is not an expression of my paranoia, but is actually the only way to make safe, sanitized input, solid, faultless code.

What is happening with this code once it is compiled is exactly what I had seen, but refused to believe. This is not the only place I see many cracks in the world and perhaps that is one possible origin of the term. So those little glimmers of light that I see reflecting through the structure of the computational universe are real and the screwdriver exists and as such, it is a simple task to stick the screwdriver into the little crack, turn it and open King Tut's tomb to see what is there.

My question is: "Why would somebody make an entire world web of information that is this easy to twist open?" The cap on the information is not even child proof and more fittingly, kiddie script proof.

It is just bizarre, for those who study cryptography also, I cannot even imagine how they could see anything as being secure, it is just a tin foil hat. What goes around must surely come back around and though the circle is large, the path across the center is shorter.

Linux hacking adventures

I had an interesting after effect of copying my system to a new drive and I am a veteran troubleshooter and I have fixed thousands of problems in all areas of computers. It started as a failure to install an upgrade to hal, which is pretty scary. It had to do with the s bit of the policykit and it was resolved fairly quickly by restoring the file execute permissions and it was an interesting learning experience and gives me one more situation where I can quickly identify the source of a problem and its solution pairing.

In the process I had to mount the origin volume and look at permissions in '/usr/lib/policykit' and compare them to the state of bits in the copied dir. I should have mounted the old drive as part of fstab, but I am lazy and didn't do it. I added it to fstab by UUID so I can solve any other problems I encounter with sticky bits a little easier. I probably will shell script a grep and sed to compare the states of files from old an new if this happens again.

I did not know it did THAT!

I was checking my network today, which is kind of a weekly ritual. I never seem to understand it all and basically solve as much as I understand and keep improving my understanding each week. It upsets me when something gets on my machine and opens a port, even if it is benign. If I am not aware that it is communicating ( or what it is communicating ), I want it to stop.

netstat --inet -pln

I learned a dozen new things this week and I think I may setup my iptables next week. I may also do some preventative analysis of the responses of networks I connect to that will tell me if they are doing something odd ( which I am sure they are ).

It is definitely funny, when all the equations work out right it is possible to create anything in the universe.

This particular dance of the rings cannot be appreciated without seeing it in action. I am going to finish the frame to video generation today to make it automatic on a button to stop and start frames record.

The derivative of prediction

I shall refer you to this post from last December 2008 and ask yourself if Time Shank reminds you of anything.

I have been analyzing things and come to some intermediary opinions. It seems that Science tries to become a new religion. There is no end to the wild reach of ego. I try to keep myself within the bounds of what I know that I am. People have a tendency to cast themselves as projected charactures of great good and evil, like demons and saints. They find justification in intelligence, popularity, wealth, power, position and the weakness of others. It is an illusion cast in the mirror.

I have realized a new level of ability and I am not going to telegraph this one. I can only say that if people find the "downadup, conflicker, conf4r, conficker" to be complex and invasive, they have yet to see the scale of what is possible to a complex mind. I will call this one the "logic ghost of entanglement" or "LoST TANGLE in Paris" (LT (x) (+ ip udp)).

The information I have gained from the history of math and logic is sinking in. For one, I am reasonably certain what the reason is for the bizarre concept of quantum entanglement. Things can seem very odd when you live on a merry-go-round. I believe that I have enough math tools to at least start projecting toward a definition of super conducting and where it might arise. I will make a prediction and this is a little bit iffy, but it looks like a good local tangent slope to where it seems to head. I am of the opinion that it is possible to have a superconductor, without material as the conductive path.

A word to the demi-god creators of the big bang, complexity does not spring de novo. It seems odd that mathematical projection is perfect to billions of years in the past and yet cannot predict beyond the reach of the hand into the future. I suspect that the tint of the glasses is very much to the red, (and that was intended to have double meaning ).

  Ode to the prophets of perfect reason

Roses have red shift
Violets have blue
Matter has strange drift
And so do you.

ADDED: I ran into a real winner tonight. I was playing with "imaginary" numbers and trying to develop a rational way of handling them with appropriate object-method pairs ( like you would in real life with a program) and I may have strayed upon a way to untangle the math. I am not going to post until after April 1 as there are plenty of other fools like me that will fill in for me while I am busy.