I know that ntdll is always present in the running process but is there a way (not necessarily supported/stable/guaranteed to work) to create a file/key without ever invoking ntdll functions?
NTDLL is at the bottom of the user-mode hierarchy, some of its functions switch to kernel mode to perform their tasks. If you want to duplicate its code then I suppose there is nothing stopping you from decompiling NtCreateFile to figure out how it works. Keep in mind that on 32-bit Windows there are 3 different instructions used to enter kernel mode (depending on the CPU type), the exact way and where the transition code lives changes between versions and the system call ids change between versions (and even service packs). You can find a list of system call ids here.
I assume you are doing this to avoid people hooking your calls? Detecting your calls? Either way, I can't recommend that you try to do this. Having to test on a huge set of different Windows versions is unmanageable and your software might break on a simple Windows update at any point.
You could create a custom kernel driver that does the work for you but then you are on the hook for getting all the security correct. At least you would have documented functions to call in the kernel.
Technically, registry is stored in %WINDIR%\System32\config / %WINDIR%\SysWOW64\config, excepted your own user's registry which is stored in your own profile, in %USERPROFILE%\NTUSER.DAT.
And now, the problems...
You don't normally have even a read access to this folder, and this is true even from an elevated process. You'll need to change (and mess up a lot...) the permissions to simply read it.
Even for your own registry, you can't open the binary file - "Sharing violation"... So, for system/local machine registries... You can't in fact open ANY registry file for the current machine/session. You would need to shut down your Windows and mount its system drive in another machine/OS to be able to open - and maybe edit - registry files.
Real registry isn't a simple file like the .reg files. It's a database (you can look here for some elements on its structure). Even when having a full access to the binary files, it won't be fun to add something inside "from scratch", without any sotware support.
So, it's technically possible - after all, Windows does it, right? But I doubt that it can be done in a reasonable amount of time, and I simply can't see any benefit from doing that since, as you said, ntdll is ALWAYS present, loaded and available to be used.
If the purpose is to hack the current machine and/or bypass some lack of privileges, it's a hopeless approach, since you'll need even more privileges to do it - like being able to open your case and extract the system drive or being able to boot on another operating system on the same machine... If it's possible, then there is already tools to access the offline Windows, found on a well-known "Boot CD", so still no need to write in registry without any Windows support.
Related
The idea is quite simple, i.e try to not follow the standard. For example to inject some thing to Firefox, malware need to know that the name of process is 'firefox.exe' or to inject some thing in internet explorer, malware need to know that process is 'iexplorer.exe'. But if Firefox or internet explorer do not follow that convention then it will be hard. Idea is to put a logic to change the name of process. For this the real 'firefox.exe' is replaced with our 'firefox.exe' file. This duplicate file is just a startup , the real Firefox executable is renamed to some `random string.exe'. When system triggers 'firefox.exe', this will open our 'firefox.exe' executable. This executable will in-turn open the real Firefox exectable as 'random string.exe' and also set the dummy process information using the 'SetProcessInformation' API. Using 'SetProcessInformation' we will set false location of the executable so malware is not able to find the real process based on the location.
Can any body suggest how feasible it is (provided SetProcessInformation can set false process location)?
Its probably not worth the trouble.
An attacker just needs a handle to the process, and if you rename the exe you just make it a tiny bit more difficult, but not that much. For example simply monitoring the processes that open the firefox history database or any process that does a DNS lookup for the firefox update server would be good enough for that. Or just MD5 summing all the exes and having a set of known binary images.
Basically if you have some code that can inject DLLs or code into foreign processes you have already lost control of the system.
We have a 3rd party native application (written in C I believe) which we want to run multiple instances of on a machine.
however the application reads and writes from one particular registry key in order to find the location of a config file. It reads this location continuously during its running. The registry key is in HKLM. this means that if we try and run 2 different instances of the app with 2 different locations for the config file the processes tread on each others toes.
Is it possible to 'virtualise' the registry (or run each process in a sandbox) that the processes are using so that they can both think they are writing to a single location, but actually they are writing and reading from somewhere different and they won't step on each others toes?
There are several options to virtualize a program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_application_creators
Creating your own virtualization software is much more complicated and would require an entire coarse on programming and hooking library calls using the windows SDK.
However an easier option that doesn't require setting up and running additional software for each copy of the program I suggest creating multiple copies of the program and hex editing each executable.
Make as many copies of the application as you need to run, then open the application file in a hex editor and search for the name of the registry key, ie:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager
Then change the last byte to a digit for each different version (1 byte, 0-9) ie:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manage1
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manage2
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manage3
For more than 10 differences (2 bytes, 00-99) use the last two bytes:
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manag01
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manag02
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manag03
While the solution from Joshua will work for this particular application, it might not work for others (f.e. where the registry path is constructed in code or when the application is signed).
Therefore, I would suggest using DLL injection and intercept calls to RegOpenKey(Ex), RegCreateKey(Ex), etc. That way, you can fiddle with the registry path before passing the call down to the real Windows Advapi32.dll.
Some great articles about API hooking:
API Hooking and DLL Injection on Windows
API Hooking with MS Detours
Yes, Sandboxie can run multiple instances of an app, each in it's own "Sandbox" which it believes to be the entire universe. But you can also access the data directly through the normal ways if you need to.
So in other words, Sandboxie lets you see all the registry changes that were made in the app's operations, and you can roll them back if you like.
Yes, you can virtualize the application, this technology is called Application Virtualization.
Try http://www.cameyo.com/. Cameyo is a software used to build virtual application.
A virtual application is a single EXE file that holds an entire application including files, DLLs and registry. Virtual apps are isolated from your system and can be copied & moved from one computer to another without installation.
I want that an exe file can't be copied or cut from the Windows file system to paste somewhere.
The exe is made in C#. which must have to be in only one PC.
I have worked with FileSystemWatcher, NSIS, Clipboard. but for all I need to detect whether that file is being copied.
I also have seen 'Prevent'(http www free-download-blog.com disable-cut-paste-copy-delete-rename-functions-using-prevent ), but I need to prevent only that particular exe from being copied or cut.
Any pointer or idea will help.
As others have suggested you won't be able to disable the copy/cut behaviour so easily.
An alternative would be to disable the execution of the copied versions. In your executable you could check many things like :
The path of the present executable is explicitly your_path
The name of the machine and user is the one you authorise
You could even prevent the file of being executed more than once using Windows register entries (if already 1 don't launch). It won't be perfect since any experimented user could tweak that out, assuming they are seeking for that. But depending on your users profile it might be sufficient.
If you need the exe to be executable, you need to permit loading it into memory.
As soon as you do, anyone can read it to memory using ReadFile and then write to an arbitrary location using WriteFile. No shell-detectable copying involved.
A good reading: Raymond's post and its comments on preventing copying.
Well, this is a hard problem. Even if you get explorer.exe to disable cut&paste, what prevents a user from using the command window? Or writing their own exe to do it? Booting up in linux and reading it?
Still, you have a few options (there will be more, most likely) which you could try:
Use the right permissions: Set the
permissions such that the users who
you don't want to cut&paste cannot
read the file.
Write a device driver which can hook
onto the filesystem calls and do that
for you.
Encrypt the file.
And some hacky options like:
Use the APPINIT_DLLS regkey to put your own dll to be loaded into each process ( I am not sure if this will work with console process though). Then on your dll load, do IAT hooking to replace the kernel32.dll file calls.
Replace kernel32.dll with your own version. Might have to do some messing around with the PE format etc.
There are no guarantees though. If for instance, you expect them to be able to execute it, but not copy it, you are probably stuck.
Any local admin will be able to undo anything you do to prevent copying. I can pretty much guarantee the program on that page you mention relies on a service or background process to prevent copy-and-paste, and therefore is easily circumventable. If your users are in a closed environment where none of them are admins and they have very limited rights to their PCs, then you have a chance.
if you could completly block explorer from copying or moving files, then all u need is a 3rd party software for copying files (but make sure it can filter file extensions) for example Copy Handler
Set up an ENVIRONMENT variable in your machine
In your code add a check
if (ENVIRONMENT Variable=='Same as defined')
//Execute code
else
//Suspend execution
To me its a no-brainer. The settings for my program go into the Windows Registry. After all, that's what it's for, isn't it?
But some programmers are still hesitant in using the Registry. They state that as it grows it slows down your computer. Or they state that it gets corrupted and causes your computer to malfunction.
So they write their own configuration files, or may use the INI files that Microsoft has depreciated since a few OS's ago.
From what I hear, the problems with the registry that occurred in early Windows OS's were mostly fixed as of Windows XP. It may be the plethora of companies that make Registry Cleaners that are keeping up the rumors that "registry bloat" and "orphaned entries" are still bad.
So I ask, is there any reason today not to use the Windows Registry to store my program configuration settings?
If the user does not allow registry access, you're screwed.
If the user reinstalls Windows and he wants to migrate his settings, it's much more complicated than with a simple file
Working with a config file means your app is portable
Much simpler for the user to change a setting manually
When you'll want to port your app to other OS, what are you gonna do with your registry settings ?
Windows Registry is bloated. Do you really want to contribute to this chaos?
For me, quickly installing, migrating and moving applications is a key point to productivity. I can't if I need to care of hundreds of possible registry keys. If there's a simple .ini or .cfg or .xml file somewhere in my user folder (or even the application directory if it is a portable app), migration is easy.
Often-heard argument pro registry: easy to write and read (assuming you're using plain WinAPI). Really? I consider the RegXXXfamily of functions pretty verbose ... too many function calls and typing work for storing just a few bits of information. So you always end up wrapping the registry away .. and now compare this effort with a simple text configuration file, maybe just key=value-like.
It depends, when you have small entries that need to read by multiple programs registry is ok, as database have locking issues, and config files are application based.
The problem happens when the user does not allow registry access, that are lots of software in the market that will show a pop up when anyone tries to modify registry and the user can cancel or allow the users. These programs are too common with the anti virus programs.
Putting your settings into the Registry means that if your user wants to move your program and its settings to another computer, he can't. Backup, ditto. Those settings are in a mysterious invisible place. I find this to be a hostile approach to one's users.
I've written numerous small-to-medium programs, and always used a .ini file. A tech-savy user can edit this file using an editor, he can check the settings in it, he can email it to a tech supporter, he can do a large variety of things that are significantly harder to do with registry entries.
And my programs don't contribute to slowing the computer down.
Personally speaking, I just don't like binary configuration of any type. I much prefer text file format which can be easily copied, edited, diffed & merged, and put under change control complete with history.
The last of these is the biggest reason not to use the registry - I can stick configuration files into SVN (or similar) with the full support given to text files, instead of having to treat it as a blob.
I don't really have much of an opinion for or against using the registry, but I'd like to note something... Many answers here indicate that registry access may be restricted for a certain user. I'd say the exact same thing goes for config files.
With registry you need to write to the "current user" to be fairly certain about having access (and should do so anyway, in many cases). Config files should be put in a user based area as well (e.g. AppData/Local) if you want "guaranteed" access without questions asked. As far as I know putting config files in "global" areas are as likely to yield access problems as the registry is.
I noticed when a file is executed on Windows (.exe or .dll), it is locked and cannot be deleted, moved or modified.
Linux, on the other hand, does not lock executing files and you can delete, move, or modify them.
Why does Windows lock when Linux does not? Is there an advantage to locking?
Linux has a reference-count mechanism, so you can delete the file while it is executing, and it will continue to exist as long as some process (Which previously opened it) has an open handle for it. The directory entry for the file is removed when you delete it, so it cannot be opened any more, but processes already using this file can still use it. Once all processes using this file terminate, the file is deleted automatically.
Windows does not have this capability, so it is forced to lock the file until all processes executing from it have finished.
I believe that the Linux behavior is preferable. There are probably some deep architectural reasons, but the prime (and simple) reason I find most compelling is that in Windows, you sometimes cannot delete a file, you have no idea why, and all you know is that some process is keeping it in use. In Linux it never happens.
As far as I know, linux does lock executables when they're running -- however, it locks the inode. This means that you can delete the "file" but the inode is still on the filesystem, untouched and all you really deleted is a link.
Unix programs use this way of thinking about the filesystem all the time, create a temporary file, open it, delete the name. Your file still exists but the name is freed up for others to use and no one else can see it.
Linux does lock the files. If you try to overwrite a file that's executing you will get "ETXTBUSY" (Text file busy). You can however remove the file, and the kernel will delete the file when the last reference to it is removed. (If the machine wasn't cleanly shutdown, these files are the cause of the "Deleted inode had zero d-time" messages when the filesystem is checked, they weren't fully deleted, because a running process had a reference to them, and now they are.)
This has some major advantages, you can upgrade a process thats running, by deleting the executable, replacing it, then restarting the process. Even init can be upgraded like this, replace the executable, and send it a signal, and it'll re-exec() itself, without requiring a reboot. (THis is normally done automatically by your package management system as part of it's upgrade)
Under windows, replacing a file that's in use appears to be a major hassle, generally requiring a reboot to make sure no processes are running.
There can be some problems, such as if you have an extremely large logfile, and you remove it, but forget to tell the process that was logging to that file to reopen the file, it'll hold the reference, and you'll wonder why your disk didn't suddenly get a lot more free space.
You can also use this trick under linux for temporary files. open the file, delete it, then continue to use the file. When your process exits (for no matter what reason -- even power failure), the file will be deleted.
Programs like lsof and fuser (or just poking around in /proc//fd) can show you what processes have files open that no longer have a name.
I think linux / unix doesn't use the same locking mechanics because they are built from the ground up as a multi-user system - which would expect the possibility of multiple users using the same file, maybe even for different purposes.
Is there an advantage to locking? Well, it could possibly reduce the amount of pointers that the OS would have to manage, but now a days the amount of savings is pretty negligible. The biggest advantage I can think of to locking is this: you save some user-viewable ambiguity. If user a is running a binary file, and user b deletes it, then the actual file has to stick around until user A's process completes. Yet, if User B or any other users look on the file system for it, they won't be able to find it - but it will continue to take up space. Not really a huge concern to me.
I think largely it's more of a question on backwards compatibility with window's file systems.
I think you're too absolute about Windows. Normally, it doesn't allocate swap space for the code part of an executable. Instead, it keeps a lock on the excutable & DLLs. If discarded code pages are needed again, they're simply reloaded. But with /SWAPRUN, these pages are kept in swap. This is used for executables on CD or network drives. Hence, windows doesn't need to lock these files.
For .NET, look at Shadow Copy.
If executed code in a file should be locked or not is a design decision and MS simply decided to lock, because it has clear advantages in practice: That way you don't need to know which code in which version is used by which application. This is a major problem with Linux default behaviour, which is simply ignored by most people. If system wide libs are replaced, you can't easily know which apps use code of such libs, most of the times the best you can get is that the package manager knows some users of those libs and restarts them. But that only works for general and well know things like maybe Postgres and its libs or such. The more interesting scenarios are if you develop your own application against some 3rd party libs and those get replaced, because most of the times the package manager simply doesn't know your app. And that's not only a problem of native C code or such, it can happen with almost everything: Just use httpd with mod_perl and some Perl libs installed using a package manager and let the package manager update those Perl libs because of any reason. It won't restart your httpd, simply because it doesn't know the dependencies. There are plenty of examples like this one, simply because any file can potentially contain code in use in memory by any runtime, think of Java, Python and all such things.
So there's a good reason to have the opinion that locking files by default may be a good choice. You don't need to agree with that reasons, though.
So what did MS do? They simply created an API which gives the calling application the chance to decide if files should be locked or not, but they decided that the default value of this API is to provide an exclusive lock to the first calling application. Have a look at the API around CreateFile and its dwShareMode argument. That is the reason why you might not be able to delete files in use by some application, it simply doesn't care about your use case, used the default values and therefore got an exclusive lock by Windows for a file.
Please don't believe in people telling you something about Windows doesn't use ref counting on HANDLEs or doesn't support Hardlinks or such, that is completely wrong. Almost every API using HANDLEs documents its behaviour regarding ref counting and you can easily read in almost any article about NTFS that it in deed does support Hardlinks and always did. Since Windows Vista it has support for Symlinks as well and the Support for Hardlinks has been improved by providing APIs to read all of those for a given file etc.
Additionally, you may simply want to have a look at the structures used to describe a file in e.g. Ext4 compared to those of NTFS, which have a lot in common. Both work with the concept of extents, which separates data from attributes like file name, and inodes are pretty much just another name for an older, but similar concept of that. Even Wikipedia lists both file systems in its article.
There's really a lot of FUD around file locking in Windows compared to other OSs on the net, just like about defragmentation. Some of this FUD can be ruled out by simply reading a bit on the Wikipedia.
NT variants have the
openfiles
command, which will show which processes have handles on which files. It does, however, require enabling the system global flag 'maintain objects list'
openfiles /local /?
tells you how to do this, and also that a performance penalty is incurred by doing so.
Executables are progressively mapped to memory when run. What that means is that portions of the executable are loaded as needed. If the file is swapped out prior to all sections being mapped, it could cause major instability.