Jasper Reports Library Code Injection

During the past year we had several projects where our target application used Jasper Reports in some way. In a few of the cases we found an API that offered to render a template along with some arguments into a PDF file. This was done with the help of the Jasper Reports Java library. Due to the way the library and the expression mechanism works, this endpoint gave us the possibility to inject Java code and gain remote code execution on the target systems.

In this blog post we want to provide an overview over the Jasper Reports Java library in terms of security especially with regard to expression injection attacks.

TL;DR; If you come across an API that lets you freely define a Jasper Report template you very likely have code execution. Or to put it differently: Never let Jasper Report templates be user or attacker controlled.

Continue reading “Jasper Reports Library Code Injection”

Continue reading

CVE-2020-0022 an Android 8.0-9.0 Bluetooth Zero-Click RCE – BlueFrag

Nowadays, Bluetooth is an integral part of mobile devices. Smartphones interconnect with smartwatches and wireless headphones. By default, most devices are configured to accept Bluetooth connections from any
nearby unauthenticated device. Bluetooth packets are processed by the Bluetooth chip (also called a controller), and then passed to the host (Android, Linux, etc.). Both, the firmware on the chip and the host Bluetooth subsystem, are a target for Remote Code Execution (RCE) attacks.

One feature that is available on most classic Bluetooth implementations is answering over Bluetooth pings. Everything an attacker needs to know is the device’s Bluetooth address. Even if the target is not discoverable, it typically accepts connections if it gets addressed. For example, an attacker can run l2ping, which establishes an L2CAP connection and sends echo requests to the remote target.

In the following, we describe a Bluetooth zero-click short-distance RCE exploit against Android 9, which got assigned CVE-2020-0022 . We go through all steps required to establish a remote shell on a Samsung Galaxy S10e, which was working on an up-to-date Android 9 when reporting the issue on November 3 2019. The initial flaw used for this exploit is still present in Android 10, but we utilize an additional bug in Bionic (Android’s libc implementation), which makes exploitation way easier. The bug was finally fixed in the security patch from 1.2.2020 in A-143894715. Here is a demo of the full proof of concept:

Continue reading “CVE-2020-0022 an Android 8.0-9.0 Bluetooth Zero-Click RCE – BlueFrag”

Continue reading

Analyzing a CVE-2013-3346/CVE-2013-5065 Exploit with peepdf

This is a guest post from Jose Miguel Esparza (@EternalTodo)


There are already some good blog posts talking about this exploit, but I think this is a really good example to show how peepdf works and what you can learn if you attend the workshop “Squeezing Exploit Kits and PDF Exploits” at Troopers14.  The mentioned exploit was using the Adobe Reader ToolButton Use-After-Free vulnerability to execute code in the victim’s machine and then the Windows privilege escalation 0day to bypass the Adobe sandbox and execute a new payload without restrictions.

Continue reading “Analyzing a CVE-2013-3346/CVE-2013-5065 Exploit with peepdf”

Continue reading

Exploiting Hyper-V: How We Discovered MS13-092

During a recent research project we performed an in-depth security assessment of Microsoft’s virtualization technologies, including Hyper-V and Azure. While we already had experience in discovering security vulnerabilities in other virtual environments (e.g. here and here), this was our first research project on the Microsoft virtualization stack and we took care to use a structured evaluation strategy to cover all potential attack vectors.
Part of our research concentrated on the Hyper-V hypervisor itself and we discovered a critical vulnerability which can be exploited by an unprivileged virtual machine to crash the hypervisor and potentially compromise other virtual machines on the same physical host. This bug was recently patched, see MS13-092 and our corresponding post.
Continue reading “Exploiting Hyper-V: How We Discovered MS13-092”

Continue reading

Analysis of Rails XML Parameter Parsing Vulnerability

This post tries to give an overview about the background and impact of the new Rails XML parameter parsing vulnerability patched today.

The bug

The root cause of the vulnerability is Rails handling of formatted parameters. In addition to standard GET and POST parameter formats, Rails can handle multiple different data encodings inside the body of POST requests. By default JSON and XML are supported. While support for JSON is widely used in production, the XML functionality does not seem to be known by many Rails developers.

XML parameter parsing

The code responsible for parsing these different data types is shown below:

# actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/middleware/params_parser.rb 
      Mime::XML => : xml_simple,
      Mime::JSON => :json
def parse_formatted_parameters(env)
        when Proc

        when : xml_simple, : xml_node
          data = Hash.from_xml(request.raw_post) || {}
        when :yaml
        when :json
          data = ActiveSupport::JSON.decode(request.raw_post)
          data = {:_json => data} unless data.is_a?(Hash)

Continue reading “Analysis of Rails XML Parameter Parsing Vulnerability”

Continue reading

Untrusted code or why exploit code should only be executed by professionals

In march 2012 Microsoft announced a critical vulnerability (Microsoft Security Bulletin MS12-020) related to RDP that affects all windows operating systems and allows remote code execution. A lot of security professionals are expecting almost the same impact as with MS08-067 (the conficker vulnerability) and that it will be only a matter of time, until we will spot reliable exploits in the wild. Only a few days later an exploit, working for all unpatched windows versions was released, so it seems that they were right ;-), but of course no one will run an exploit without investigating the code. So lets have a look into the exploit Code.

First we take a look into the Microsoft advisory to get some information about the vulnerability itself:

The vulnerability requires some “specifically crafted RDP packets” to be sent to the vulnerable system to trigger the problem. We should spot this trigger in the exploit:

OK, the trigger is there and we also see some shellcode, that will open a bindshell on TCP port 8888. The next step is to figure out, what the exploit is doing with this code:

The exploit code converts a lot of opcodes to the big endian format, that looks reasonable because the exploit claims to work on all affected windows versions. The last step is to verifiy, how all the stuff is sent to the vulnerable system:

We see that target IP address and the RDP port are assigned and collected from the command line, the RDP packet is generated and the “specifically crafted RDP packets” are sent to the target.Finally the shellcode is sent and we are ready to connect to a remote shell that listens on TCP port 8888. Game over ;-).

We have verified the exploit, so it’s time now to run it against some unpatched test system and see, if we can compromise all these unpatched boxes out there …

…JUST KIDDING, never ever do that and I’m not talking about the legal issues this time ;-). It is a quite common mistake by unexperienced testers to work in this way. The exploit code was gathered from an untrusted source, so it needs detailed investigations before you run it, not just a short walk-through. You have to ensure that you understand every line of code completely to avoid being targeted by yourself, even the shellcode and the trigger of the rdp example. So let’s digg a little bit deeper into this.

First we have to extract the shellcode and trigger (the opcodes) from the exploit for further analysis. I prefer a special editor for this task that has all needed functionality (and much more 😉 ) built-in. It’s a commercial tool called “010 Editor” that can be obtained here and is available as a windows and MAC OS X version.

Step 1
Copy just the trigger opcodes into a dedicated text file, don’t forget to remove the double quotes. The text files should look almost like this:


and shellcode:

Step 2
Use the editors replace function to replace “\x” with “0x” for the trigger and shellcode text files. Take the shellcode as an example, how the opcodes should look now:

Step 3
Mark all this hex data and copy it to the clipboard.

Step 4
Choose “File-New-New Hex File” from the “010 Editors” menu to create an empty hex file.

Step 5
Now choose “Edit-Paste From-Paste from Hex Text” to paste the data as hex data into the new hex file.

Step 6
Save both files (trigger and shellcode) as and

Now we would be ready to analyze the opcodes with some toolset, but I assume that all of you already spotted some very interesting stuff within the shellcode part ;-):

Yes, it looks like the shellcode doesn’t open a bindshell, it just erases parts of your hard drive on windows and your complete root partition on unix.

This is really GAME OVER, if you would have run the exploit without a detailed analysis on a productive system. This code is referenced with the following code:

def __init__(self, payload, shellcode):
super(RDPsocket, self).__init__(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
self.payload = payload
self.table = __import__("__builtin__").__dict__
self.shellcode = shellcode

and then executed using this code:

seeker = (struct.pack(">I", 0x6576616c)
read = self.table[seeker[0]]
return str(read(shellcode)), parsed

But in case that the shellcode wouldn’t have been so easily readable, there are more options for an easy analysis. Based on the shellcode emulation library libemu there are some tools available to find out what the shellcode is doing without reverse engineering it. SCDBG is one that runs on all unix based systems and also on windows, you can grab it here.

Let us see how SCDBG works with a short example shellcode:
scdbg -f
Loaded 150 bytes from file
Initilization Complete..
Max Steps: 2000000
Using base offset: 0x401000
40107aGetTempPath(len=104, buf=12fce4)
4010b2URLDownloadToFile(, C:\%TEMP%\dEbW.exe)

Stepcount 293883

So the example shellcode downloads a malicious file and executes it, let’s have a look at our shellocde now:
scdbg -f
Loaded 10d bytes from file
Initilization Complete..
Max Steps: 2000000
Using base offset: 0x401000
401002opcode 69 not supported

Stepcount 2

SCDBG fails to analyze the shellcode (for obvious reasons as we already know), so you can take this result as a good hint, that some stuff is hidden in the code and that you better shouldn’t run it.

Lessons learned

So finally, let’s summarize some lessons that every serious penetration tester should be aware of:

1. Never run any untrusted code (especially exploits) without a detailed analysis.
2. Ensure that you understand every line of code and this also includes the shellcode.
3. Before using untrusted code in a real pentest, verify it in a test environment (virtual machines are a good choice for that).
4. When using exploits on customer systems be aware that you’re running it on one of the assets of your customer! Don’t do that without your customers permission!
5. Your customer trusts your professional knowledge, so it’s your responsibility to avoid damaging any of your customers systems by mistake.

So happy practicing and enjoy your week 😉


Continue reading