Re: Advances In Windows Shellcode

From: sk <sk(at)scan-associates.net>
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 02:17:08 EST

The 91++ bytes shellcode not only uses hard code addresses, it also using hard coded socket descriptor of 0x11, which should _not_ work. (Anyone get it working?)

Perhaps what is missing is a routine to find socket descriptor of the current connection?

sk

>From: Ing. Bernardo Lopez (bloodk_at_prodigy.net.mx)
>Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 18:32:20 CST
>I know this is not the faster way but...

>Whit this you can split the includes and other extra stuff, just getting

>Have a nice day

>PS:Well then , my hipotetical method or by doing a C prog whit includes

>El mar, 31-12-2002 a las 23:02, Brett Moore escribió:
service
> pack, and there is not often times when shellcode space is extremely
limited
> so we should be happy with universal remote callback shellcode of ~300
shellcode.
> What evolved was an idea, and then shellcode which sends a remote shell
size
> of the post is ill formated, but those who seek the answer should be able
to
> get it work.
filing
> by the time I get back ;)

---

This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA) Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: https://alerts.securityfocus.com/ Received on Tue Jan 21 02:30:58 2003