Re: [Full-disclosure] VML Exploit vs. AV/IPS/IDS signatures

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Has anyone tested these against the (very) recent MS patch?

-JP

On 9/26/06, H D Moore <fdlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nice work Aviv! All of these methods, along with a few extras, are
> implemented in the Metasploit 2.6 version of this module. Last I checked,
> not a single AV or IPS could pick it up. This module should work on every
> version and service pack of Windows.
>
> http://metasploit.com/projects/Framework/exploits.html#ie_vml_rectfill
>
> -HD
>
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 09:04, avivra wrote:
> > I've used 5 simple methods, trying to evade being detected by the
> > signature: 1) I've replaced the location where EIP should jump when the
> > exploit is activated, with a different valid address.
> > 2) I've replaced the VML element from "rect" with one of the other VML
> > elements. 3) I've replaced the payload with a different valid shell
> > code. 4) I've replaced the namespace key with a random key.
> > 5) A combination of all of the above.
> >
> > Please note that when I changed the code using any of the methods, the
> > exploit still worked.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/