Injecting Code into Windows Protected Processes using COM — Part 2

( Original text by James Forshaw )

In my previous blog I discussed a technique which combined numerous issues I’ve previously reported to Microsoft to inject arbitrary code into a PPL-WindowsTCB process. The techniques presented don’t work for exploiting the older, stronger Protected Processes (PP) for a few different reasons. This blog seeks to remedy this omission and provide details of how I was able to also hijack a full PP-WindowsTCB process without requiring administrator privileges. This is mainly an academic exercise, to see whether I can get code executing in a full PP as there’s not much more you can do inside a PP over a PPL.As a quick recap of the previous attack, I was able to identify a process which would run as PPL which also exposed a COM service. Specifically, this was the “.NET Runtime Optimization Service” which ships with the .NET framework and uses PPL at CodeGen level to apply cached signing levels to Ahead-of-Time compiled DLLs to allow them to be used with User-Mode Code Integrity (UMCI). By modifying the COM proxy configuration it was possible to induce a type confusion which allowed me to load an arbitrary DLL by hijacking the KnownDlls configuration. Once running code inside the PPL I could abuse a bug in the cached signing feature to create a DLL signed to load into any PPL and through that escalate to PPL-WindowsTCB level.

Finding a New Target

My first thought to exploit full PP would be to use the additional access we were granted from having code running at PPL-WindowsTCB. You might assume you could abuse the cached signed DLL to bypass security checks to load into a full PP. Unfortunately the kernel’s Code Integrity module ignores cached signing levels for full PP. How about KnownDlls in general? If we have administrator privileges and code running in PPL-WindowsTCB we can directly write to the KnownDlls object directory (see another of my blog posts link for why you need to be PPL) and try to get the PP to load an arbitrary DLL. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the previous blog, this also doesn’t work as full PP ignores KnownDlls. Even if it did load KnownDlls I don’t want to require administrator privileges to inject code into the process.I decided that it’d make sense to rerun my PowerShell script from the previous blog to discover which executables will run as full PP and at what level. On Windows 10 1803 there’s a significant number of executables which run as PP-Authenticode level, however only four executables would start with a more privileged level as shown in the following table.

PathSigning Level
C:\windows\system32\GenValObj.exeWindows
C:\windows\system32\sppsvc.exeWindows
C:\windows\system32\WerFaultSecure.exeWindowsTCB
C:\windows\system32\SgrmBroker.exeWindowsTCB

As I have no known route from PP-Windows level to PP-WindowsTCB level like I had with PPL, only two of the four executables are of interest, WerFaultSecure.exe and SgrmBroker.exe. I correlated these two executables against known COM service registrations, which turned up no results. That doesn’t mean these executables don’t expose a COM attack surface, the .NET executable I abused last time also doesn’t register its COM service, so I also performed some basic reverse engineering looking for COM usage.The SgrmBroker executable doesn’t do very much at all, it’s a wrapper around an isolated user mode application to implement runtime attestation of the system as part of Windows Defender System Guard and didn’t call into any COM APIs. WerFaultSecure also doesn’t seem to call into COM, however I already knew that WerFaultSecure can load COM objects, as Alex Ionescu used my original COM scriptlet code execution attack to get PPL-WindowsTCB level though hijacking a COM object load in WerFaultSecure. Even thoughWerFaultSecure didn’t expose a service if it could initialize COM perhaps there was something that I could abuse to get arbitrary code execution? To understand the attack surface of COM we need to understand how COM implements out-of-process COM servers and COM remoting in general.

Digging into COM Remoting Internals

Communication between a COM client and a COM server is over the MSRPC protocol, which is based on the Open Group’s DCE/RPC protocol. For local communication the transport used is Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) ports. At a high level communication occurs between a client and server based on the following diagram:

In order for a client to find the location of a server the process registers an ALPC endpoint with the DCOM activator in RPCSS ①. This endpoint is registered alongside the Object Exporter ID (OXID) of the server, which is a 64 bit randomly generated number assigned by RPCSS. When a client wants to connect to a server it must first ask RPCSS to resolve the server’s OXID value to an RPC endpoint ②. With the knowledge of the ALPC RPC endpoint the client can connect to the server and call methods on the COM object ③.The OXID value is discovered either from an out-of-process (OOP) COM activation result or via a marshaledObject Reference (OBJREF) structure. Under the hood the client calls the ResolveOxid method on RPCSS’sIObjectExporter RPC interface. The prototype of ResolveOxid is as follows:interface IObjectExporter {  // …  error_status_t ResolveOxid([in] handle_t hRpc,[in] OXID* pOxid,[in] unsigned short cRequestedProtseqs,[in] unsigned short arRequestedProtseqs[],[out, ref] DUALSTRINGARRAY** ppdsaOxidBindings,[out, ref] IPID* pipidRemUnknown,[out, ref] DWORD* pAuthnHint);In the prototype we can see the OXID to resolve is being passed in the pOxid parameter and the server returns an array of Dual String Bindings which represent RPC endpoints to connect to for this OXID value. The server also returns two other pieces of information, an Authentication Level Hint (pAuthnHint) which we can safely ignore and the IPID of the IRemUnknown interface (pipidRemUnknown) which we can’t.An IPID is a GUID value called the Interface Process ID. This represents the unique identifier for a COM interface inside the server, and it’s needed to communicate with the correct COM object as it allows the single RPC endpoint to multiplex multiple interfaces over one connection. The IRemUnknown interface is a default COM interface every COM server must implement as it’s used to query for new IPIDs on an existing object (using RemQueryInterface) and maintain the remote object’s reference count (through RemAddRefand RemRelease methods). As this interface must always exist regardless of whether an actual COM server is exported and the IPID can be discovered through resolving the server’s OXID, I wondered what other methods the interface supported in case there was anything I could leverage to get code execution.The COM runtime code maintains a database of all IPIDs as it needs to lookup the server object when it receives a request for calling a method. If we know the structure of this database we could discover where the IRemUnknown interface is implemented, parse its methods and find out what other features it supports. Fortunately I’ve done the work of reverse engineering the database format in my OleViewDotNet tool, specifically the command Get-ComProcess in the PowerShell module. If we run the command against a process which uses COM, but doesn’t actually implement a COM server (such as notepad) we can try and identify the correct IPID.

In this example screenshot there’s actually two IPIDs exported, IRundown and a Windows.Foundationinterface. The Windows.Foundation interface we can safely ignore, but IRundown looks more interesting. In fact if you perform the same check on any COM process you’ll discover they also have IRundown interfaces exported. Are we not expecting an IRemUnknown interface though? If we pass the ResolveMethodNamesand ParseStubMethods parameters to Get-ComProcess, the command will try and parse method parameters for the interface and lookup names based on public symbols. With the parsed interface data we can pass the IPID object to the Format-ComProxy command to get a basic text representation of theIRundown interface. After cleanup the IRundown interface looks like the following:[uuid(«00000134-0000-0000-c000-000000000046»)]interface IRundown : IUnknown {   HRESULT RemQueryInterface(…);   HRESULT RemAddRef(…);   HRESULT RemRelease(…);   HRESULT RemQueryInterface2(…);   HRESULT RemChangeRef(…);   HRESULT DoCallback([in] struct XAptCallback* pCallbackData);   HRESULT DoNonreentrantCallback([in] struct XAptCallback* pCallbackData);   HRESULT AcknowledgeMarshalingSets(…);   HRESULT GetInterfaceNameFromIPID(…);   HRESULT RundownOid(…);}This interface is a superset of IRemUnknown, it implements the methods such as RemQueryInterface and then adds some more additional methods for good measure. What really interested me was the DoCallbackand DoNonreentrantCallback methods, they sound like they might execute a “callback” of some sort. Perhaps we can abuse these methods? Let’s look at the implementation of DoCallback based on a bit of RE (DoNonreentrantCallback just delegates to DoCallback internally so we don’t need to treat it specially):struct XAptCallback { void* pfnCallback; void* pParam; void* pServerCtx; void* pUnk; void* iid; int   iMethod; GUID  guidProcessSecret;};HRESULT CRemoteUnknown::DoCallback(XAptCallback *pCallbackData){ CProcessSecret::GetProcessSecret(&pguidProcessSecret);if(!memcmp(&pguidProcessSecret,&pCallbackData->guidProcessSecret,sizeof(GUID))){if(pCallbackData->pServerCtx == GetCurrentContext()){return pCallbackData->pfnCallback(pCallbackData->pParam);}else{return SwitchForCallback(                  pCallbackData->pServerCtx,                  pCallbackData->pfnCallback,                  pCallbackData->pParam);}}return E_INVALIDARG;}This method is very interesting, it takes a structure containing a pointer to a method to call and an arbitrary parameter and executes the pointer. The only restrictions on calling the arbitrary method is you must know ahead of time a randomly generated GUID value, the process secret, and the address of a server context. The checking of a per-process random value is a common security pattern in COM APIs and is typically used to restrict functionality to only in-process callers. I abused something similar in the Free-Threaded Marshaler way back in 2014.What is the purpose of DoCallback? The COM runtime creates a new IRundown interface for every COM apartment that’s initialized. This is actually important as calling methods between apartments, say calling a STA object from a MTA, you need to call the appropriate IRemUnknown methods in the correct apartment. Therefore while the developers were there they added a few more methods which would be useful for calling between apartments, including a general “call anything you like” method. This is used by the internals of the COM runtime and is exposed indirectly through methods such as CoCreateObjectInContext. To prevent theDoCallback method being abused OOP the per-process secret is checked which should limit it to only in-process callers, unless an external process can read the secret from memory.

Abusing DoCallback

We have a primitive to execute arbitrary code within any process which has initialized COM by invoking theDoCallback method, which should include a PP. In order to successfully call arbitrary code we need to know four pieces of information:

  1. The ALPC port that the COM process is listening on.
  2. The IPID of the IRundown interface.
  3. The initialized process secret value.
  4. The address of a valid context, ideally the same value that GetCurrentContext returns to call on the same RPC thread.

Getting the ALPC port and the IPID is easy, if the process exposes a COM server, as both will be provided during OXID resolving. Unfortunately WerFaultSecure doesn’t expose a COM object we can create so that angle wouldn’t be open to us, leaving us with a problem we need to solve. Extracting the process secret and context value requires reading the contents of process memory. This is another problem, one of the intentional security features of PP is preventing a non-PP process from reading memory from a PP process. How are we going to solve these two problems?Talking this through with Alex at Recon we came up with a possible attack if you have administrator access. Even being an administrator doesn’t allow you to read memory directly from a PP process. We could have loaded a driver, but that would break PP entirely, so we considered how to do it without needing kernel code execution.First and easiest, the ALPC port and IPID can be extracted from RPCSS. The RPCSS service does not run protected (even PPL) so this is possible to do without any clever tricks other than knowing where the values are stored in memory. For the context pointer, we should be able to brute force the location as there’s likely to be only a narrow range of memory locations to test, made slightly easier if we use the 32 bit version ofWerFaultSecure.Extracting the secret is somewhat harder. The secret is initialized in writable memory and therefore ends up in the process’ working set once it’s modified. As the page isn’t locked it will be eligible for paging if the memory conditions are right. Therefore if we could force the page containing the secret to be paged to disk we could read it even though it came from a PP process. As an administrator, we can perform the following to steal the secret:

  1. Ensure the secret is initialized and the page is modified.
  2. Force the process to trim its working set, this should ensure the modified page containing the secret ends up paged to disk (eventually).
  3. Create a kernel memory crash dump file using the NtSystemDebugControl system call. The crash dump can be created by an administrator without kernel debugging being enabled and will contain all live memory in the kernel. Note this doesn’t actually crash the system.
  4. Parse the crash dump for the Page Table Entry of the page containing the secret value. The PTE should disclose where in the paging file on disk the paged data is located.
  5. Open the volume containing the paging file for read access, parse the NTFS structures to find the paging file and then find the paged data and extract the secret.

After coming up with this attack it seemed far too much like hard work and needed administrator privileges which I wanted to avoid. I needed to come up with an alternative solution.

Using WerFaultSecure for its Original Purpose

Up to this point I’ve been discussing WerFaultSecure as a process that can be abused to get arbitrary code running inside a PP/PPL. I’ve not really described why the process can run at the maximum PP/PPL levels.WerFaultSecure is used by the Windows Error Reporting service to create crash dumps from protected processes. Therefore it needs to run at elevated PP levels to ensure it can dump any possible user-mode PP. Why can we not just get WerFaultSecure to create a crash dump of itself, which would leak the contents of process memory and allow us to extract any information we require?The reason we can’t use WerFaultSecure is it encrypts the contents of the crash dump before writing it to disk. The encryption is done in a way to only allow Microsoft to decrypt the crash dump, using asymmetric encryption to protect a random session key which can be provided to the Microsoft WER web service. Outside of a weakness in Microsoft’s implementation or a new cryptographic attack against the primitives being used getting the encrypted data seems like a non-starter.However, it wasn’t always this way. In 2014 Alex presented at NoSuchCon about PPL and discussed a bug he’d discovered in how WerFaultSecure created encrypted dump files. It used a two step process, first it wrote out the crash dump unencrypted, then it encrypted the crash dump. Perhaps you can spot the flaw? It was possible to steal the unencrypted crash dump. Due to the way WerFaultSecure was called it accepted two file handles, one for the unencrypted dump and one for the encrypted dump. By calling WerFaultSecure directly the unencrypted dump would never be deleted which means that you don’t even need to race the encryption process.There’s one problem with this, it was fixed in 2015 in MS15-006. After that fix WerFaultSecure encrypted the crash dump directly, it never ends up on disk unencrypted at any point. But that got me thinking, while they might have fixed the bug going forward what prevents us from taking the old vulnerable version ofWerFaultSecure from Windows 8.1 and executing it on Windows 10? I downloaded the ISO for Windows 8.1 from Microsoft’s website (link), extracted the binary and tested it, with predictable results:

We can take the vulnerable version of WerFaultSecure from Windows 8.1 and it will run quite happily on Windows 10 at PP-WindowsTCB level. Why? It’s unclear, but due to the way PP is secured all the trust is based on the signed executable. As the signature of the executable is still valid the OS just trusts it can be run at the requested protection level. Presumably there must be some way that Microsoft can block specific executables, although at least they can’t just revoke their own signing certificates. Perhaps OS binaries should have an EKU in the certificate which indicates what version they’re designed to run on? After all Microsoft already added a new EKU when moving from Windows 8 to 8.1 to block downgrade attacks to bypass WinRT UMCI signing so generalizing might make some sense, especially for certain PP levels.After a little bit of RE and reference to Alex’s presentation I was able to work out the various parameters I needed to be passed to the WerFaultSecure process to perform a dump of a PP:

ParameterDescription
/hEnable secure dump mode.
/pid {pid}Specify the Process ID to dump.
/tid {tid}Specify the Thread ID in the process to dump.
/file {handle}Specify a handle to a writable file for the unencrypted crash dump
/encfile {handle}Specify a handle to a writable file for the encrypted crash dump
/cancel {handle}Specify a handle to an event to indicate the dump should be cancelled
/type {flags}Specify MIMDUMPTYPE flags for call to MiniDumpWriteDump

This gives us everything we need to complete the exploit. We don’t need administrator privileges to start the old version of WerFaultSecure as PP-WindowsTCB. We can get it to dump another copy of WerFaultSecurewith COM initialized and use the crash dump to extract all the information we need including the ALPC Port and IPID needed to communicate. We don’t need to write our own crash dump parser as the Debug Engine API which comes installed with Windows can be used. Once we’ve extracted all the information we need we can call DoCallback and invoke arbitrary code.

Putting it All Together

There’s still two things we need to complete the exploit, how to get WerFaultSecure to start up COM and what we can call to get completely arbitrary code running inside the PP-WindowsTCB process.Let’s tackle the first part, how to get COM started. As I mentioned earlier, WerFaultSecure doesn’t directly call any COM methods, but Alex had clearly used it before so to save time I just asked him. The trick was to get WerFaultSecure to dump an AppContainer process, this results in a call to the methodCCrashReport::ExemptFromPlmHandling inside the FaultRep DLL resulting in the loading of CLSID{07FC2B94-5285-417E-8AC3-C2CE5240B0FA}, which resolves to an undocumented COM object. All that matters is this allows WerFaultSecure to initialize COM.Unfortunately I’ve not been entirely truthful during my description of how COM remoting is setup. Just loading a COM object is not always sufficient to initialize the IRundown interface or the RPC endpoint. This makes sense, if all COM calls are to code within the same apartment then why bother to initialize the entire remoting code for COM. In this case even though we can make WerFaultSecure load a COM object it doesn’t meet the conditions to setup remoting. What can we do to convince the COM runtime that we’d really like it to initialize? One possibility is to change the COM registration from an in-process class to an OOP class. As shown in the screenshot below the COM registration is being queried first from HKEY_CURRENT_USER which means we can hijack it without needing administrator privileges.

Unfortunately looking at the code this won’t work, a cut down version is shown below:HRESULT CCrashReport::ExemptFromPlmHandling(DWORD dwProcessId){ CoInitializeEx(NULL, COINIT_APARTMENTTHREADED); IOSTaskCompletion* inf; HRESULT hr = CoCreateInstance(CLSID_OSTaskCompletion,NULL, CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER, IID_PPV_ARGS(&inf));if(SUCCEEDED(hr)){   // Open process and disable PLM handling. }}The code passes the flag, CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER to CoCreateInstance. This flag limits the lookup code in the COM runtime to only look for in-process class registrations. Even if we replace the registration with one for an OOP class the COM runtime would just ignore it. Fortunately there’s another way, the code is initializing the current thread’s COM apartment as a STA using the COINIT_APARTMENTTHREADED flag with CoInitializeEx. Looking at the registration of the COM object its threading model is set to “Both”. What this means in practice is the object supports being called directly from either a STA or a MTA.However, if the threading model was instead set to “Free” then the object only supports direct calls from an MTA, which means the COM runtime will have to enable remoting, create the object in an MTA (using something similar to DoCallback) then marshal calls to that object from the original apartment. Once COM starts remoting it initializes all remote features including IRundown. As we can hijack the server registration we can just change the threading model, this will cause WerFaultSecure to start COM remoting which we can now exploit.What about the second part, what can we call inside the process to execute arbitrary code? Anything we call using DoCallback must meet the following criteria, to avoid undefined behavior:

  1. Only takes one pointer sized parameter.
  2. Only the lower 32 bits of the call are returned as the HRESULT if we need it.
  3. The callsite is guarded by CFG so it must be something which is a valid indirect call target.

As WerFaultSecure isn’t doing anything special then at a minimum any DLL exported function should be a valid indirect call target. LoadLibrary clearly meets our criteria as it takes a single parameter which is a pointer to the DLL path and we don’t really care about the return value so the truncation isn’t important. We can’t just load any DLL as it must be correctly signed, but what about hijacking KnownDlls?Wait, didn’t I say that PP can’t load from KnownDlls? Yes they can’t but only because the value of theLdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle global variable is always set to NULL during process initialization. When the DLL loader checks for the presence of a known DLL if the handle is NULL the check returns immediately. However if the handle has a value it will do the normal check and just like in PPL no additional security checks are performed if the process maps an image from an existing section object. Therefore if we can modify the LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle global variable to point to a directory object inherited into the PP we can get it to load an arbitrary DLL.The final piece of the puzzle is finding an exported function which we can call to write an arbitrary value into the global variable. This turns out to be harder than expected. The ideal function would be one which takes a single pointer value argument and writes to that location with no other side effects. After a number of false starts (including trying to use gets) I settled on the pair, SetProcessDefaultLayout andGetProcessDefaultLayout in USER32. The set function takes a single value which is a set of flags and stores it in a global location (actually in the kernel, but good enough). The get method will then write that value to an arbitrary pointer. This isn’t perfect as the values we can set and therefore write are limited to the numbers 0-7, however by offsetting the pointer in the get calls we can write a value of the form 0x0?0?0?0? where the ?can be any value between 0 and 7. As the value just has to refer to the handle inside a process under our control we can easily craft the handle to meet these strict requirements.

Wrapping Up

In conclusion to get arbitrary code execution inside a PP-WindowsTCB without administrator privileges process we can do the following:

  1. Create a fake KnownDlls directory, duplicating the handle until it meets a pattern suitable for writing through Get/SetProcessDefaultLayout. Mark the handle as inheritable.
  2. Create the COM object hijack for CLSID {07FC2B94-5285-417E-8AC3-C2CE5240B0FA} with the ThreadingModel set to “Free”.
  3. Start Windows 10 WerFaultSecure at PP-WindowsTCB level and request a crash dump from an AppContainer process. During process creation the fake KnownDlls must be added to ensure it’s inherited into the new process.
  4. Wait until COM has initialized then use Windows 8.1 WerFaultSecure to dump the process memory of the target.
  5. Parse the crash dump to discover the process secret, context pointer and IPID for IRundown.
  6. Connect to the IRundown interface and use DoCallback with Get/SetProcessDefaultLayout to modify the LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle global variable to the handle value created in 1.
  7. Call DoCallback again to call LoadLibrary with a name to load from our fake KnownDlls.

This process works on all supported versions of Windows 10 including 1809. It’s worth noting that invokingDoCallback can be used with any process where you can read the contents of memory and the process has initialized COM remoting. For example, if you had an arbitrary memory disclosure vulnerability in a privileged COM service you could use this attack to convert the arbitrary read into arbitrary execute. As I don’t tend to look for memory corruption/memory disclosure vulnerabilities perhaps this behavior is of more use to others.
That concludes my series of attacking Windows protected processes. I think it demonstrates that preventing a user from attacking processes which share resources, such as registry and files is ultimately doomed to fail. This is probably why Microsoft do not support PP/PPL as a security boundary. Isolated User Mode seems a much stronger primitive, although that does come with additional resource requirements which PP/PPL doesn’t for the most part.  I wouldn’t be surprised if newer versions of Windows 10, by which I mean after version 1809, will try to mitigate these attacks in some way, but you’ll almost certainly be able to find a bypass.

Реклама

Injecting Code into Windows Protected Processes using COM — Part 1

( Original text by James Forshaw )

At Recon Montreal 2018 I presented “Unknown Known DLLs and other Code Integrity Trust Violations” withAlex Ionescu. We described the implementation of Microsoft Windows’ Code Integrity mechanisms and how Microsoft implemented Protected Processes (PP). As part of that I demonstrated various ways of bypassing Protected Process Light (PPL), some requiring administrator privileges, others not.In this blog I’m going to describe the process I went through to discover a way of injecting code into a PPL on Windows 10 1803. As the only issue Microsoft considered to be violating a defended security boundary has now been fixed I can discuss the exploit in more detail.

Background on Windows Protected Processes

The origins of the Windows Protected Process (PP) model stretch back to Vista where it was introduced to protect DRM processes. The protected process model was heavily restricted, limiting loaded DLLs to a subset of code installed with the operating system. Also for an executable to be considered eligible to be started protected it must be signed with a specific Microsoft certificate which is embedded in the binary. One protection that the kernel enforced is that a non-protected process couldn’t open a handle to a protected process with enough rights to inject arbitrary code or read memory.In Windows 8.1 a new mechanism was introduced, Protected Process Light (PPL), which made the protection more generalized. PPL loosened some of the restrictions on what DLLs were considered valid for loading into a protected process and introduced different signing requirements for the main executable. Another big change was the introduction of a set of signing levels to separate out different types of protected processes. A PPL in one level can open for full access any process at the same signing level or below, with a restricted set of access granted to levels above. These signing levels were extended to the old PP model, a PP at one level can open all PP and PPL at the same signing level or below, however the reverse was not true, a PPL can never open a PP at any signing level for full access. Some of the levels and this relationship are shown below:

Signing levels allow Microsoft to open up protected processes to third-parties, although at the current time the only type of protected process that a third party can create is an Anti-Malware PPL. The Anti-Malware level is special as it allows the third party to add additional permitted signing keys by registering an Early Launch Anti-Malware (ELAM) certificate. There is also Microsoft’s TruePlay, which is an Anti-Cheat technology for games which uses components of PPL but it isn’t really important for this discussion.I could spend a lot of this blog post describing how PP and PPL work under the hood, but I recommend reading the blog post series by Alex Ionescu instead (Parts 12 and 3) which will do a better job. While the blog posts are primarily based on Windows 8.1, most of the concepts haven’t changed substantially in Windows 10.I’ve written about Protected Processes before [link], in the form of the custom implementation by Oracle in their VirtualBox virtualization platform on Windows. The blog showed how I bypassed the process protection using multiple different techniques. What I didn’t mention at the time was the first technique I described, injecting JScript code into the process, also worked against Microsoft’s PPL implementation. I reported that I could inject arbitrary code into a PPL to Microsoft (see Issue 1336) from an abundance of caution in case Microsoft wanted to fix it. In this case Microsoft decided it wouldn’t be fixed as a security bulletin. However Microsoft did fix the issue in the next major release on Windows (version 1803) by adding the following code to CI.DLL, the Kernel’s Code Integrity library:UNICODE_STRING g_BlockedDllsForPPL[]={
 DECLARE_USTR(«scrobj.dll»),
 DECLARE_USTR(«scrrun.dll»),
 DECLARE_USTR(«jscript.dll»),
 DECLARE_USTR(«jscript9.dll»),
 DECLARE_USTR(«vbscript.dll»)
};

NTSTATUS CipMitigatePPLBypassThroughInterpreters(PEPROCESS Process,
                                                LPBYTE Image,
                                                SIZE_T ImageSize){
if(!PsIsProtectedProcess(Process))
return STATUS_SUCCESS;

 UNICODE_STRING OriginalImageName;
 // Get the original filename from the image resources.
 SIPolicyGetOriginalFilenameAndVersionFromImageBase(
     Image, ImageSize,&OriginalImageName);
for(int i = 0; i < _countof(g_BlockedDllsForPPL);++i){
if(RtlEqualUnicodeString(g_BlockedDllsForPPL[i],
&OriginalImageName, TRUE)){
return STATUS_DYNAMIC_CODE_BLOCKED;
}
}
return STATUS_SUCCESS;
}The fix checks the original file name in the resource section of the image being loaded against a blacklist of 5 DLLs. The blacklist includes DLLs such as JSCRIPT.DLL, which implements the original JScript scripting engine, and SCROBJ.DLL, which implements scriptlet objects. If the kernel detects a PP or PPL loading one of these DLLs the image load is rejected with STATUS_DYNAMIC_CODE_BLOCKED. This kills my exploit, if you modify the resource section of one of the listed DLLs the signature of the image will be invalidated resulting in the image load failing due to a cryptographic hash mismatch. It’s actually the same fix that Oracle used to block the attack in VirtualBox, although that was implemented in user-mode.

Finding New Targets

The previous injection technique using script code was a generic technique that worked on any PPL which loaded a COM object. With the technique fixed I decided to go back and look at what executables will load as a PPL to see if they have any obvious vulnerabilities I could exploit to get arbitrary code execution. I could have chosen to go after a full PP, but PPL seemed the easier of the two and I’ve got to start somewhere. There’s so many ways to inject into a PPL if we could just get administrator privileges, the least of which is just loading a kernel driver. For that reason any vulnerability I discover must work from a normal user account. Also I wanted to get the highest signing level I can get, which means PPL at Windows TCB signing level.The first step was to identify executables which run as a protected process, this gives us the maximum attack surface to analyze for vulnerabilities. Based on the blog posts from Alex it seemed that in order to be loaded as PP or PPL the signing certificate needs a special Object Identifier (OID) in the certificate’s Enhanced Key Usage (EKU) extension. There are separate OID for PP and PPL; we can see this below with a comparison between WERFAULTSECURE.EXE, which can run as PP/PPL, and CSRSS.EXE, which can only run as PPL.

I decided to look for executables which have an embedded signature with these EKU OIDs and that’ll give me a list of all executables to look for exploitable behavior. I wrote the Get-EmbeddedAuthenticodeSignaturecmdlet for my NtObjectManager PowerShell module to extract this information.At this point I realized there was a problem with the approach of relying on the signing certificate, there’s a lot of binaries I expected to be allowed to run as PP or PPL which were missing from the list I generated. As PP was originally designed for DRM there was no obvious executable to handle the Protected Media Pathsuch as AUDIODG.EXE. Also, based on my previous research into Device Guard and Windows 10S, I knew there must be an executable in the .NET framework which could run as PPL to add cached signing level information to NGEN generated binaries (NGEN is an Ahead-of-Time JIT to convert a .NET assembly into native code). The criteria for PP/PPL were more fluid than I expected. Instead of doing static analysis I decided to perform dynamic analysis, just start protected every executable I could enumerate and query the protection level granted. I wrote the following script to test a single executable:Import-Module NtObjectManagerfunction Test-ProtectedProcess {[CmdletBinding()]   param([Parameter(Mandatory, ValueFromPipelineByPropertyName)][string]$FullName,[NtApiDotNet.PsProtectedType]$ProtectedType= 0,[NtApiDotNet.PsProtectedSigner]$ProtectedSigner= 0       )   BEGIN {$config= New-NtProcessConfig abc ProcessFlags ProtectedProcess `           ThreadFlags Suspended TerminateOnDispose `           ProtectedType $ProtectedType `           ProtectedSigner $ProtectedSigner}   PROCESS {$path= Get-NtFilePath $FullName       Write-Host $path       try {           Use-NtObject($p= New-NtProcess $pathConfig $config){$prot=$p.Process.Protection               $props= @{                   Path=$path;                   Type=$prot.Type;                   Signer=$prot.Signer;                   Level=$prot.Level.ToString(«X»);}$obj= New-Object –TypeName PSObject –Prop $props               Write-Output $obj}} catch {}}}When this script is executed a function is defined, Test-ProtectedProcess. The function takes a path to an executable, starts that executable with a specified protection level and checks whether it was successful. If the ProtectedType and ProtectedSigner parameters are 0 then the kernel decides the “best” process level. This leads to some annoying quirks, for example SVCHOST.EXE is explicitly marked as PPL and will run at PPL-Windows level, however as it’s also a signed OS component the kernel will determine its maximum level is PP-Authenticode. Another interesting quirk is using the native process creation APIs it’s possible to start a DLL as main executable image. As a significant number of system DLLs have embedded Microsoft signatures they can also be started as PP-Authenticode, even though this isn’t necessarily that useful. The list of binaries that will run at PPL is shown below along with their maximum signing level.

PathSigning Level
C:\windows\Microsoft.Net\Framework\v4.0.30319\mscorsvw.exeCodeGen
C:\windows\Microsoft.Net\Framework64\v4.0.30319\mscorsvw.exeCodeGen
C:\windows\system32\SecurityHealthService.exeWindows
C:\windows\system32\svchost.exeWindows
C:\windows\system32\xbgmsvc.exeWindows
C:\windows\system32\csrss.exeWindows TCB
C:\windows\system32\services.exeWindows TCB
C:\windows\system32\smss.exeWindows TCB
C:\windows\system32\werfaultsecure.exeWindows TCB
C:\windows\system32\wininit.exeWindows TCB

Injecting Arbitrary Code Into NGEN

After carefully reviewing the list of executables which run as PPL I settled ontrying to attack the previously mentioned .NET NGEN binary, MSCORSVW.EXE. My rationale for choosing the NGEN binary was:

  • Most of the other binaries are service binaries which might need administrator privileges to start correctly.
  • The binary is likely to be loading complex functionality such as the .NET framework as well as having multiple COM interactions (my go-to technology for weird behavior).
  • In the worst case it might still yield a Device Guard bypass as the reason it runs as PPL is to give it access to the kernel APIs to apply a cached signing level. Any bug in the operation of this binary might be exploitable even if we can’t get arbitrary code running in a PPL.

But there is an issue with the NGEN binary, specifically it doesn’t meet my own criteria that I get the top signing level, Windows TCB. However, I knew that when Microsoft fixed Issue 1332 they left in a back door where a writable handle could be maintained during the signing process if the calling process is PPL as shown below:NTSTATUS CiSetFileCache(HANDLE Handle,…){

 PFILE_OBJECT FileObject;
 ObReferenceObjectByHandle(Handle,&FileObject);

if(FileObject->SharedWrite ||
(FileObject->WriteAccess &&
     PsGetProcessProtection().Type != PROTECTED_LIGHT)){
return STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION;
}

 // Continue setting file cache.
}If I could get code execution inside the NGEN binary I could reuse this backdoor to cache sign an arbitrary file which will load into any PPL. I could then DLL hijack a full PPL-WindowsTCB process to reach my goal.To begin the investigation we need to determine how to use the MSCORSVW executable. Using MSCORSVW is not documented anywhere by Microsoft, so we’ll have to do a bit of digging. First off, this binary is not supposed to be run directly, instead it’s invoked by NGEN when creating an NGEN’ed binary. Therefore, we can run the NGEN binary and use a tool such as Process Monitor to capture what command line is being used for the MSCORSVW process. Executing the command:C:\> NGEN install c:\some\binary.dllResults in the following command line being executed:MSCORSVW -StartupEvent A -InterruptEvent B -NGENProcess C -Pipe DA, B, C and D are handles which NGEN ensures are inherited into the new process before it starts. As we don’t see any of the original NGEN command line parameters it seems likely they’re being passed over an IPC mechanism. The “Pipe” parameter gives an indication that  named pipes are used for IPC. Digging into the code in MSCORSVW, we find the method NGenWorkerEmbedding, which looks like the following:void NGenWorkerEmbedding(HANDLE hPipe){
 CoInitializeEx(nullptr, COINIT_APARTMENTTHREADED);
 CorSvcBindToWorkerClassFactory factory;

 // Marshal class factory.
 IStream* pStm;
 CreateStreamOnHGlobal(nullptr, TRUE,&pStm);
 CoMarshalInterface(pStm,&IID_IClassFactory, &factory,                    MSHCTX_LOCAL,nullptr, MSHLFLAGS_NORMAL);

 // Read marshaled object and write to pipe.
 DWORD length;
 char* buffer = ReadEntireIStream(pStm,&length);
 WriteFile(hPipe,&length,sizeof(length));
 WriteFile(hPipe, buffer, length);
 CloseHandle(hPipe);

 // Set event to synchronize with parent.
 SetEvent(hStartupEvent);

 // Pump message loop to handle COM calls.
 MessageLoop();

 // …
}This code is not quite what I expected. Rather than using the named pipe for the entire communication channel it’s only used to transfer a marshaled COM object back to the calling process. The COM object is a class factory instance, normally you’d register the factory using CoRegisterClassObject but that would make it accessible to all processes at the same security level so instead by using marshaling the connection can be left private only to the NGEN binary which spawned MSCORSVW. A .NET related process using COM gets me interested as I’ve previously described in another blog post how you can exploit COM objects implemented in .NET. If we’re lucky this COM object is implemented in .NET, we can determine if it is implemented in .NET by querying for its interfaces, for example we use the Get-ComInterface command in my OleViewDotNet PowerShell module as shown in the following screenshot.

We’re out of luck, this object is not implemented in .NET, as you’d at least expect to see an instance of the_Object interface. There’s only one interface implemented, ICorSvcBindToWorker so let’s dig into that interface to see if there’s anything we can exploit.Something caught my eye, in the screenshot there’s a HasTypeLib column, for ICorSvcBindToWorker we see that the column is set to True. What HasTypeLib indicates is rather than the interface’s proxy code being implemented using an predefined NDR byte stream it’s generated on the fly from a type library. I’ve abused this auto-generating proxy mechanism before to elevate to SYSTEM, reported as issue 1112. In the issue I used some interesting behavior of the system’s Running Object Table (ROT) to force a type confusion in a system COM service. While Microsoft has fixed the issue for User to SYSTEM there’s nothing stopping us using the type confusion trick to exploit the MSCORSVW process running as PPL at the same privilege level and get arbitrary code execution. Another advantage of using a type library is a normal proxy would be loaded as a DLL which means that it must meet the PPL signing level requirements; however a type library is just data so can be loaded into a PPL without any signing level violations.How does the type confusion work? Looking at the ICorSvcBindToWorker interface from the type library:interface ICorSvcBindToWorker : IUnknown {
   HRESULT BindToRuntimeWorker(
[in] BSTR pRuntimeVersion,
[in] unsigned long ParentProcessID,
[in] BSTR pInterruptEventName,
[in] ICorSvcLogger* pCorSvcLogger,
[out] ICorSvcWorker** pCorSvcWorker);
};The single BindToRuntimeWorker takes 5 parameters, 4 are inbound and 1 is outbound. When trying to access the method over DCOM from our untrusted process the system will automatically generate the proxy and stub for the call. This will include marshaling COM interface parameters into a buffer, sending the buffer to the remote process and then unmarshaling to a pointer before calling the real function. For example imagine a simpler function, DoSomething which takes a single IUnknown pointer. The marshaling process looks like the following:

The operation of the method call is as follow:

  1. The untrusted process calls DoSomething on the interface which is actually a pointer to DoSomethingProxy which was auto-generated from the type library passing an IUnknown pointer parameter.
  2. DoSomethingProxy marshals the IUnknown pointer parameter into the buffer and calls over RPC to the Stub in the protected process.
  3. The COM runtime calls the DoSomethingStub method to handle the call. This method will unmarshal the interface pointer from the buffer. Note that this pointer is not the original pointer from step 1, it’s likely to be a new proxy which calls back to the untrusted process.
  4. The stub invokes the real implemented method inside the server, passing the unmarshaled interface pointer.
  5. DoSomething uses the interface pointer, for example by calling AddRef on it via the object’s VTable.

How would we exploit this? All we need to do is modify the type library so that instead of passing an interface pointer we pass almost anything else. While the type library file is in a system location which we can’t modify we can just replace the registration for it in the current user’s registry hive, or use the same ROT trick from before issue 1112. For example if we modifying the type library to pass an integer instead of an interface pointer we get the following:

The operation of the marshal now changes as follows:

  1. The untrusted process calls DoSomething on the interface which is actually a pointer to DoSomethingProxy which was auto-generated from the type library passing an arbitrary integer parameter.
  2. DoSomethingProxy marshals the integer parameter into the buffer and calls over RPC to the Stub in the protected process.
  3. The COM runtime calls the DoSomethingStub method to handle the call. This method will unmarshal the integer from the buffer.
  4. The stub invokes the real implement method inside the server, passing the integer as the parameter. However DoSomething hasn’t changed, it’s still the same method which accepts an interface pointer. As the COM runtime has no more type information at this point the integer is type confused with the interface pointer.
  5. DoSomething uses the interface pointer, for example by calling AddRef on it via the object’s VTable. As this pointer is completely under control of the untrusted process this likely results in arbitrary code execution.

By changing the type of parameter from an interface pointer to an integer we induce a type confusion which allows us to get an arbitrary pointer dereferenced, resulting in arbitrary code execution. We could even simplify the attack by adding to the type library the following structure:struct FakeObject {
   BSTR FakeVTable;
};If we pass a pointer to a FakeObject instead of the interface pointer the auto-generated proxy will marshal the structure and its BSTR, recreating it on the other side in the stub. As a BSTR is a counted string it can contain NULLs so this will create a pointer to an object, which contains a pointer to an arbitrary byte array which can act as a VTable. Place known function pointers in that BSTR and you can easily redirect execution without having to guess the location of a suitable VTable buffer.To fully exploit this we’d need to call a suitable method, probably running a ROP chain and we might also have to bypass CFG. That all sounds too much like hard work, so instead I’ll take a different approach to get arbitrary code running in the PPL binary, by abusing KnownDlls.

KnownDlls and Protected Processes.

In my previous blog post I described a technique to elevate privileges from an arbitrary object directory creation vulnerability to SYSTEM by adding an entry into the KnownDlls directory and getting an arbitrary DLL loaded into a privileged process. I noted that this was also an administrator to PPL code injection as PPL will also load DLLs from the system’s KnownDlls location. As the code signing check is performed during section creation not section mapping as long as you can place an entry into KnownDlls you can load anything into a PPL even unsigned code.This doesn’t immediately seem that useful, we can’t write to KnownDlls without being an administrator, and even then without some clever tricks. However it’s worth looking at how a Known DLL is loaded to get an understanding on how it can be abused. Inside NTDLL’s loader (LDR) code is the following function to determine if there’s a preexisting Known DLL.NTSTATUS LdrpFindKnownDll(PUNICODE_STRING DllName, HANDLE *SectionHandle){
 // If KnownDll directory handle not open then return error.
if(!LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle)
return STATUS_DLL_NOT_FOUND;

 OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES ObjectAttributes;
 InitializeObjectAttributes(&ObjectAttributes,
&DllName,
   OBJ_CASE_INSENSITIVE,
   LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle,
nullptr);

return NtOpenSection(SectionHandle,
                      SECTION_ALL_ACCESS,
&ObjectAttributes);
}The LdrpFindKnownDll function calls NtOpenSection to open the named section object for the Known DLL. It doesn’t open an absolute path, instead it uses the feature of the native system calls to specify a root directory for the object name lookup in the OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES structure. This root directory comes from the global variable LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle. Implementing the call this way allows the loader to only specify the filename (e.g. EXAMPLE.DLL) and not have to reconstruct the absolute path as the lookup with be relative to an existing directory. Chasing references to LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle we can find it’s initialized in LdrpInitializeProcess as follows:NTSTATUS LdrpInitializeProcess(){
 // …
 PPEB peb = // …
 // If a full protected process don’t use KnownDlls.
if(peb->IsProtectedProcess &&!peb->IsProtectedProcessLight){
   LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle =nullptr;
}else{
   OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES ObjectAttributes;
   UNICODE_STRING DirName;
   RtlInitUnicodeString(&DirName, L»\\KnownDlls»);
   InitializeObjectAttributes(&ObjectAttributes,
&DirName,
                              OBJ_CASE_INSENSITIVE,
nullptr,nullptr);
   // Open KnownDlls directory.
   NtOpenDirectoryObject(&LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle,
                         DIRECTORY_QUERY | DIRECTORY_TRAVERSE,
&ObjectAttributes);
}This code shouldn’t be that unexpected, the implementation calls NtOpenDirectoryObject, passing the absolute path to the KnownDlls directory as the object name. The opened handle is stored in theLdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle global variable for later use. It’s worth noting that this code checks the PEB to determine if the current process is a full protected process. Support for loading Known DLLs is disabled in full protected process mode, which is why even with administrator privileges and the clever trick I outlined in the last blog post we could only compromise PPL, not PP.How does this knowledge help us? We can use our COM type confusion trick to write values into arbitrary memory locations instead of trying to hijack code execution resulting in a data only attack. As we can inherit any handles we like into the new PPL process we can setup an object directory with a named section, then use the type confusion to change the value of LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle to the value of the inherited handle. If we induce a DLL load from System32 with a known name the LDR will check our fake directory for the named section and map our unsigned code into memory, even calling DllMain for us. No need for injecting threads, ROP or bypassing CFG.All we need is a suitable primitive to write an arbitrary value, unfortunately while I could find methods which would cause an arbitrary write I couldn’t sufficiently control the value being written. In the end I used the following interface and method which was implemented on the object returned byICorSvcBindToWorker::BindToRuntimeWorker.interface ICorSvcPooledWorker : IUnknown {
   HRESULT CanReuseProcess(
[in] OptimizationScenario scenario,
[in] ICorSvcLogger* pCorSvcLogger,
[out] long* pCanContinue);
};
In the implementation of CanReuseProcess the target value of pCanContinue is always initialized to 0. Therefore by replacing the [out] long* in the type library definition with [in] long we can get 0 written to any memory location we specify. By prefilling the lower 16 bits of the new process’ handle table with handles to a fake KnownDlls directory we can be sure of an alias between the real KnownDlls which will be opened once the process starts and our fake ones by just modifying the top 16 bits of the handle to 0. This is shown in the following diagram:

Once we’ve overwritten the top 16 bits with 0 (the write is 32 bits but handles are 64 bits in 64 bit mode, so we won’t overwrite anything important) LdrpKnownDllDirectoryHandle now points to one of our fakeKnownDlls handles. We can then easily induce a DLL load by sending a custom marshaled object to the same method and we’ll get arbitrary code execution inside the PPL.

Elevating to PPL-Windows TCB

We can’t stop here, attacking MSCORSVW only gets us PPL at the CodeGen signing level, not Windows TCB. Knowing that generating a fake cached signed DLL should run in a PPL as well as Microsoft leaving a backdoor for PPL processes at any signing level I converted my C# code from Issue 1332 to C++ to generate a fake cached signed DLL. By abusing a DLL hijack in WERFAULTSECURE.EXE which will run as PPL Windows TCB we should get code execution at the desired signing level. This worked on Windows 10 1709 and earlier, however it didn’t work on 1803. Clearly Microsoft had changed the behavior of cached signing level in some way, perhaps they’d removed its trust in PPL entirely. That seemed unlikely as it would have a negative performance impact.After discussing this a bit with Alex Ionescu I decided to put together a quick parser with information from Alex for the cached signing data on a file. This is exposed in NtObjectManager as the Get-NtCachedSigningLevel command. I ran this command against a fake signed binary and a system binary which was also cached signed and immediately noticed a difference:

For the fake signed file the Flags are set to TrustedSignature (0x02), however for the system binary PowerShell couldn’t decode the enumeration and so just outputs the integer value of 66 which is 0x42 in hex. The value 0x40 was an extra flag on top of the original trusted signature flag. It seemed likely that without this flag set the DLL wouldn’t be loaded into a PPL process. Something must be setting this flag so I decided to check what happened if I loaded a valid cached signed DLL without the extra flag into a PPL process. Monitoring it in Process Monitor I got my answer:

The Process Monitor trace shows that first the kernel queries for the Extended Attributes (EA) from the DLL. The cached signing level data is stored in the file’s EA so this is almost certainly an indication of the cached signing level being read. In the full trace artifacts of checking the full signature are shown such as enumerating catalog files, I’ve removed those artifacts from the screenshot for brevity. Finally the EA is set, if I check the cached signing level of the file it now includes the extra flag. So setting the cached signing level is done automatically, the question is how? By pulling up the stack trace we can see how it happens:

Looking at the middle of the stack trace we can see the call to CipSetFileCache originates from the call toNtCreateSection. The kernel is automatically caching the signature when it makes sense to do so, e.g. in a PPL so that subsequent image mapping don’t need to recheck the signature. It’s possible to map an image section from a file with write access so we can reuse the same attack from Issue 1332 and replace the call toNtSetCachedSigningLevel with NtCreateSection and we can fake sign any DLL. It turned out that the call to set the file cache happened after the write check introducted to fix Issue 1332 and so it was possible to use this to bypass Device Guard again. For that reason I reported the bypass as Issue 1597 which was fixed in September 2018 as CVE-2018-8449. However, as with Issue 1332 the back door for PPL is still in place so even though the fix eliminated the Device Guard bypass it can still be used to get us from PPL-CodeGen to PPL-WindowsTCB.

Conclusions

This blog showed how I was able to inject arbitrary code into a PPL without requiring administrator privileges. What could you do with this new found power? Actually not a great deal as a normal user but there are some parts of the OS, such as the Windows Store which rely on PPL to secure files and resources which you can’t modify as a normal user. If you elevate to administrator and then inject into a PPL you’ll get many more things to attack such as CSRSS (through which you can certainly get kernel code execution) or attack Windows Defender which runs as PPL Anti-Malware. Over time I’m sure the majority of the use cases for PPL will be replaced with Virtual Secure Mode (VSM) and Isolated User Mode (IUM) applications which have greater security guarantees and are also considered security boundaries that Microsoft will defend and fix.Did I report these issues to Microsoft? Microsoft has made it clear that they will not fix issues only affecting PP and PPL in a security bulletin. Without a security bulletin the researcher receives no acknowledgement for the find, such as a CVE. The issue will not be fixed in current versions of Windows although it might be fixed in the next major version. Previously confirming Microsoft’s policy on fixing a particular security issue was based on precedent, however they’ve recently published a list of Windows technologies that will or will not be fixed in the Windows Security Service Criteria which, as shown below for Protected Process Light, Microsoft will not fix or pay a bounty for issues relating to the feature. Therefore, from now on I will not be engaging Microsoft if I discover issues which I believe to only affect PP or PPL.

The one bug I reported to Microsoft was only fixed because it could be used to bypass Device Guard. When you think about it, only fixing for Device Guard is somewhat odd. I can still bypass Device Guard by injecting into a PPL and setting a cached signing level, and yet Microsoft won’t fix PPL issues but will fix Device Guard issues. Much as the Windows Security Service Criteria document really helps to clarify what Microsoft will and won’t fix it’s still somewhat arbitrary. A secure feature is rarely secure in isolation, the feature is almost certainly secure because other features enable it to be so.
In part 2 of this blog we’ll go into how I was also able to break into Full PP-WindowsTCB processes using another interesting feature of COM.

New code injection trick named — PROPagate code injection technique

ROPagate code injection technique

@Hexacorn discussed in late 2017 a new code injection technique, which involves hooking existing callback functions in a Window subclass structure. Exploiting this legitimate functionality of windows for malicious purposes will not likely surprise some developers already familiar with hooking existing callback functions in a process. However, it’s still a relatively new technique for many to misuse for code injection, and we’ll likely see it used more and more in future.

For all the details on research conducted by Adam, I suggest the following posts.

 

PROPagate — a new code injection trick

|=======================================================|

Executing code inside a different process space is typically achieved via an injected DLL /system-wide hooks, sideloading, etc./, executing remote threads, APCs, intercepting and modifying the thread context of remote threads, etc. Then there is Gapz/Powerloader code injection (a.k.a. EWMI), AtomBombing, and mapping/unmapping trick with the NtClose patch.

There is one more.

Remember Shatter attacks?

I believe that Gapz trick was created as an attempt to bypass what has been mitigated by the User Interface Privilege Isolation (UIPI). Interestingly, there is actually more than one way to do it, and the trick that I am going to describe below is a much cleaner variant of it – it doesn’t even need any ROP.

There is a class of windows always present on the system that use window subclassing. Window subclassing is just a fancy name for hooking, because during the subclassing process an old window procedure is preserved while the new one is being assigned to the window. The new one then intercepts all the window messages, does whatever it has to do, and then calls the old one.

The ‘native’ window subclassing is done using the SetWindowSubclass API.

When a window is subclassed it gains a new property stored inside its internal structures and with a name depending on a version of comctl32.dll:

  • UxSubclassInfo – version 6.x
  • CC32SubclassInfo – version 5.x

Looking at properties of Windows Explorer child windows we can see that plenty of them use this particular subclassing property:

So do other Windows applications – pretty much any program that is leveraging standard windows controls can be of interest, including say… OllyDbg:When the SetWindowSubclass is called it is using SetProp API to set one of these two properties (UxSubclassInfo, or CC32SubclassInfo) to point to an area in memory where the old function pointer will be stored. When the new message routine is called, it will then call GetProp API for the given window and once its old procedure address is retrieved – it is executed.

Coming back for a moment to the aforementioned shattering attacks. We can’t use SetWindowLong or SetClassLong (or their newer SetWindowLongPtr and SetClassLongPtr alternatives) any longer to set the address of the window procedure for windows belonging to the other processes (via GWL_WNDPROC or GCL_WNDPROC). However, the SetProp function is not affected by this limitation. When it comes to the process at the lower of equal  integrity level the Microsoft documentation says:

SetProp is subject to the restrictions of User Interface Privilege Isolation (UIPI). A process can only call this function on a window belonging to a process of lesser or equal integrity level. When UIPI blocks property changes, GetLastError will return 5.

So, if we talk about other user applications in the same session – there is plenty of them and we can modify their windows’ properties freely!

I guess you know by now where it is heading:

  • We can freely modify the property of a window belonging to another process.
  • We also know some properties point to memory region that store an old address of a procedure of the subclassed window.
  • The routine that address points to will be at some stage executed.

All we need is a structure that UxSubclassInfo/CC32SubclassInfo properties are using. This is actually pretty easy – you can check what SetProp is doing for these subclassed windows. You will quickly realize that the old procedure is stored at the offset 0x14 from the beginning of that memory region (the structure is a bit more complex as it may contain a number of callbacks, but the first one is at 0x14).

So, injecting a small buffer into a target process, ensuring the expected structure is properly filled-in and and pointing to the payload and then changing the respective window property will ensure the payload is executed next time the message is received by the window (this can be enforced by sending a message).

When I discovered it, I wrote a quick & dirty POC that enumerates all windows with the aforementioned properties (there is lots of them so pretty much every GUI application is affected). For each subclassing property found I changed it to a random value – as a result Windows Explorer, Total Commander, Process Hacker, Ollydbg, and a few more applications crashed immediately. That was a good sign. I then created a very small shellcode that shows a Message Box on a desktop window and tested it on Windows 10 (under normal account).

The moment when the shellcode is being called in a first random target (here, Total Commander):

Of course, it also works in Windows Explorer, this is how it looks like when executed:


If we check with Process Explorer, we can see the window belongs to explorer.exe:Testing it on a good ol’ Windows XP and injecting the shellcode into Windows Explorer shows a nice cascade of executed shellcodes for each window exposing the subclassing property (in terms of special effects XP always beats Windows 10 – the latter freezes after first messagebox shows up; and in case you are wondering why it freezes – it’s because my shellcode is simple and once executed it is basically damaging the running application):

For obvious reasons I won’t be attaching the source code.

If you are an EDR or sandboxing vendor you should consider monitoring SetProp/SetWindowSubclass APIs as well as their NT alternatives and system services.

And…

This is not the end. There are many other generic properties that can be potentially leveraged in a very same way:

  • The Microsoft Foundation Class Library (MFC) uses ‘AfxOldWndProc423’ property to subclass its windows
  • ControlOfs[HEX] – properties associated with Delphi applications reference in-memory Visual Component Library (VCL) objects
  • New windows framework e.g. Microsoft.Windows.WindowFactory.* needs more research
  • A number of custom controls use ‘subclass’ and I bet they can be modified in a similar way
  • Some properties expose COM/OLE Interfaces e.g. OleDropTargetInterface

If you are curious if it works between 32- and 64- bit processes

|=======================================================|

 

PROPagate follow-up — Some more Shattering Attack Potentials

|=======================================================|

We now know that one can use SetProp to execute a shellcode inside 32- and 64-bit applications as long as they use windows that are subclassed.

=========================================================

A new trick that allows to execute code in other processes without using remote threads, APC, etc. While describing it, I focused only on 32-bit architecture. One may wonder whether there is a way for it to work on 64-bit systems and even more interestingly – whether there is a possibility to inject/run code between 32- and 64- bit processes.

To test it, I checked my 32-bit code injector on a 64-bit box. It crashed my 64-bit Explorer.exe process in no time.

So, yes, we can change properties of windows belonging to 64-bit processes from a 32-bit process! And yes, you can swap the subclass properties I described previously to point to your injected buffer and eventually make the payload execute! The reason it works is that original property addresses are stored in lower 32-bit of the 64-bit offset. Replacing that lower 32-bit part of the offset to point to a newly allocated buffer (also in lower area of the memory, thanks to VirtualAllocEx) is enough to trigger the code execution.

See below the GetProp inside explorer.exe retrieving the subclassed property:

So, there you have it… 32 process injecting into 64-bit process and executing the payload w/o heaven’s gate or using other undocumented tricks.

The below is the moment the 64-bit shellcode is executed:

p.s. the structure of the subclassed callbacks is slightly different inside 64-bit processes due to 64-bit offsets, but again, I don’t want to make it any easier to bad guys than it should be 🙂

=========================================================

There are more possibilities.

While SetWindowLong/SetWindowLongPtr/SetClassLong/SetClassLongPtr are all protected and can be only used on windows belonging to the same process, the very old APIs SetWindowWord and SetClassWord … are not.

As usual, I tested it enumerating windows running a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system and setting properties to unpredictable values and observing what happens.

It turns out that again, pretty much all my Window applications crashed on Window 10. These 16 bits seem to be quite powerful…

I am not a vulnerability researcher, but I bet we can still do something interesting; I will continue poking around. The easy wins I see are similar to SetProp e.g. GWL_USERDATA may point to some virtual tables/pointers; the DWL_USER – as per Microsoft – ‘sets new extra information that is private to the application, such as handles or pointers’. Assuming that we may only modify 16 bit of e.g. some offset, redirecting it to some code cave or overwriting unused part of memory within close proximity of the original offset could allow for a successful exploit.

|=======================================================|

 

PROPagate follow-up #2 — Some more Shattering Attack Potentials

|=======================================================|

A few months back I discovered a new code injection technique that I named PROPagate. Using a subclass of a well-known shatter attack one can modify the callback function pointers inside other processes by using Windows APIs like SetProp, and potentially others. After pointing out a few ideas I put it on a back burner for a while, but I knew I will want to explore some more possibilities in the future.

In particular, I was curious what are the chances one could force the remote process to indirectly call the ‘prohibited’ functions like SetWindowLong, SetClassLong (or their newer alternatives SetWindowLongPtr and SetClassLongPtr), but with the arguments that we control (i.e. from a remote process). These API are ‘prohibited’ because they can only be called in a context of a process that owns them, so we can’t directly call them and target windows that belong to other processes.

It turns out his may be possible!

If there is one common way of using the SetWindowLong API it is to set up pointers, and/or filling-in window-specific memory areas (allocated per window instance) with some values that are initialized immediately after the window is created. The same thing happens when the window is destroyed – during the latter these memory areas are usually freed and set to zeroes, and callbacks are discarded.

These two actions are associated with two very specific window messages:

  • WM_NCCREATE
  • WM_NCDESTROY

In fact, many ‘native’ windows kick off their existence by setting some callbacks in their message handling routines during processing of these two messages.

With that in mind, I started looking at existing processes and got some interesting findings. Here is a snippet of a routine I found inside Windows Explorer that could be potentially abused by a remote process:

Or, it’s disassembly equivalent (in response to WM_NCCREATE message):

So… since we can still freely send messages between windows it would seem that there is a lot of things that can be done here. One could send a specially crafted WM_NCCREATE message to a window that owns this routine and achieve a controlled code execution inside another process (the lParam needs to pass the checks and include pointer to memory area that includes a callback that will be executed afterwards – this callback could point to malicious code). I may be of course wrong, but need to explore it further when I find more time.

The other interesting thing I noticed is that some existing windows procedures are already written in a way that makes it harder to exploit this issue. They check if the window-specific data was set, and only if it was NOT they allow to call the SetWindowLong function. That is, they avoid executing the same initialization code twice.

|=======================================================|

 

No Proof of Concept?

Let’s be honest with ourselves, most of the “good” code injection techniques used by malware authors today are the brainchild of some expert(s) in the field of computer security. Take for example Process HollowingAtomBombing and the more recent Doppelganging technique.

On the likelihood of code being misused, Adam didn’t publish a PoC, but there’s still sufficient information available in the blog posts for a competent person to write their own proof of concept, and it’s only a matter of time before it’s used in the wild anyway.

Update: After publishing this, I discovered it’s currently being used by SmokeLoader but using a different approach to mine by using SetPropA/SetPropW to update the subclass procedure.

I’m not providing source code here either, but given the level of detail, it should be relatively easy to implement your own.

Steps to PROPagate.

  1. Enumerate all window handles and the properties associated with them using EnumProps/EnumPropsEx
  2. Use GetProp API to retrieve information about hWnd parameter passed to WinPropProc callback function. Use “UxSubclassInfo” or “CC32SubclassInfo” as the 2nd parameter.
    The first class is for systems since XP while the latter is for Windows 2000.
  3. Open the process that owns the subclass and read the structures that contain callback functions. Use GetWindowThreadProcessId to obtain process id for window handle.
  4. Write a payload into the remote process using the usual methods.
  5. Replace the subclass procedure with pointer to payload in memory.
  6. Write the structures back to remote process.

At this point, we can wait for user to trigger payload when they activate the process window, or trigger the payload via another API.

Subclass callback and structures

Microsoft was kind enough to document the subclass procedure, but unfortunately not the internal structures used to store information about a subclass, so you won’t find them on MSDN or even in sources for WINE or ReactOS.

typedef LRESULT (CALLBACK *SUBCLASSPROC)(
   HWND      hWnd,
   UINT      uMsg,
   WPARAM    wParam,
   LPARAM    lParam,
   UINT_PTR  uIdSubclass,
   DWORD_PTR dwRefData);

Some clever searching by yours truly eventually led to the Windows 2000 source code, which was leaked online in 2004. Behold, the elusive undocumented structures found in subclass.c!

typedef struct _SUBCLASS_CALL {
  SUBCLASSPROC pfnSubclass;    // subclass procedure
  WPARAM       uIdSubclass;    // unique subclass identifier
  DWORD_PTR    dwRefData;      // optional ref data
} SUBCLASS_CALL, *PSUBCLASS_CALL;
typedef struct _SUBCLASS_FRAME {
  UINT    uCallIndex;   // index of next callback to call
  UINT    uDeepestCall; // deepest uCallIndex on stack
// previous subclass frame pointer
  struct _SUBCLASS_FRAME  *pFramePrev;
// header associated with this frame 
  struct _SUBCLASS_HEADER *pHeader;     
} SUBCLASS_FRAME, *PSUBCLASS_FRAME;
typedef struct _SUBCLASS_HEADER {
  UINT           uRefs;        // subclass count
  UINT           uAlloc;       // allocated subclass call nodes
  UINT           uCleanup;     // index of call node to clean up
  DWORD          dwThreadId; // thread id of window we are hooking
  SUBCLASS_FRAME *pFrameCur;   // current subclass frame pointer
  SUBCLASS_CALL  CallArray[1]; // base of packed call node array
} SUBCLASS_HEADER, *PSUBCLASS_HEADER;

At least now there’s no need to reverse engineer how Windows stores information about subclasses. Phew!

Finding suitable targets

I wrongly assumed many processes would be vulnerable to this injection method. I can confirm ollydbg and Process Hacker to be vulnerable as Adam mentions in his post, but I did not test other applications. As it happens, only explorer.exe seemed to be a viable target on a plain Windows 7 installation. Rather than search for an arbitrary process that contained a subclass callback, I decided for the purpose of demonstrations just to stick with explorer.exe.

The code first enumerates all properties for windows created by explorer.exe. An attempt is made to request information about “UxSubclassInfo”, which if successful will return an address pointer to subclass information in the remote process.

Figure 1. shows a list of subclasses associated with process id. I’m as perplexed as you might be about the fact some of these subclass addresses appear multiple times. I didn’t investigate.

Figure 1: Address of subclass information and process id for explorer.exe

Attaching a debugger to process id 5924 or explorer.exe and dumping the first address provides the SUBCLASS_HEADER contents. Figure 2 shows the data for header, with 2 hi-lighted values representing the callback functions.

Figure 2 : Dump of SUBCLASS_HEADER for address 0x003A1BE8

Disassembly of the pointer 0x7448F439 shows in Figure 3 the code is CallOriginalWndProc located in comctl32.dll

Figure 3 : Disassembly of callback function for SUBCLASS_CALL

Okay! So now we just read at least one subclass structure from a target process, change the callback address, and wait for explorer.exe to execute the payload. On the other hand, we could write our own SUBCLASS_HEADER to remote memory and update the existing subclass window with SetProp API.

To overwrite SUBCLASS_HEADER, all that’s required is to replace the pointer pfnSubclass with address of payload, and write the structure back to memory. Triggering it may be required unless someone is already using the operating system.

One would be wise to restore the original callback pointer in subclass header after payload has executed, in order to avoid explorer.exe crashing.

Update: Smoke Loader probably initializes its own SUBCLASS_HEADER before writing to remote process. I think either way is probably fine. The method I used didn’t call SetProp API.

Detection

The original author may have additional information on how to detect this injection method, however I think the following strings and API are likely sufficient to merit closer investigation of code.

Strings

  • UxSubclassInfo
  • CC32SubclassInfo
  • explorer.exe

API

  • OpenProcess
  • ReadProcessMemory
  • WriteProcessMemory
  • GetPropA/GetPropW
  • SetPropA/SetPropW

Conclusion

This injection method is trivial to implement, and because it affects many versions of Windows, I was surprised nobody published code to show how it worked. Nevertheless, it really is just a case of hooking callback functions in a remote process, and there are many more just like subclass. More to follow!

Iron Group’s Malware using HackingTeam’s Leaked RCS source code with VMProtected Installer — Technical Analysis

In April 2018, while monitoring public data feeds, we noticed an interesting and previously unknown backdoor using HackingTeam’s leaked RCS source code. We discovered that this backdoor was developed by the Iron cybercrime group, the same group behind the Iron ransomware (rip-off Maktub ransomware recently discovered by Bart Parys), which we believe has been active for the past 18 months.

During the past year and a half, the Iron group has developed multiple types of malware (backdoors, crypto-miners, and ransomware) for Windows, Linux and Android platforms. They have used their malware to successfully infect, at least, a few thousand victims.

In this technical blog post we are going to take a look at the malware samples found during the research.

Technical Analysis:

Installer:

** This installer sample (and in general most of the samples found) is protected with VMProtect then compressed using UPX.

Installation process:

1. Check if the binary is executed on a VM, if so – ExitProcess

2. Drop & Install malicious chrome extension
%localappdata%\Temp\chrome.crx
3. Extract malicious chrome extension to %localappdata%\Temp\chrome & create a scheduled task to execute %localappdata%\Temp\chrome\sec.vbs.
4. Create mutex using the CPU’s version to make sure there’s no existing running instance of itself.
5. Drop backdoor dll to %localappdata%\Temp\\<random>.dat.
6. Check OS version:
.If Version == Windows XP then just invoke ‘Launch’ export of Iron Backdoor for a one-time non persistent execution.
.If Version > Windows XP
-Invoke ‘Launch’ export
-Check if Qhioo360 – only if not proceed, Install malicious certificate used to sign Iron Backdoor binary as root CA.Then create a service called ‘helpsvc’ pointing back to Iron Backdoor dll.

Using the leaked HackingTeam source code:

Once we Analyzed the backdoor sample, we immediately noticed it’s partially based on HackingTeam’s source code for their Remote Control System hacking tool, which leaked about 3 years ago. Further analysis showed that the Iron cybercrime group used two main functions from HackingTeam’s source in both IronStealer and Iron ransomware.

1.Anti-VM: Iron Backdoor uses a virtual machine detection code taken directly from HackingTeam’s “Soldier” implant leaked source code. This piece of code supports detecting Cuckoo Sandbox, VMWare product & Oracle’s VirtualBox. Screenshot:

 

2. Dynamic Function Calls: Iron Backdoor is also using the DynamicCall module from HackingTeam’s “core” library. This module is used to dynamically call external library function by obfuscated the function name, which makes static analysis of this malware more complex.
In the following screenshot you can see obfuscated “LFSOFM43/EMM” and “DsfbufGjmfNbqqjohB”, which represents “kernel32.dll” and “CreateFileMappingA” API.

For a full list of obfuscated APIs you can visit obfuscated_calls.h.

Malicious Chrome extension:

A patched version of the popular Adblock Plus chrome extension is used to inject both the in-browser crypto-mining module (based on CryptoNoter) and the in-browser payment hijacking module.


**patched include.preload.js injects two malicious scripts from the attacker’s Pastebin account.

The malicious extension is not only loaded once the user opens the browser, but also constantly runs in the background, acting as a stealth host based crypto-miner. The malware sets up a scheduled task that checks if chrome is already running, every minute, if it isn’t, it will “silent-launch” it as you can see in the following screenshot:

Internet Explorer(deprecated):

Iron Backdoor itself embeds adblockplusie – Adblock Plus for IE, which is modified in a similar way to the malicious chrome extension, injecting remote javascript. It seems that this functionality is no longer automatically used for some unknown reason.

Persistence:

Before installing itself as a Windows service, the malware checks for the presence of either 360 Safe Guard or 360 Internet Security by reading following registry keys:

.SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\zhudongfangyu.
.SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\360rp

If one of these products is installed, the malware will only run once without persistence. Otherwise, the malware will proceed to installing rouge, hardcoded root CA certificate on the victim’s workstation. This fake root CA supposedly signed the malware’s binaries, which will make them look legitimate.

Comic break: The certificate is protected by the password ‘caonima123’, which means “f*ck your mom” in Mandarin.

IronStealer (<RANDOM>.dat):

Persistent backdoor, dropper and cryptocurrency theft module.

1. Load Cobalt Strike beacon:
The malware automatically decrypts hard coded shellcode stage-1, which in turn loads Cobalt Strike beacon in-memory, using a reflective loader:

Beacon: hxxp://dazqc4f140wtl.cloudfront[.]net/ZZYO

2. Drop & Execute payload: The payload URL is fetched from a hardcoded Pastebin paste address:

We observed two different payloads dropped by the malware:

1. Xagent – A variant of “JbossMiner Mining Worm” – a worm written in Python and compiled using PyInstaller for both Windows and Linux platforms. JbossMiner is using known database vulnerabilities to spread. “Xagent” is the original filename Xagent<VER>.exe whereas <VER> seems to be the version of the worm. The last version observed was version 6 (Xagent6.exe).

**Xagent versions 4-6 as seen by VT

2. Iron ransomware – We recently saw a shift from dropping Xagent to dropping Iron ransomware. It seems that the wallet & payment portal addresses are identical to the ones that Bart observed. Requested ransom decreased from 0.2 BTC to 0.05 BTC, most likely due to the lack of payment they received.

**Nobody paid so they decreased ransom to 0.05 BTC

3. Stealing cryptocurrency from the victim’s workstation: Iron backdoor would drop the latest voidtool Everything search utility and actually silent install it on the victim’s workstation using msiexec. After installation was completed, Iron Backdoor uses Everything in order to find files that are likely to contain cryptocurrency wallets, by filename patterns in both English and Chinese.

Full list of patterns extracted from sample:
– Wallet.dat
– UTC–
– Etherenum keystore filename
– *bitcoin*.txt
– *比特币*.txt
– “Bitcoin”
– *monero*.txt
– *门罗币*.txt
– “Monroe Coin”
– *litecoin*.txt
– *莱特币*.txt
– “Litecoin”
– *Ethereum*.txt
– *以太币*.txt
– “Ethereum”
– *miner*.txt
– *挖矿*.txt
– “Mining”
– *blockchain*.txt
– *coinbase*

4. Hijack on-going payments in cryptocurrency: IronStealer constantly monitors the user’s clipboard for Bitcoin, Monero & Ethereum wallet address regex patterns. Once matched, it will automatically replace it with the attacker’s wallet address so the victim would unknowingly transfer money to the attacker’s account:

Pastebin Account:

As part of the investigation, we also tried to figure out what additional information we may learn from the attacker’s Pastebin account:

The account was probably created using the mail fineisgood123@gmail[.]com – the same email address used to register blockbitcoin[.]com (the attacker’s crypto-mining pool & malware host) and swb[.]one (Old server used to host malware & leaked files. replaced by u.cacheoffer[.]tk):

1. Index.html: HTML page referring to a fake Firefox download page.
2. crystal_ext-min + angular: JS inject using malicious Chrome extension.
3. android: This paste holds a command line for an unknown backdoored application to execute on infected Android devices. This command line invokes remote Metasploit stager (android.apk) and drops cpuminer 2.3.2 (minerd.txt) built for ARM processor. Considering the last update date (18/11/17) and the low number of views, we believe this paste is obsolete.

4. androidminer: Holds the cpuminer command line to execute for unknown malicious android applications, at the time of writing this post, this paste received nearly 2000 hits.

Aikapool[.]com is a public mining pool and port 7915 is used for DogeCoin:

The username (myapp2150) was used to register accounts in several forums and on Reddit. These accounts were used to advertise fake “blockchain exploit tool”, which infects the victim’s machine with Cobalt Strike, using a similar VBScript to the one found by Malwrologist (ps5.sct).

XAttacker: Copy of XAttacker PHP remote file upload script.
miner: Holds payload URL, as mentioned above (IronStealer).

FAQ:

How many victims are there?
It is hard to define for sure, , but to our knowledge, the total of the attacker’s pastes received around 14K views, ~11K for dropped payload URL and ~2k for the android miner paste. Based on that, we estimate that the group has successfully infected, a few thousands victims.

Who is Iron group?
We suspect that the person or persons behind the group are Chinese, due in part to the following findings:
. There were several leftover comments in the plugin in Chinese.
. Root CA Certificate password (‘f*ck your mom123’ was in Mandarin)
We also suspect most of the victims are located in China, because of the following findings:
. Searches for wallet file names in Chinese on victims’ workstations.
. Won’t install persistence if Qhioo360(popular Chinese AV) is found

IOCS:

 

  • blockbitcoin[.]com
  • pool.blockbitcoin[.]com
  • ssl2.blockbitcoin[.]com
  • xmr.enjoytopic[.]tk
  • down.cacheoffer[.]tk
  • dzebppteh32lz.cloudfront[.]net
  • dazqc4f140wtl.cloudfront[.]net
  • androidapt.s3-accelerate.amazonaws[.]com
  • androidapt.s3-accelerate.amazonaws[.]com
  • winapt.s3-accelerate.amazonaws[.]com
  • swb[.]one
  • bitcoinwallet8[.]com
  • blockchaln[.]info
  • 6350a42d423d61eb03a33011b6054fb7793108b7e71aee15c198d3480653d8b7
  • a4faaa0019fb63e55771161e34910971fd8fe88abda0ab7dd1c90cfe5f573a23
  • ee5eca8648e45e2fea9dac0d920ef1a1792d8690c41ee7f20343de1927cc88b9
  • 654ec27ea99c44edc03f1f3971d2a898b9f1441de156832d1507590a47b41190
  • 980a39b6b72a7c8e73f4b6d282fae79ce9e7934ee24a88dde2eead0d5f238bda
  • 39a991c014f3093cdc878b41b527e5507c58815d95bdb1f9b5f90546b6f2b1f6
  • a3c8091d00575946aca830f82a8406cba87aa0b425268fa2e857f98f619de298
  • 0f7b9151f5ff4b35761d4c0c755b6918a580fae52182de9ba9780d5a1f1beee8
  • ea338755e8104d654e7d38170aaae305930feabf38ea946083bb68e8d76a0af3
  • 4de16be6a9de62b1ff333dd94e63128e677eb6a52d9fbbe55d8a09a2cab161f1
  • 92b4eed5d17cb9892a9fe146d61787025797e147655196f94d8eaf691c34be8c
  • 6314162df5bc2db1200d20221641abaac09ac48bc5402ec29191fd955c55f031
  • 7f3c07454dab46b27e11fcefd0101189aa31e84f8498dcb85db2b010c02ec190
  • 927e61b57c124701f9d22abbc72f34ebe71bf1cd717719f8fc6008406033b3e9
  • f1cbacea1c6d05cd5aa6fc9532f5ead67220d15008db9fa29afaaf134645e9de
  • 1d34a52f9c11d4bf572bf678a95979046804109e288f38dfd538a57a12fc9fd1
  • 2f5fb4e1072044149b32603860be0857227ed12cde223b5be787c10bcedbc51a
  • 0df1105cbd7bb01dca7e544fb22f45a7b9ad04af3ffaf747b5ecc2ffcd8c6dee
  • 388c1aecdceab476df8619e2d722be8e5987384b08c7b810662e26c42caf1310
  • 0b8473d3f07a29820f456b09f9dc28e70af75f9dec88668fb421a315eec9cb63
  • 251345b721e0587f1f08f54a81e26abac075acf3c4473a2c3ba8efcedc3b2459
  • b1fe223cbb01ff2a658c8ff51d386b5df786fd36278ee081c714adf946145047
  • 2886e25a86a57355a8a09a84781a9b032de10c3e40339a9ad0c10b63f7f8e7c7
  • 1d17eb102e75c08ab6f54387727b12ec9f9ee1960c8e5dc7f9925d41a943cabf
  • 5831dabe27e0211028296546d4e637770fd1ec5f2c8c5add51d0ea09b6ea3f0d
  • 85b0d44f3e8fd636a798960476a1f71d6fe040fbe44c92dfa403d0d014ff66cc
  • 936f4ce3570017ef5db14fb68f5e775a417b65f3b07094475798f24878d84907
  • 484b4cd953c9993090947fbb31626b76d7eee60c106867aa17e408556d27b609
  • 1cbd51d387561cafddf10699177a267cd5d2d184842bb43755a0626fdc4f0f3c
  • e41a805d780251cb591bcd02e5866280f8a99f876cfa882b557951e30dfdd142
  • b8107197469839a82cae25c3d3b5c25b5c0784736ca3b611eb3e8e3ced8ec950
  • b0442643d321003af965f0f41eb90cff2a198d11b50181ef8b6f530dd22226a7
  • 657a3a4a78054b8d6027a39a5370f26665ee10e46673a1f4e822a2a31168e5f9
  • 5977bee625ed3e91c7f30b09be9133c5838c59810659057dcfd1a5e2cf7c1936
  • 9ea69b49b6707a249e001b5f2caaab9ee6f6f546906445a8c51183aafe631e9f
  • 283536c26bb4fd4ea597d59c77a84ab812656f8fe980aa8556d44f9e954b1450
  • 21f1a867fa6a418067be9c68d588e2eeba816bffcb10c9512f3b7927612a1221
  • 45f794304919c8aa9282b0ee84c198703a41cc2254fe93634642ada3511239d2
  • 70e47fdff286fdfe031d05488bc727f5df257eacaa0d29431fb69ce680f6fb0c
  • ce7161381a0a0495ef998b5e202eb3e8fa2945dfdba0fd2a612d68b986c92678
  • b8d548ab2a1ce0cf51947e63b37fe57a0c9b105b2ef36b0abc1abf26d848be00
  • 74e777af58a8ee2cff4f9f18013e5b39a82a4c4f66ea3e17d06e5356085265b7
  • cd4d1a6b3efb3d280b8d4e77e306e05157f6ef8a226d7db08ac2006cce95997c
  • 78a07502443145d762536afaabd4d6139b81ca3cc9f8c28427ec724a3107e17b
  • 729ab4ff5da471f210a8658f4a7b2a30522534a212ac44e4d76f258baab19ccb
  • ca0df32504d3cf78d629e33b055213df5f71db3d5a0313ebc07fe2c05e506826
  • fc9d150d1a7cbda2600e4892baad91b9a4b8c52d31a41fd686c21c7801d1dd8c
  • bf2984b866c449a8460789de5871864eec19a7f9cadd7d883898135a4898a38a
  • 9d817d77b651d2627e37c01037e13808e1047f9528799a435c7bc04e877d70b3
  • 8fdec2e23032a028b8bd326dc709258a2f705c605f6222fc0c1616912f246f91
  • dbe165a63ed14e6c9bdcd314cf54d173e68db9d36623b09057d0a4d0519f1306
  • 64f96042ab880c0f2cd4c39941199806737957860387a65939b656d7116f0c7e
  • e394b1a1561c94621dbd63f7b8ea7361485a1f903f86800d50bd7e27ad801a5f
  • 506647c5bfad858ff6c34f93c74407782abbac4da572d9f44112fee5238d9ae1
  • 194362ce71adcdfa0fe976322a7def8bb2d7fb3d67a44716aa29c2048f87f5bc
  • 3652ea75ce5d8cfa0000a40234ae3d955781bcb327eecfee8f0e2ecae3a82870
  • 97d41633e74eccf97918d248b344e62431b74c9447032e9271ed0b5340e1dba0
  • a8ab5be12ca80c530e3ef5627e97e7e38e12eaf968bf049eb58ccc27f134dc7f
  • 37bea5b0a24fa6fed0b1649189a998a0e51650dd640531fe78b6db6a196917a7
  • 7e750be346f124c28ddde43e87d0fbc68f33673435dddb98dda48aa3918ce3bd
  • fcb700dbb47e035f5379d9ce1ada549583d4704c1f5531217308367f2d4bd302
  • b638dcce061ed2aa5a1f2d56fc5e909aa1c1a28636605a3e4c0ad72d49b7aec6
  • f2e4528049f598bdb25ce109a669a1f446c6a47739320a903a9254f7d3c69427
  • afd7ab6b06b87545c3a6cdedfefa63d5777df044d918a505afe0f57179f246e9
  • 9b654fd24a175784e3103d83eba5be6321142775cf8c11c933746d501ca1a5a1
  • e6c717b06d7ded23408461848ad0ee734f77b17e399c6788e68bc15219f155d7
  • e302aa06ad76b7e26e7ba2c3276017c9e127e0f16834fb7c8deae2141db09542
  • d020ea8159bb3f99f394cd54677e60fadbff2b91e1a2e91d1c43ba4d7624244d
  • 36104d9b7897c8b550a9fad9fe2f119e16d82fb028f682d39a73722822065bd3
  • d20cd3e579a04c5c878b87cc7bd6050540c68fdd8e28f528f68d70c77d996b16
  • ee859581b2fcea5d4ff633b5e40610639cd6b11c2b4fc420720198f49fbd1d31
  • ef2c384c795d5ca8ce17394e278b5c98f293a76047a06fc672da38bb56756aec
  • bd56db8d304f36af7cb0380dcbbc3c51091e3542261affb6caac18fa6a6988ec
  • 086d989f14e14628af821b72db00d0ef16f23ba4d9eaed2ec03d003e5f3a96a1
  • f44c3fd546b8c74cc58630ebcb5bea417696fac4bb89d00da42202f40da31354
  • 320bb1efa1263c636702188cd97f68699aebbb88c2c2c92bf97a68e689fa6f89
  • 42faf3af09b955de1aead2b99a474801b2c97601a52541af59d35711fafb7c6d
  • 6e0adfd1e30c116210f469d76e60f316768922df7512d40d5faf65820904821b
  • eea2d72f3c9bed48d4f5c5ad2bef8b0d29509fc9e650655c6c5532cb39e03268
  • 1a31e09a2a982a0fedd8e398228918b17e1bde6b20f1faf291316e00d4a89c61
  • 042efe5c5226dd19361fb832bdd29267276d7fa7a23eca5ced3c2bb7b4d30f7d
  • 274717d4a4080a6f2448931832f9eeb91cc0cbe69ff65f2751a9ace86a76e670
  • f8751a004489926ceb03321ea3494c54d971257d48dadbae9e8a3c5285bd6992
  • d5a296bac02b0b536342e8fb3b9cb40414ea86aa602353bc2c7be18386b13094
  • 49cfeb6505f0728290286915f5d593a1707e15effcfb62af1dd48e8b46a87975
  • 5f2b13cb2e865bb09a220a7c50acc3b79f7046c6b83dbaafd9809ecd00efc49a
  • 5a5bbc3c2bc2d3975bc003eb5bf9528c1c5bf400fac09098490ea9b5f6da981f
  • 2c025f9ffb7d42fcc0dc8d056a444db90661fb6e38ead620d325bee9adc2750e
  • aaa6ee07d1c777b8507b6bd7fa06ed6f559b1d5e79206c599a8286a0a42fe847
  • ac89400597a69251ee7fc208ad37b0e3066994d708e15d75c8b552c50b57f16a
  • a11bf4e721d58fcf0f44110e17298f6dc6e6c06919c65438520d6e90c7f64d40
  • 017bdd6a7870d120bd0db0f75b525ddccd6292a33aee3eecf70746c2d37398bf
  • ae366fa5f845c619cacd583915754e655ad7d819b64977f819f3260277160141
  • 9b40a0cd49d4dd025afbc18b42b0658e9b0707b75bb818ab70464d8a73339d52
  • 57daa27e04abfbc036856a22133cbcbd1edb0662617256bce6791e7848a12beb
  • 6c54b73320288c11494279be63aeda278c6932b887fc88c21c4c38f0e18f1d01
  • ba644e050d1b10b9fd61ac22e5c1539f783fe87987543d76a4bb6f2f7e9eb737
  • 21a83eeff87fba78248b137bfcca378efcce4a732314538d2e6cd3c9c2dd5290
  • 2566b0f67522e64a38211e3fe66f340daaadaf3bcc0142f06f252347ebf4dc79
  • 692ae8620e2065ad2717a9b7a1958221cf3fcb7daea181b04e258e1fc2705c1e
  • 426bc7ffabf01ebfbcd50d34aecb76e85f69e3abcc70e0bcd8ed3d7247dba76e