Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pyload RCE (CVE-2024-39205) with js2py sandbox escape (CVE-2024-28397) #19640
Pyload RCE (CVE-2024-39205) with js2py sandbox escape (CVE-2024-28397) #19640
Changes from 3 commits
d2ef3cb
497ce5e
2ba8a6c
4e1f333
92e42a6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's cool that we're obfuscating the variable names - but if I were writing fingerprints for this - I'd just have a simple check for
__subclasses__
to detect issuesMaybe this should be obfuscated too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know if our
:Rex::Exploitation::ObfuscateJS
handles this or notThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Might have to swap out things like
let
forvar
for it to work, as I'm not sure how much modern syntax it supportsLikewise
for (var .. in ..) {
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This had crossed my mind but I wasn't exactly sure how I would have done it. I appreciate you bringing this up!
This is the javascript payload now after obfuscation:
I was playing with some of the other options but found just using the
opts = { "Strings" => true }
with dynamic method calls seemed to be the easiest way of doing things:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not a blocker; Just a bit of final golfing 🏌️
Since you can access object attributes with two notations
object.attribute
orobject['attribute']
. I believe if you swap to the latter syntax of__module__
or__name__
the full payload would be obfuscated fully without any strings that would be easy to match