Home > CAPEC List > CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links (Version 3.9)

CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links

Attack Pattern ID: 45
Abstraction: Detailed
View customized information:
Description
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
Likelihood Of Attack

High

Typical Severity

High

Relationships
Section HelpThis table shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf and ParentOf, and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
NatureTypeIDName
ChildOfStandard Attack PatternStandard Attack Pattern - A standard level attack pattern in CAPEC is focused on a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. It is often seen as a singular piece of a fully executed attack. A standard attack pattern is meant to provide sufficient details to understand the specific technique and how it attempts to accomplish a desired goal. A standard level attack pattern is a specific type of a more abstract meta level attack pattern.100Overflow Buffers
Section HelpThis table shows the views that this attack pattern belongs to and top level categories within that view.
Execution Flow
Explore

  1. Identify target application: The adversary identifies a target application or program that might load in certain files to memory.

Experiment

  1. Find injection vector: The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer.

    Techniques
    The adversary creates or modifies a symbolic link pointing to those files which contain an excessive amount of data. If creating a symbolic link to one of those files causes different behavior in the application, then an injection vector has been identified.

  2. Craft overflow file content: The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing.

    Techniques
    Create malicious shellcode that will execute when the program execution is returned to it.
    Use a NOP-sled in the overflow content to more easily "slide" into the malicious code. This is done so that the exact return address need not be correct, only in the range of all of the NOPs
Exploit

  1. Overflow the buffer: Using the specially crafted file content, the adversary creates a symbolic link from the identified resource to the malicious file, causing a targeted buffer overflow attack.

Prerequisites
The adversary can create symbolic link on the target host.
The target host does not perform correct boundary checking while consuming data from a resources.
Skills Required
[Level: Low]
An adversary can simply overflow a buffer by inserting a long string into an adversary-modifiable injection vector. The result can be a DoS.
[Level: 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.
Indicators
An adversary creating or modifying Symbolic links is a potential signal of attack in progress.
An adversary deleting temporary files can also be a sign that the adversary is trying to replace legitimate resources with malicious ones.
Consequences
Section HelpThis table specifies different individual consequences associated with the attack pattern. The Scope identifies the security property that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in their attack. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a pattern will be used to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
ScopeImpactLikelihood
Availability
Unreliable Execution
Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability
Execute Unauthorized Commands
Confidentiality
Read Data
Integrity
Modify Data
Mitigations
Pay attention to the fact that the resource you read from can be a replaced by a Symbolic link. You can do a Symlink check before reading the file and decide that this is not a legitimate way of accessing the resource.
Because Symlink can be modified by an adversary, make sure that the ones you read are located in protected directories.
Pay attention to the resource pointed to by your symlink links (See attack pattern named "Forced Symlink race"), they can be replaced by malicious resources.
Always check the size of the input data before copying to a buffer.
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.
Use OS-level preventative functionality. Not a complete solution.
Example Instances

The EFTP server has a buffer overflow that can be exploited if an adversary uploads a .lnk (link) file that contains more than 1,744 bytes. This is a classic example of an indirect buffer overflow. First the adversary uploads some content (the link file) and then the adversary causes the client consuming the data to be exploited. In this example, the ls command is exploited to compromise the server software.

References
[REF-1] G. Hoglund and G. McGraw. "Exploiting Software: How to Break Code". Addison-Wesley. 2004-02.
Content History
Submissions
Submission DateSubmitterOrganization
2014年06月23日
(Version 2.6)
CAPEC Content TeamThe MITRE Corporation
Modifications
Modification DateModifierOrganization
2018年07月31日
(Version 2.12)
CAPEC Content TeamThe MITRE Corporation
Updated References
2021年10月21日
(Version 3.6)
CAPEC Content TeamThe MITRE Corporation
Updated Execution_Flow
2022年02月22日
(Version 3.7)
CAPEC Content TeamThe MITRE Corporation
Updated Description, Example_Instances, Indicators, Mitigations, Prerequisites, Skills_Required
2022年09月29日
(Version 3.8)
CAPEC Content TeamThe MITRE Corporation
Updated Example_Instances
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Page Last Updated or Reviewed: July 31, 2018

Use of the Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC), and the associated references from this website are subject to the Terms of Use. Copyright © 2007–2025, The MITRE Corporation. CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /